# Pedigree dogs exposed -- three years on



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

I came across this today: 

Pedigree dogs exposed: three years on 

It's the followup to the original Pedigree dogs exposed from 2008, and it's about what has changed since then. 

Originally I was impressed by that first documentary, but when I read all the critical responses I became a little less impressed. But I have to say that I'm glad that this Three years on followup seemed more nuanced to me, also talking about arguments of critics. It also feels a bit more positive to me, instead of focusing on everything that's going wrong. 

It came out only a couple of days ago on the 27th of February in the UK. Anyone else already seen it? What's your opinion about this second (and last, it appears) part of Pedigree dogs exposed?


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

I've watched it and liked it better than the first in many ways.

I was very, very sad to hear Carol state she could not longer morally recommend a Cavalier. She and I had a discussion about that 5 or 6 years ago, and she had more hope than I did then. When Jemima stated something along the lines of 'Cavaliers, from creation to ruination in less than a Century' my heart just sank (and I find myself in tears typing this). 

I have been following the uproar from this program on Cavalier forums, and again the reaction of some in the breeding world disgusts me.

These judges and people at the top of the breed are still defending the use of that sire (many used him) claiming the recommendations allow the use of asymptomatic dogs. What they leave out in this spin is that the recommendations allow the use ONLY of asymptomatic OLDER dogs and ONLY with grade A girls. This dog was used with girls too young to be meaningfully tested for anything following his scan proving he conferred high risk at 16 months of age. 

He was not an asymptomatic older dog - he was a young dog with syrinxes - which by the grading scheme puts him as a grade 'E', which is not to be bred from. He produced 140 puppies with 40 litters. 

They are continuing, right now, on an open forum, to vilify those that spoke out, specifically Margaret claiming she knew her Champion dog, Mareve Indiana, had trouble while she was still breeding from him (that is a lie) and blaming scientists and researchers for their poor breeding decisions.

You can read the lying post from Jenny here, and those that run with it. 

_". . .Oh and by the way - we all know of a certain person who knew her dog had problems (NOT Bev Costello) and yet that dog sired 57 known registered litters....and that person still behaves as if they are the 'saviour' of our breed .........and hasn't made an effort to advise the people who bought those puppies that they may have problems which need diagnosing. . ."

http://www.cavaliers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?6558-BBC-i-player-Pedigree-Dogs-Exposed/page4_​
Margaret's reply is on another forum, as she is not welcomed on the first.

_"There is a Cavalier Breeders Forum where, in the wake of PDE2 it is being suggested that I used my Champion dog at stud despite knowing he had SM.

This is untrue and the people writing this are liars. 

I have Ch. Mareve Indiana's veterinary records. They show him to be a healthy dog until old age. 

The people writing these lies will need to have proof that a dog that was winning Veteran classes at Crufts and the Cavalier Club Show at nine and ten years old was known to be suffering from health problems.

If they cannot do that then they would be wise to remove these libellious remarks. 

I would be grateful if any member here who is also a member of that forum would crosspost this on to the relevant thread for me.

I will be contacting the forum's owner & moderators separately."

http://www.cavaliertalk.com/forums/...hey-do-when-you-speak-out-about-health-issues

_​
It is just sad. I have no doubt that the boxer breeder speaking out about JRD in her breed is receiving similar treatment by some. 

I am glad they featured hard working wonderful breeders like the Dalmation and Bulldog breeder that are working to change things from within.

------------------------

To address the 'popular sire' comment made by Jenny toward Margaret insinuating these were unusual numbers, these are some of the popular sires of the time, and how they were used. Margaret's dog was Mareve Indiana. He was not the only one found in age to have SM, or to be siring SM progeny. These are from the KC database - UK litters only then.

Cavaliegh Alexander b. 29 Jan 1989
293 puppies from 82 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire
Lymrey Royal Reflection Of Ricksbury b. 16/01/1993
209 puppies from 58 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire.
*Lymrey Royal Scandal At Ricksbury b.16/01/1993 (littermate to above dog)
183 puppies from 51 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire
Linjato Ace Of Base b. 19/12/1993
314 puppies from 97 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire.
*Mareve Indiana b. 05/10/1992
251 puppies from 68 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire
Telvara Top Hat b. 14/02/1989 (full sibling died of epilepsy at young age – finish database)
219 puppies from 48 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire.
Telvara Karbon Kopy b. 07/06/1992 – grandson to Telvara Top Hat - three years younger.
455 puppies from 112 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire.

They also have not learned:

Maibee Montrose b. 02 Jan 2001 – Grandson of Lymrey Royal Reflection
493 puppies from 145 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire.
Pascavale Enchanted b. 08 July2001– son of Tameline Northern Dancer
392 puppies from 125 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire (more in the USA). He is the sire of Ch Beauella Radzinski of PDE fame
Aranel Cosmic b. 28 Mar 2005 - son of Miletree Nijinsky
298 puppies from 85 litters have been registered with this dog as the sire.

SOB


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

That forums moderators and admin need to take any libelous materials off their forums, I know of forums that have been shut down and the owners SUCCESSFULLY sued over such claims. If they don't take action they are asking to pay out damages.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Wow, that's some seriously damaging stuff going on over there. 

By the way, is it just me or are those numbers of puppies and litters from certain stud dogs extraordinarily high? Is it normal to use a stud dog that often? (in any breed?) 

The documentary showed Sweden has certain limits, but I know in my own country there aren't limits for studs as far as I'm aware of. Bitches can only be used a certain number of times, and I think it's strange that studs can be used... limitless. But is it actually strange? Because now it seems to me that it's pretty common to use certain studs lots of times. Isn't that detrimental to the genetic make up of a breed?


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

With so many breeders selling semen, I wouln't be at all surprised to see popular studs being over used in any breed. In fact I've seen situations where champion and Gr Champoin stud semen have ended up in the hands of puppy mills and the pups in pet stores (I think this happened recently to an Asian GrCh).


----------



## Avery (Nov 22, 2011)

Avie said:


> Wow, that's some seriously damaging stuff going on over there.
> 
> By the way, is it just me or are those numbers of puppies and litters from certain stud dogs extraordinarily high? Is it normal to use a stud dog that often? (in any breed?)
> 
> The documentary showed Sweden has certain limits, but I know in my own country there aren't limits for studs as far as I'm aware of. Bitches can only be used a certain number of times, and I think it's strange that studs can be used... limitless. But is it actually strange? Because now it seems to me that it's pretty common to use certain studs lots of times. Isn't that detrimental to the genetic make up of a breed?


I would imagine that the limit on breeding bitches is probably more about the welfare of the particular dog rather than the breed as a whole. Not that I know this for a fact, it's just what I would guess. Having puppies can be taxing, but all a sire has to do is donate some sperm.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Avery said:


> I would imagine that the limit on breeding bitches is probably more about the welfare of the particular dog rather than the breed as a whole. Not that I know this for a fact, it's just what I would guess. Having puppies can be taxing, but all a sire has to do is donate some sperm.


You're probably right. But in my opinion, just because a male doesn't physically wear down from providing sperm, that doesn't mean a male should be used as much as possible. It just doesn't sound like a smart thing to do. 

And cshellenberger: how on earth could such a thing be possible... (about the puppy mill getting their hands on top stud semen) You'd think people would check their buyers very diligently when selling semen of a grand champion. Unless it's all about the money...


----------



## Avery (Nov 22, 2011)

Avie said:


> You're probably right. But in my opinion, just because a male doesn't physically wear down from providing sperm, that doesn't mean a male should be used as much as possible. It just doesn't sound like a smart thing to do.


I agree completely.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

> how on earth could such a thing be possible... (about the puppy mill getting their hands on top stud semen) You'd think people would check their buyers very diligently when selling semen of a grand champion. Unless it's all about the money...


One of the dogs on that progeny list is a Champion from a UK breeder considered reputable. He was utilized by another reputable American breeder and produced the go to stud for a breeder that was later kicked out of the AKC as he produced numerous litters of numerous breeds and it was proven he misregistered some of those litters with the wrong sire! From the UK I'm sure everything looked very above board as he was a noted producer of Champions. Many would call his operation no better than a puppymill currently and did then (non health testing large commercial kennel).

I have seen Ch dogs moved around to fall into the wrong hands. More often their offspring become the name stud at commercial operations.

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

More of Jemima tooting her own horn, and finding people to agree with her


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I know cattle sperm is sold to whomever has the cash. . .better bloodlines, higher price. But they don't screen the buyers or anything. I don't know how they handle horse AI. Is dog sperm more tightly guarded? Since there are no welfare considerations, I wouldn't think that there would be much of a screening process, but I guess that depends how protective one is of their bloodlines. I do know that a lot of puppymillers brag that they have a show champion stud. . .don't know where they get them or even whether it's true.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> More of Jemima tooting her own horn, and finding people to agree with her


Your evidence for this? What would be her motive?

I thought the PDE sequel was quite good. I was pleased to hear about the steps being taken by the KC, however small. For example, the dalmatian story, the banning of close-relative breeding, lessening exaggerations in breed standards, etc. I wish the AKC would hurry up and catch up!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Your evidence for this? What would be her motive?


My opinion from watching it. Also my opinion that while she has some truth in it (propaganda requires at least a little truth to be believed) her motive has been obvious since the first PDE and in her blog. Especially when she ends up having to apologize because the "dead dogs" behind the show dogs end up embarassingly and provably alive and healthy


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

Actually, I'm still having trouble deducing what you think her motive is. From where I sit, she's interested in the welfare of dogs and doesn't want to see them bred to suffer from painful ailments. What exactly do you think her motive is?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Actually, I'm still having trouble deducing what you think her motive is. From where I sit, she's interested in the welfare of dogs and doesn't want to see them bred to suffer from painful ailments. What exactly do you think her motive is?


I think her motive is the destruction of the show system. I suspect that many of the people she attacks are interested in the welfare of dogs and don't want to see them bred to suffer from painful ailments. The problem lies in that not being a one generation (or two generation) issue. I don't know the ins and outs of Cavaliers, but I certainly understand breeders not wanting to talk to her, as anything sensible they say will end up on the editing room virtual floor. It's interesting how many dogs of healthy breeds she shows while talking about how damaging the system is - indicating, of course, that those dogs must have problems too.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> I think her motive is the destruction of the show system.


Ok, but why? If she's successful at getting her message across, what's in it for her? She's not looking to destroy the show system because she's an inherently evil person.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> It's interesting how many dogs of healthy breeds she shows while talking about how damaging the system is - indicating, of course, that those dogs must have problems too.


I remember a couple of times in this second part of PDE that Borzoi were shown while someone was talking about sick and unhealthy dogs. To my knowledge, Borzoi are a pretty hardy and healthy breed, so it struck me as weird.

By the way, I'm not following her blog or anything, just read one entry about Flatcoats, and I could be totally wrong--but the impression I got is that she prefers seeing working dogs over show dogs. Maybe that's her motive?


----------



## Damon'sMom (Aug 2, 2011)

Avie said:


> I remember a couple of times in this second part of PDE that Borzoi were shown while someone was talking about sick and unhealthy dogs. To my knowledge, Borzoi are a pretty hardy and healthy breed, so it struck me as weird.
> 
> By the way, I'm not following her blog or anything, just read one entry about Flatcoats, and I could be totally wrong--but the impression I got is that she prefers seeing working dogs over show dogs. Maybe that's her motive?


Your correct in thinking that overall Borzoi's are a very hardy and healhy breed. 

I agree with the second part of this statment as well. I believe she likes working dogs more than show dogs but that is just how I see it.


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Ok, but why? If she's successful at getting her message across, what's in it for her? She's not looking to destroy the show system because she's an inherently evil person.


 She doesn't have to "gain" anything for it to be worthwhile to her. She's on a crusade. She thinks breeding show dogs is wrong and as such, she's attempting to turn the public against it. I have not watched the follow up but the original, to me was extremely one sided and very much aimed at portraying anyone involved in showing dogs as uncaring when it comes to anything but winning. IMO it would have been a much better documentary if there was both talk about concerns with limited gene pools, popular sire syndrome, widespread health issues in some breeds and also breed clubs which have gone above and beyond with genetic research work, breeders who keep open health databases on all of their litters, open health registries that breeders willingly participate in, projects like the LUA Dals or the African Basenjis, etc. Of course, I don't think the purpose was to be a honest documentary about health in purebred dogs. 

I have had healthy purebred dogs and unhealthy ones, although more healthy than not. My mixed breed was hypothyroid but lived into old age. Two of my three GSDs lived into old age with no serious health issues. My oldest Belgian is almost 13 and still in excellent shape, her mother is 17 with no serious health issues and is still in good shape for such an old dog. Of her grandparents, one lived to be 18 and one 16. My second oldest Belgian will be 10 in a few weeks and he's still as loud, bouncy and fun loving as ever. He's never had to see a vet for anything but vaccines and health screening. His mom is still doing well at 14 or 15 and his grandmother passed away at 16. Our Corgi will be 9 this summer and he still runs in agility at his full height. I do have a Belgian who developed a late onset eye issue but it's such a minor one that I don't really think of her as "unhealthy" - it affected breeding choices but not quality of life.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

I have been a huge fan of PDE and Jemima for many years now, I loved the first PDE and enjoyed the second as well. as to all the critics? a bunch of BS frankly. I have yet to hear a single VALID argument against her..nothing buts lies, denials and straw man agruments.


----------



## RubyDog (Feb 29, 2012)

I know im going to get blasted for this but.... I think dog shows are silly and pompous. I think all of the linebreeding (inbreeding) is sickening and they should be adding some new (healthy) genes into the most negatively impacted breeds. Also, MANDATORY health testing. Not optional.
I like pound dogs! Natural selection at its best!


----------



## flipgirl (Oct 5, 2007)

I can't watch the video as I'm on my phone, but I have seen the first PDE. It was.effective in getting her point across, wrong or not. For someone who does not know anything about breeding dogs, the part.about the Cavaliers would certainly turn me off of dog showing. So to people like me, the documentary was poignant, especially when I am still having nightmares about that poor little dog suffering from SM. But I also know that there is always at least two sides.to every.story. 

I don't have any experience or knowledge of breeding other than the health testing and some light discussion about breeding. However, is everything in the first and current PDE totally false? Is there.any truth at all? If So, what do you think they are? The part in the first PDE in which Jemima talked about GSDs and how their hind legs were not formed right- is what she said true? Is that how a GSD should look? Or.did she 'engineer' the piece to make her.point? 

I apologize for my naivete, I'm not trying to argue, just asking for a bit of insight. I have the.utmost respect for good breeders who work hard to maintain their breeds, as I am sure it's not for money but for the pure love of.their.breed. how many of us can say we work for love?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

RubyDog said:


> I know im going to get blasted for this but.... I think dog shows are silly and pompous. I think all of the linebreeding (inbreeding) is sickening and they should be adding some new (healthy) genes into the most negatively impacted breeds. Also, MANDATORY health testing. Not optional.
> I like pound dogs! Natural selection at its best!


There is nothing 'natural selection' about pound dogs. They all got there due to humans in some form or fashion. With the exception of very few pariah type dogs , all dogs are man made.

I can see both sides of this argument. I did notice how she showed many much healthier breeds while talking about health problems and I feel that was very misleading. I also thought this one was pretty much the same old thing as the first and too much footage from the first was reused. It really didn't feel like a new documentary to me.

However, when it comes to cavs I think PDE has done much more good than harm as far as making people aware of issues in the breed. I honestly do not see how the breed is going to survive with stats as high as 70% with SM and 50% with a heart murmur by the age of 5. Reading the cavalier forums health and then memorial sections is absolutely heartbreaking.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

RubyDog said:


> I know im going to get blasted for this but.... I think dog shows are silly and pompous. I think all of the linebreeding (inbreeding) is sickening and they should be adding some new (healthy) genes into the most negatively impacted breeds. Also, MANDATORY health testing. Not optional.
> I like pound dogs! Natural selection at its best!


Pound dogs are not healthier than purebreds. But generally nobody's bothered to test them for anything so rose colored glasses are common. Most shelter dog were owned and came from somewhere. You can still see natural selection in third world countries with a large pariah/village dog population. They sort of standardize to a specific point, and ma nature culls the least healthy unless they are scooped up by some well meaning folks and shipped to the US (rabies, distemper and all) to be marketed to the pet market who believes there is something superior about them. The closest thing you'll see to natural dogs in the US are probably Carolina dogs.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Your evidence for this? What would be her motive?
> 
> I thought the PDE sequel was quite good. I was pleased to hear about the steps being taken by the KC, however small. For example, the dalmatian story, the banning of close-relative breeding, lessening exaggerations in breed standards, etc. I wish the AKC would hurry up and catch up!


For what it's worth, the LUA Dalmatians were accepted by the AKC last summer. They've been accepted by the AKC before but the breed clubvoted them out. http://www.thedogplace.org/Genetics/LUA-Dalmatians_Mitchell-11.asp has a more complete history of the issue.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Ok, but why? If she's successful at getting her message across, what's in it for her? She's not looking to destroy the show system because she's an inherently evil person.


Money, fame or notoriaty (depending on where you are coming from). I certainly never heard of a British looney named Jemima Harrison before the first shockumentary. The only Brit named Harrison who was famous to me was the late Beatle. However, even idealists can have mistaken ideas. And their conclusions can be partially right and even more likely wrong. I agree that she has a point with the Cavs and some of the Brachy breeds. I would certainly like to see more moderation in a lot of dogs. The thing is, things move slowly in dogs. Breeding takes time, and breeding out characteristics may take several generations - you can't expect the world (and dogs) to change in three years. The other thing is, breeders may be doing their best but not taking the advice of Jemima (who I assume only has second hand knowledge (mostly from people who agree with her) about breeding.
I don't like the way she treats breeders like criminals on a 20/20 expo, and then whines when they don't want to talk to her.
Breeding out an inherited genetic issue isn't easy and it isn't fast. You can give up on the breed - like is suggested here, or you can look at strategies over the years. I don't know Cavs. But it's just possible that using a dog who is clinically SM affected but not afflicted (at an older age) and has a decent heart might be a breeding choice, in a breed where the choices are extremely limited. And DNA tests are really in their infancy. They tell us some, but they don't tell us everything. For instance, in the ESS a test was developed for PRA. An astounding number of dogs came up as affected/affected or affected/carrier. Yet many of the dogs who showed as affected were not afflicted and still passing CERF tests well into their teens. So what does that tell us. In Australian Shepherds, a couple years ago at the Nationals they offered a new DNA test for JRD (the disease discussed in Boxers) Of around 100 dogs tested, all but one came out as affected/affected (the odd dog came up as a carrier). These were NOT just showline dogs as nationals is our big event - with National Finals in Stock./Agility and Obedience and a solid week of shows and trials, with versatility as a high objective. So we are talking well-bred Aussies across the board, with many show and working lines represented. With that result, you'd think Aussie pups across the world would be dropping dead of kidney failure at an alarming rate. They're not. So far I've heard of one diagnosed case in the breed. So the test was quietly put back for more research. Obviously there is a "partner gene" that allows the expression or not of JRD in Aussies. Not just the one marker they were looking for. Imagine if all these top breeders who had this test run had spayed and neutered these dogs who are a major influence on the breed. And yet Jemmy girl would probably be ranting about how irresponsible they were for not eliminating the gene in the first generation! Or ignoring the test which is obviously contrary to what is happening in real live dogs. The breeders strategies may not always mesh with Jemmy's ideals, but that doesn't make them inherently eeville either. It doesn't even make them wrong in many cases.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Avie said:


> I remember a couple of times in this second part of PDE that Borzoi were shown while someone was talking about sick and unhealthy dogs. To my knowledge, Borzoi are a pretty hardy and healthy breed, so it struck me as weird.
> 
> By the way, I'm not following her blog or anything, just read one entry about Flatcoats, and I could be totally wrong--but the impression I got is that she prefers seeing working dogs over show dogs. Maybe that's her motive?


Flatcoats aren't a breed without problems. I think their cancer rate is as bad as goldens, but I don't think that's from selecting for shows. I would also prefer to see working dogs than show dogs. But I don't expect everyone to be me. I know plenty of show breeders who do the health testing and strive to produce what is, in their opinion, a great dog. It might not be a dog who appeals to me, but I'm not the breed nazi.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

Shaina said:


> For what it's worth, the LUA Dalmatians were accepted by the AKC last summer. They've been accepted by the AKC before but the breed clubvoted them out. http://www.thedogplace.org/Genetics/LUA-Dalmatians_Mitchell-11.asp has a more complete history of the issue.


It is great that they are now registered, but still, 45% of the breed club members voted to NOT allow LUA Dalmatians to be registered. I just can't imagine what their justification is. Why would a breeder that is supposedly interested in the health of their dogs refuse to support this? To me, this indicates that the dissenting breeders care more about their pedigree then their actual dogs. That is a problem.

I will preface this by saying that I haven't seen the entire documentary yet, but I think that Jemima Harrison once again brings up valid points about the health of some purebred dogs, particularly the breeds she seems to have focused on (Cavalier, Boxer, Pugs). I find it completely unethical that people would continue to breed Cavaliers within the current closed registry system, and I'm glad that she has brought attention to it. Having genetic testing is really wonderful, but it does nothing when people refuse to publish the results and disregard the tests when it comes to breeding.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Miss Bugs said:


> as to all the critics? a bunch of BS frankly. I have yet to hear a single VALID argument against her..nothing buts lies, denials and straw man agruments.


So it's okay to claim that a dogs parents both died of Shar Pei fever when the dam died from another cause and the sire is still living? That's not a lie?


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

I never suggested that because LUA Dalmatians are now recognized to be Dalmatians by the AKC that all is Good and Right in dogdom, or even in that breed. I'm simply glad that they succeeded in being recognized, and am sharing that information in response to the topic being mentioned. A lot of people don't know they were finally accepted. 

On one hand it's great that this step was taken at last. One the other hand it's worrying that it took 30+ years and a lot of insanity to get such a straight forward single outcross accepted. Doesn't bode well for outcrosses with more subtle or less testable (though no less important) benefits to their breed. One must hope that other breed clubs are more forward-thinking.


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

I think both PDE and PDE: Three Years On are excellent. I think the breeders, veterinarians, and owners who are willing to "speak truth to power" are courageous and commendable. I think things need to change and will change, probably mostly because of public opinion (thanks in part to documentaries like these). Not change from within, in other words.

I found the arguments against PDE incredibly disheartening. Rather than convincing me that the documentary was wrong, they convinced me of the true depth of the problem.



Avie said:


> By the way, I'm not following her blog or anything, just read one entry about Flatcoats, and I could be totally wrong--but the impression I got is that she prefers seeing working dogs over show dogs. Maybe that's her motive?


I think it's not them being working dogs per se, or that she has an inherent bias against show dogs -- it's just that they are often healthier because of the way they've been bred.



Miss Bugs said:


> I have been a huge fan of PDE and Jemima for many years now, I loved the first PDE and enjoyed the second as well. as to all the critics? a bunch of BS frankly. I have yet to hear a single VALID argument against her..nothing buts lies, denials and straw man agruments.


Same.


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> The other thing is, breeders may be doing their best but not taking the advice of Jemima (who I assume only has second hand knowledge (mostly from people who agree with her) about breeding.
> I don't like the way she treats breeders like criminals on a 20/20 expo, and then whines when they don't want to talk to her.


Most of the people in the documentary, the whistle-blowers, are breeders. These are people who are speaking out about a problem they see within their own breed, knowing that there will be serious personal and professional consequences.



> Breeding out an inherited genetic issue isn't easy and it isn't fast. You can give up on the breed - like is suggested here, or you can look at strategies over the years. I don't know Cavs. But it's just possible that using a dog who is clinically SM affected but not afflicted (at an older age) and has a decent heart might be a breeding choice, in a breed where the choices are extremely limited.


Honestly, I think a case can be made for letting the breed end. Ethics matter, and producing genetically doomed dogs is clearly unethical. I know there are certain taboo topics here on dogforums, where it's generally verboten to criticize breeds, often for good reason. But this is an important issue.



> Jemmy girl would probably be ranting...


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

begemot said:


> I found the arguments against PDE incredibly disheartening. Rather than convincing me that the documentary was wrong, they convinced me of the true depth of the problem.


I agree 110% with this. You know, I might be swayed if there were well-reasoned, well-supported, calm responses being made by breeders and those in the dog fancy. Instead, on the whole, the responses I've read have been either off-the-handle personal attacks on Jemima Harrison, or a complete dismissal of everything in the documentary because it is Jemima Harrison's work. Honestly, those sort of responses don't make me see their point-of-view. If those in the dog fancy would give some actual facts about the issues in their various breeds, and lay out the steps that they (and other breeders) are following to work on said issues, the public might be more forgiving. Circling the wagons and denying that there are problems when there obviously are add to the public perception that dog breeding and dog breeders are bad.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

Shaina said:


> I never suggested that because LUA Dalmatians are now recognized to be Dalmatians by the AKC that all is Good and Right in dogdom, or even in that breed. I'm simply glad that they succeeded in being recognized, and am sharing that information in response to the topic being mentioned. A lot of people don't know they were finally accepted.



I didn't mean to inject any such meaning into your statement, I'm sorry. I only quoted you because I used your information as a jumping-off point for my own statement.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Avie said:


> You're probably right. But in my opinion, just because a male doesn't physically wear down from providing sperm, that doesn't mean a male should be used as much as possible. It just doesn't sound like a smart thing to do.


I agree just because it doesn't harm them doesn't mean it is ok. Some Pit Bulls have 100s of offspring 500+ even. No dog needs to have THAT many offspring period. 



Willowy said:


> I know cattle sperm is sold to whomever has the cash. . .better bloodlines, higher price. But they don't screen the buyers or anything. I don't know how they handle horse AI. Is dog sperm more tightly guarded? Since there are no welfare considerations, I wouldn't think that there would be much of a screening process, but I guess that depends how protective one is of their bloodlines. I do know that a lot of puppymillers brag that they have a show champion stud. . .don't know where they get them or even whether it's true.


Dogs it usually is or I should say at times but not always. Some breeders have popular sire dogs get bred a ridiculous amount of times. But (at least in my breed) you normally won't find this with responsible breeders. Some kennels don't have their dogs at public stud (even with accomplishments and the ability to be a popular sire) and only do limited breedings. Sometimes they allow a friend to do a breeding or maybe breed out to a couple select bitches and there is a agreement involved. If everyone was like this it would be better.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

RubyDog said:


> I know im going to get blasted for this but.... I think dog shows are silly and pompous. I think all of the linebreeding (inbreeding) is sickening and they should be adding some new (healthy) genes into the most negatively impacted breeds. Also, MANDATORY health testing. Not optional.
> I like pound dogs! Natural selection at its best!


This is ridiculous. 

Breeding mutts isn't natural selection. Nor is accidental mixed breeds. Those dogs no more have to be fit then those of pure bred breeders. (there are pure dogs in shelters too)

Mixes also have genetic health problems. Heart problems (which can be fatal), cancer! Some with cataracts, epilepsy, hypothyroidism, hip dyplasia, allergies. . . Yes mandatory health testing for pure breds and what of the mixed breeds? Put your hope in them not having inherited a genetic problem.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

If she is in it solely for the welfare of the dogs she should be covering more bad breeders than just those who show their dogs in conformation, what about unethical working breeders?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

begemot said:


> I think it's not them being working dogs per se, or that she has an inherent bias against show dogs -- it's just that they are often healthier because of the way they've been bred.
> .


Working and performance dogs can have their own issues. In Aussies epilepsy is common in at least one well-known line as well as exercise induced collapse. Eye problems still happen (and hip problems). And in Europe (with a more limited gene pool) elbow dysplasia started showing up in working line dogs. While the top working breeders do screen, Joe Farmer, who produces a lot of great talented dog for the real world possibly does not, and lets nature and work cull the dogs who can't cut it. And, I could show you some working dog pedigrees that make some of the show dogs look like total outcrosses.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

begemot said:


> . . . Honestly, I think a case can be made for letting the breed end. Ethics matter, and producing genetically doomed dogs is clearly unethical. I know there are certain taboo topics here on dogforums, where it's generally verboten to criticize breeds, often for good reason. But this is an important issue.


In the case of the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel there have been discussions about outcrossing since the late 90s, and always those end with the people who bring up the topic being vilified. Carol Fowler is one that has persisted and she is very much disliked, with a capital D, for doing so. It is made very clear when her name is mentioned.

In my very non politically correct opinion the KINDEST way forward for this breed is to have a group of people working on a mixed breed gene pool using breeds representative of those in the foundation of the breed, and for Cavalier breeders to utilise that gene pool for outcross stock. A single outcross would not be enough.

This has been proposed in the Cavalier world, but again to no avail. Those with interest give up.

I don't believe there are enough 'best Cavaliers' in the gene pool, currently, for it to go forward without what I consider unacceptable risk. Every puppy born from a carefully bred mixbred parent x a carefully selected Cavalier would have a better chance a lifelong good health than the offspring of "best Cavalier x best Cavalier" at this point in time. 

The political will to do this, however, is not there. It seems most of those involved would rather see the breed go down as they wait for gene markers that might never come than deal with the idea of sullying their bloodlines. 

Where my head goes with all of this is here.

WHY does breeding out inherited issues 'have' to be a slow torturous process when there are OBVIOUS solutions that, when utilised carefully, would cause less risk? WHY is it accepted that the only way forward for breeds in crises is to 'slowly' work within the poluted gene pool that they have?

The answer to part of that WHY is because of the stigma that has been attached to crossbreeding, and I don't have to be told who the primary purveyors of that stigma are. It is time that ended. 

The blind acceptance that purebreeding has to mean the restriction of gene pools is causing puppies and dogs and their owners to suffer needlessly. If individuals haven't had the wonderful opportunity of dealing with this I suggest you visit the health or memorials section of any Cavalier forum.

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

brandiw said:


> I agree 110% with this. You know, I might be swayed if there were well-reasoned, well-supported, calm responses being made by breeders and those in the dog fancy. Instead, on the whole, the responses I've read have been either off-the-handle personal attacks on Jemima Harrison, or a complete dismissal of everything in the documentary because it is Jemima Harrison's work. Honestly, those sort of responses don't make me see their point-of-view. If those in the dog fancy would give some actual facts about the issues in their various breeds, and lay out the steps that they (and other breeders) are following to work on said issues, the public might be more forgiving. Circling the wagons and denying that there are problems when there obviously are add to the public perception that dog breeding and dog breeders are bad.


You don't really think that those sound bytes were all the things the breeders said? It was heavily edited to produce a single point of view (Jemima's).


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> Working and performance dogs can have their own issues. In Aussies epilepsy is common in at least one well-known line as well as exercise induced collapse. Eye problems still happen (and hip problems). And in Europe (with a more limited gene pool) elbow dysplasia started showing up in working line dogs. While the top working breeders do screen, Joe Farmer, who produces a lot of great talented dog for the real world possibly does not, and lets nature and work cull the dogs who can't cut it. And, I could show you some working dog pedigrees that make some of the show dogs look like total outcrosses.


Same is so true for my breed too!


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Working and performance dogs can have their own issues. In Aussies epilepsy is common in at least one well-known line as well as exercise induced collapse. Eye problems still happen (and hip problems). And in Europe (with a more limited gene pool) elbow dysplasia started showing up in working line dogs.


I said "often." Where did I say that working-bred dogs can't have health problems?

I didn't.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> You don't really think that those sound bytes were all the things the breeders said? It was heavily edited to produce a single point of view (Jemima's).


Oh, I wasn't talking about the dog fancy's response in the film, I was talking about the dog fancy's response all over the internet after the documentary aired - on forums, facebook, blogs, etc.


----------



## CrimsonAccent (Feb 17, 2012)

I can't watch the doc atm or wouldn't care to as I haven't seen the original, but I must add that anyone that has worked on a newspaper/magazine on any level (high school for me) should know it's VERY easy to pick and choose quotes that benefit your cause. I can't say whether or not this has happened, and generally I look down upon twisting the truth rather than being objective, but it is very easy to do. Ask loaded questions, use quotes out of context and BOOM.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

> In the case of the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel there have been discussions about outcrossing since the late 90s, and always those end with the people who bring up the topic being vilified. Carol Fowler is one that has persisted and she is very much disliked, with a capital D, for doing so. It is made very clear when her name is mentioned.
> 
> In my very non politically correct opinion the KINDEST way forward for this breed is to have a group of people working on a mixed breed gene pool using breeds representative of those in the foundation of the breed, and for Cavalier breeders to utilise that gene pool for outcross stock. A single outcross would not be enough.
> 
> ...


SOB as usual you have a fantastic way with words! You have summed up my feelings 100%. I have never owned a breed more gentle and sweet than my Cavaliers. Luckily for me, my dogs are doing well. Two are rescues and two from a breeder. My 8 year blenheim bitch (obtained from a breeder who competes in agility) is still very actively trialing...(we have a trial this weekend). It makes me sad to think that this wonderful breed may not have a future. There are still some good breeders out there but as I read posts from several Cavalier forums, I still sit and shake my head.

PDE did so much for the Cavalier breed. I can't tell you how many posts I have read from owners living all over the world, who realized that their dogs had CM/SM from watching the first program. Many, many Cavaliers are now living much happier lives free from pain since being accurately diagnosed and placed on appropriate medications. Margaret Carter and Carol Fowler are my heroes....they have taken on the Cavalier community despite being vilified for their efforts to make the lives of these wonderful loving dogs better. 

I wish I could find the quote from a UK cardiologist where he states that he doesn't understand why breeders complain about shrinking the gene pool when they should be removing heart compromised dogs from their breeding stock when they do just that when they remove dogs from breeding who are otherwise very healthy but who are just not flashy in the show ring.

I, for one, raise my glass to "Jemmy".


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

APBTs are relatively healthy breed. But they can have health issues. Health testing isnt the norm but the majority of the people doing it are the show breeders.

I was really replying to the inbreeding. Game dog breeders have been doing close breeding well before conformations breeders existed. 

Show, performance and working breeders all inbreed how closely depends on the individual breeder. 25-35%, 40-50%, 60-70% COI it varies.



begemot said:


> I think it's not them being working dogs per se, or that she has an inherent bias against show dogs -- it's just that they are often healthier because of the way they've been bred.


But this is what you said. They are OFTEN healthier and I don't believe this is a proven fact at all. For specific diseases and maybe in some breeds the show counterpart has more disease but I don't believe this applies to all breeds. It is an incorrect over generalization.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

> WHY does breeding out inherited issues 'have' to be a slow torturous process when there are OBVIOUS solutions that, when utilised carefully, would cause less risk? WHY is it accepted that the only way forward for breeds in crises is to 'slowly' work within the poluted gene pool that they have?
> 
> The answer to part of that WHY is because of the stigma that has been attached to crossbreeding, and I don't have to be told who the primary purveyors of that stigma are. It is time that ended.


This 100%. The whole belief that's been pushed lately that 'no good breeder crosses breeds' is in my opinion, a poorly-thought out knee-jerk reaction to the rise of Designer Dogs that has ended up tarnishing the very idea of intelligent outcrossing in purebred dogs when many breeds are in more need of such crossing to save them than ever before.

There needs to be allowance for an Appendix Registry in dogs, the same way there is for many other purebred animals of other kinds. Dog breeders need to get out of the 19th Century already.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RubyDog said:


> I know im going to get blasted for this but.... I think dog shows are silly and pompous. I think all of the linebreeding (inbreeding) is sickening and they should be adding some new (healthy) genes into the most negatively impacted breeds. Also, MANDATORY health testing. Not optional.
> I like pound dogs! Natural selection at its best!


Ummm... You don't know much about breeding do you? line breeding done right can be VERY effective at eleminating undesirable traits. 

Pound dogs are not an example of natural selection at its best. Far from it. Natural selection would be turning out all the dogs and letting them sort it out. 
The strongest would survive and breed. 

Pound dogs are examples of the worst in back yard breeding. Untested animals, poorly bred, breeding and producing puppies. Most genetic issues cross breed lines.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Keechak said:


> If she is in it solely for the welfare of the dogs she should be covering more bad breeders than just those who show their dogs in conformation, what about unethical working breeders?


THIS THIS THIS! 

I've seen far more random, byb and puppy mill dogs with severe health problems than PURPOSE BRED show or working dogs! if she TRULY wants to eliminate health problems she'd be making expose's about BYB and puppymill dogs and the heartbreaking health and temperment problems they have!


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I sincerely hope that cavaliers survive. I love the cavs I meet and I think the breed is otherwise amazing. I was not meaning to 'give up on them'. I just feel that when you are facing problems so insurmountable in a breed as 70% SM rate (possibly higher) not to mention the heart problems which affect almost every dog in the breed... breeding within that genepool even with all the health testing in the world is like trying to put a band-aide on someone that is bleeding to death and expecting it to help. I would feel the same way if it were my own little spaniel breed in such dire straights. 

I have made the mistake of asking a cavalier breeder I know why they aren't considering outcross projects to bring in some non affected dogs. It was not met well... I will be honest and say I just do not understand.

I started reading on some cavalier forums a while back since there aren't any papillon forums and cavs are the closest relatives I knew of and there are very many forums for them. The health sections and memorial sections blew me away. I knew it was bad but I really didn't know just how bad.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

> . . . I was not meaning to 'give up on them'. I just feel that when you are facing problems so insurmountable in a breed as 70% SM rate (possibly higher) not to mention the heart problems which affect almost every dog in the breed... breeding within that genepool even with all the health testing in the world is like trying to put a band-aide on someone that is bleeding to death and expecting it to help. . .


I understand exactly where you are coming from Laurelin. I believe many do.



cshellenberger said:


> THIS THIS THIS!
> 
> I've seen far more random, byb and puppy mill dogs with severe health problems than PURPOSE BRED show or working dogs! if she TRULY wants to eliminate health problems she'd be making expose's about BYB and puppymill dogs and the heartbreaking health and temperment problems they have!


How many of those do you want? There has been LOTS of information about THOSE bad practice breeders for a very long time! 

So what this line of thought indicates to me is that some think that until those are taken care of there must be silence about the bad that are hiding amongst the top breeders?

Find me a reason that makes sense. Explain the ins and outs of that thinking to me. Give me a hint here because I have no clue why anyone would believe that an expose on bad breeding practices amongst top winning breeders MEANS the exposer has no concern over others with bad practices.

There is room for focus on bad breeding practices in all areas, is there not?

Does focusing on one mean the others don't exist?

The reason for the focus on conformation was very clear or is it not noticed that it is extreme conformation traits that are being even further exaggerated that are a great part of the problem with many breeds and health?

Maybe I'm not thinking straight at the moment but I do believe the most extreme conformation traits that hold a high risk of being detrimental to the health of dogs are not favored by the majority of working breeders. Of course there will be exceptions.



So Cavalier said:


> . . .I wish I could find the quote from a UK cardiologist where he states that he doesn't understand why breeders complain about shrinking the gene pool when they should be removing heart compromised dogs from their breeding stock when they do just that when they remove dogs from breeding who are otherwise very healthy but who are just not flashy in the show ring.
> 
> I, for one, raise my glass to "Jemmy".


Me too.

This is the quote, from the 1998 heart symposium at which the MVD protocol was drawn up.

_"Some folks worried that there will not be very many heart-clear 5 year old sires to breed to and too many dogs would be eliminated from the breeding population. Lennart Swenson said that when breeders say they can’t afford to cut out this much of the population they forget that they already do just that. They only breed about 10% of males and the rest are cut out of the population because of their lack of “beauty”. Breeders are willing to make hard decisions and cut away a lot of dogs for the beautification of the breed but when they discuss hearts, suddenly it is different. Swenson finds that very “peculiar”." _​
http://www.ckcsc.org/ckcsc/formsdocs.nsf/filelookup/98heartsymp.PDF/$file/98heartsymp.PDF

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

begemot said:


> I said "often." Where did I say that working-bred dogs can't have health problems?
> 
> I didn't.


I didn't say that you did. Simply giving my thoughts on the subject. HTH.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

cshellenberger said:


> THIS THIS THIS!
> 
> I've seen far more random, byb and puppy mill dogs with severe health problems than PURPOSE BRED show or working dogs! if she TRULY wants to eliminate health problems she'd be making expose's about BYB and puppymill dogs and the heartbreaking health and temperment problems they have!


Actually, at the end of PDE Three Years On, she mentions that the way forward in her opinion is a new kind of governing body that would register dogs, deal with strays, and deal with puppy mills. I'm paraphrasing here, but that was the gist of it.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> Pound dogs are not healthier than purebreds. But generally nobody's bothered to test them for anything so rose colored glasses are common.


If no one has bothered to do any testing, then it is in fact impossible to say whether purebreds are healthier, on average, than randomly bred dogs or vice versa. Isn't it?


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> THIS THIS THIS!
> 
> I've seen far more random, byb and puppy mill dogs with severe health problems than PURPOSE BRED show or working dogs! if she TRULY wants to eliminate health problems she'd be making expose's about BYB and puppymill dogs and the heartbreaking health and temperment problems they have!


 Divide and conquer. It's not us...it's them. The truth is there are plenty of "heartbreaks" with poorly bred purebreds, well bred purebreds, well bred purposely bred mixes, poorly bred purposely bred mixes and random mixes. But at the same time, there's plenty of poorly bred purebreds, well bred purebreds, well bred purposely bred mixes, poorly bred purposely bred mixes and random mixes who live long health lives too. You can weigh the odds in your favor by getting a puppy from a knowledge, honest breeder who health tests and researches lines. But getting a puppy is a gamble. Andsadly in some breeds, the risk of certain health issues is not lowered by getting a well bred dog because the health issues are widespread through the entire breed. Such is the case with the Cavalier. But even in other breeds, most health issues can occur in any line. Well bred GSDs can be just as dysplastic as poorly bred GSDs (and poorly bred GSDs can have great hips). That is no reason to abandon breeding quality GSDs but it isn't helpful to portray health issues as something that is only likely in everyone else's dogs. There is a risk of hip dysplasia in the breed (a moderate risk) and sometimes, it happens even with dogs who's breeder did everything right. 

I don't think we will ever eliminate health problems in dogs or any other animal for that matter. 



GottaLuvMutts said:


> Actually, at the end of PDE Three Years On, she mentions that the way forward in her opinion is a new kind of governing body that would register dogs, deal with strays, and deal with puppy mills. I'm paraphrasing here, but that was the gist of it.


 She wants a govermnent agency to be in charge registering dogs? There's already government agencies in charge of strays and commercial breeders.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Alerondogs said:


> I don't think we will ever eliminate health problems in dogs or any other animal for that matter. .


Who has suggested elimination? What is being requested is better management, especially as there are now tools available to help with this. Pedigree databases which include COI and AVK calculations and that can track health conditions to flag up inheritance modes are an example.

It is NOT like ANY of these issues are new. The difficulty is that many do not like the idea of change.

Here is a quote from a 1962 letter to the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research .

_An article in this professional publication stated outright that the Executive Committee of the British Small Animal Veterinary Association had become "very concerned" at the serious increase in the number of pedigree dogs suffering from defects and abnormalities, and by the corresponding increase in requests for surgical correction of these faults. Significantly, the author of the article was Dr. S. F. J. Hodgman, of the Canine Health Centre, near Newmarket._​
Another quote under the interesting heading 'Heads In The Sand" near the end

_There is no suggestion that dog breeders and exhibitors of pedigree dogs are deliberately dishonest. Their worst faults are ignorance and a disinclination to face up to unpleasant facts._​
http://www.petforums.co.uk/attachme...-pedigree-dogs-exposed-2-vetsci00073-0026.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------------



Alerondogs said:


> She wants a govermnent agency to be in charge registering dogs? There's already government agencies in charge of strays and commercial breeders.


No, a new kind of governing body for dogs, one that is more comprehensive and that covers registration and pedigrees and recommended health screenings of all dogs. One that works with the veterinary system as well for record keeping. As an example the current KC is a governing body for purebred dogs however the case is made that they are in a conflict of interest position and hence have difficulty both satisfying breeders interests and at the same time recommending changes to their practices. 

Alerondogs, do you see no need for change?

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> If no one has bothered to do any testing, then it is in fact impossible to say whether purebreds are healthier, on average, than randomly bred dogs or vice versa. Isn't it?


Not really.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

I said "governing body", not government agency. Big difference.


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> if she TRULY wants to eliminate health problems she'd be making expose's about BYB and puppymill dogs and the heartbreaking health and temperment problems they have!


Wait, let me get this straight. Because other problems exist with dog welfare, she shouldn't talk about this one? That doesn't make any sense. It just sounds like a dodge. (And, just for the record, she does mention and show footage of puppy mills in PDE:3, as GottaLuvMutts pointed out.)

Pawzk talked about motives. To be honest, I'm having trouble figuring out the motives of the people here who are defending breeding practices that have created dogs that need surgery to breath or see, and have congenital health problems that severely impair their quality of life, or increase the likelihood of cancer (inbreeding).

Just because other problems exist in the dog world, doesn't make these issues any less important. And just because any dog can have a health problem, doesn't mean breeders are justified in intentionally creating or exacerbating health problems. Where's the logic? And what's the motive?


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> Not really.


That answer just isn't real convincing. 

Considering there is a very large population of purebred dogs that aren't health tested, I hardly think you can use the fact that most mixed-breed dogs aren't tested against them. The fact is, no one can say definitively if either group is healthier because there isn't enough scientific data for comparison. You just can't make a valid comparison at this time.

Based on my own experiences, I suspect that the population of purebreds and mixed-breeds have roughly the same amount of health issues, but that is simply conjecture on my part.


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> Alerondogs, do you see no need for change?
> 
> SOB


 I do see a need for change to a degree. I do think it is inevitable that outcrossing to different breeds will be required or we will end up losing many breeds. However, I don't think you can force people to have ethics or use dogs they don't want to use. The LUA Dals are accepted in to AKC but some Dal breeders will avoid them without a doubt. The SV's very strict system for the GSD has still led to dogs who aren't what they *should* be in temperament or looks. 

What change is needed is for breeders to be more educated. This is not picking on breeders at all but many are really, really naive when it comes to breeding choices. I think part of the blame for that falls on this idea that "good breeders produce good dogs who produce good dogs". If your dog produces something not so good...probably wasn't from a good breeder or must be from a bad line. That in turn tends to encourage people towards being secretive about health issues, which helps no one.

And change in the form of outcrossing becoming more socially acceptable with both breeders and buyers. I don't see a need for a "new governing body". AKC has proven to be open to the idea of outcross projects and in fact, the recent acceptance of the LUA Dals was initiated by them. AKC also has options for dogs with unknown pedigrees to have "conditional registration". UKC states they are open to outcrossing as well. So the current registries are not the ones preventing this. The biggest obstacle is that it is still looked on as taboo to even consider such things. I find the idea of "appendix" registries to be interesting but again, at this point in time the people involved just don't seem to be ready for it.

I don't think it's fair to paint all breeders who show or all breeds with the same brush though. Most breeds are not as bad off as Cavaliers. Most breeds have not been bred to an extreme that limits their ability to function. Most people involved in shows are pretty devoted people who love their dogs. I don't think it's fair to say we all need babysat and to have our breeding choices made for us. I think there will always be some breeders who are better than others, no matter what rules you put in place.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Alerondogs said:


> I don't think it's fair to paint all breeders who show or all breeds with the same brush though. Most breeds are not as bad off as Cavaliers. Most breeds have not been bred to an extreme that limits their ability to function. Most people involved in shows are pretty devoted people who love their dogs. I don't think it's fair to say we all need babysat and to have our breeding choices made for us. I think there will always be some breeders who are better than others, no matter what rules you put in place.


Nicely said. We'll never have a perfect world with absolutely perfect dogs (or humans). I do think dog breeding is best handled by skilled breeders mentoring newer breeders. Secrecy is partially fear. Partially warranted when some shoves a camera in your face and asks rude questions. People who are threatened and bullied seldom give the reaction you want (unless, of course, you are just looking to make them look like bad people). I think most breeders want to produce lovely, healthy dogs. There's no percentage in wanting anything less, really. It's just not always as easy as the "answers" sound. And I think turning it over to a government entity (or scientists) for that matter would not be helpful. Certainly not the government! Scientists can make some good suggestions on how to use our present technology. And breeders should listen, but with an open mind, but not a mind so open they go with every hope or suggestion. Cavaliers are an extreme case. Breeds can be made less extreme. But even DNA technology (which is just past infanthood) isn't going to sure all problems, and misused can make things worse. If breeders are being so secretive, I find it interesting that Jemmy was able to extract so much, so easily (since it's apparent that many breeders didn't want to talk to her (with great reason)


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> The SV's very strict system for the GSD has still led to dogs who aren't what they *should* be in temperament or looks.


I seriously laughed out loud, because this is so incredibly freaking true it's disgusting.

I also laughed because I used to be die hard about the system until I saw it in (lack of) action.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Actually, at the end of PDE Three Years On, she mentions that the way forward in her opinion is a new kind of governing body that would register dogs, deal with strays, and deal with puppy mills. I'm paraphrasing here, but that was the gist of it.


A 'governing body'? I do NOT want the same people that run AC to be in charge of breeding or making rules about what breeders should or should not do. The US government is ALREADY 'inspecting' and liscencing puppy mills and are the SOLE reason they exist (the government if the US financed puppy and kitten mills via subsidies to farmers).


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

a "Governing body" has NOTHING to do with government, the AKC *IS* a "Governing body", all they are saying is scrap the current governing bodys(the KC, the AKC etc.. ) and create a new one from scratch that does it better.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> and create a new one from scratch that does it better.


Here's the problem. As long as people are involved, corruption is practically inevitable. A new governing body will eventually become what we already have.



> "Governing body" has NOTHING to do with government, the AKC IS a "Governing body"


Eh...

The only thing they govern is registrations. Nothing more.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Yet you're also talking about the 'governing body' being in charge of strays (this is animal controls job). There ARE other registires in the US, there are also breed clubs for each breed (some affiliated with AKC and some not). 

Again, a REGISTRY only RECORDS the liniage, any change within breeds will HAVE to come from the breed club allowing the stud books to be opened and WANTING change to save their breeds. They will then have to fight the BYB and puppy mills irresponsible breeding, which honestly is doing FAR more damage to dog breeds than the show breeders ever have.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

RubyDog said:


> I know im going to get blasted for this but.... I think dog shows are silly and pompous. I think all of the linebreeding (inbreeding) is sickening and they should be adding some new (healthy) genes into the most negatively impacted breeds. Also, MANDATORY health testing. Not optional.


Yeah. While I 100% support good, ethical breeders, I find the whole dog show scene to be really stupid for a number of reasons.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> Yet you're also talking about the 'governing body' being in charge of strays (this is animal controls job). There ARE other registires in the US, there are also breed clubs for each breed (some affiliated with AKC and some not).
> 
> Again, a REGISTRY only RECORDS the liniage, any change within breeds will HAVE to come from the breed club allowing the stud books to be opened and WANTING change to save their breeds. They will then have to fight the BYB and puppy mills irresponsible breeding, which honestly is doing FAR more damage to dog breeds than the show breeders ever have.


 I guess you're not seeing how things COULD be different? Animal Control doesn't _have_ to be handled by the goverment, if someone else could do it better. A registry doesn't _have_ to be "just a registry". . .they could actually take an interest in what the breeders who are registered with them are doing, and refuse to register some breeders. Etc. What you're saying is how things are now, but they don't have to stay that way. . .


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I find the whole dog show scene to be really stupid for a number of reasons.


Well, good for you. There are a number of us that find it enjoyable, for a number of reasons.

In the 10+ (ish) years I've been involved in SHepherds and exhibition, I still have not bred a litter. And it is not for lack of desire to do so. It's because I'm "too picky", and won't breed an animal that doesn't meet my standards.

I am not a shy about stating that things in my breed need to be changed. I do get tired of hearing how ruined my breed is (especially when I own one of the most popular breeds in the WORLD). There are things that need changing, but nobody understands how ridiculously hard that change is within a breed until they are IN it.

People can't even agree on what should be done in regards to White GSDs...you really think we're going to make giant strides in health testing?


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Xeph said:


> Well, good for you. There are a number of us that find it enjoyable, for a number of reasons.


And good for you, I really don't care. You have the right to what you do and don't find enjoyable just as I have my right.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I really don't care.


And yet you continue to make insulting posts about the exhibition of dogs.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Xeph said:


> And yet you continue to make insulting posts about the exhibition of dogs.


You really need to stop taking things so personally on here.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

And you really need to think about all the people you're insulting every time you make a snide comment.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Xeph said:


> And you really need to think about all the people you're insulting every time you make a snide comment.


A _snide_ comment? LOL!! It's called voicing an opinion. And just what exactly does it matter to you if I dislike dog shows or not? It's not a slam against YOU personally. Sorry you can't accept that not everyone is going to agree with the same things you do in life.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

RCloud said:


> A _snide_ comment? LOL!! It's called voicing an opinion. And just what exactly does it matter to you if I dislike dog shows or not? It's not a slam against YOU personally. Sorry you can't accept that not everyone is going to agree with the same things you do in life.


to be fair...you did state that the whole dog show scene is stupid....which to someone involved in that scene (ie Xeph) might take a little personal 
and yes you have every right to post your opinion...but I can see where Xeph is coming from


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

RCloud said:


> Yeah. While I 100% support good, ethical breeders, I find the whole dog show scene to be really stupid for a number of reasons.


This is interesting. What are those reasons?


----------



## RubyDog (Feb 29, 2012)

Johnny Bandit--- I don't believe I ever said I was an expert on breeding or genetics. Are you?? Ok so no that we've established that neither of us are professionals I can state my OPINION. 
I agree with you on a lot of pound dogs being unhealthy and byb or puppy mill dogs but hey... they need homes too. 
Mine is neither a pound dog or a pedigreed dog. She is a mutt. She has at least three breeds in her (the only one I'm sure about is Boston Terrier, the rest are all guesses). I guess you could call her a byb puppy. 
I know her genes are diverse because she has a few different types of dog in her. That doesn't mean that she will be any healthier. I've always preferred a mutt. All the mutts I've had have been FAR more intelligent then any purebred dog I've ever owned and far more healthy (could be fluke). BTW-- I owned a CKC registered poodle from champion bloodlines that was a complete idiot. 
I still think dog shows have no real purpose. I don't like them and don't watch them or get involved with them. I believe a lot of the breeds "to show standard" ARE mutants like the documentary stated. THESE ARE OPINIONS.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Miss Bugs said:


> a "Governing body" has NOTHING to do with government, the AKC *IS* a "Governing body", all they are saying is scrap the current governing bodys(the KC, the AKC etc.. ) and create a new one from scratch that does it better.


And who is that going to be, pray telll?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I guess you're not seeing how things COULD be different? Animal Control doesn't _have_ to be handled by the goverment, if someone else could do it better. A registry doesn't _have_ to be "just a registry". . .they could actually take an interest in what the breeders who are registered with them are doing, and refuse to register some breeders. Etc. What you're saying is how things are now, but they don't have to stay that way. . .


AR wants to handle animal control something awful. And in many places they are getting exactly what they want. In some places they are raiding breeders (not high volume, not abusive) like brownshirts.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Well, if no "real" animal welfare groups are stepping up. . .someone will fill the void. If the breeders don't want "AR" taking over the job, they should do more about it.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> If the breeders don't want "AR" taking over the job, they should do more about it.


I really, really don't think you get it.

The change that people are trying to be forced is happening in ONE breed that I can see....the Cavalier. But not others.

The one thing I agree with SOB on, is how breeders who DO want change are so vehemently hated and vilified.

Here in America, individual breed clubs are in charge of their breed's standard, and they set the bar for the health testing that needs to be done within the breed. Nobody is required to be a member of a breed club to be a breeder of that breed. They can breed on their own, and still get AKC papers.

Breed clubs can impose restrictions on memberships, and say that to be a member of their club, you must perform x y z health tests on your breeding stock, but the ones who are not interested simply will not join, and will keep doing as they're doing.

In the case of the LUA Dals, they had to be voted in by the membership of the DCA. It failed before. This time it passed, but still, 45% of the membership had voted no again. That is a LOT of people.

Those that want change cannot make change happen if they are in the minority. These issues must be voted on by the breed clubs, and that falls to the membership of those clubs. If the old crotchety people want things to stay as they are, they stay as they are for a long, long time, until the minority gets just enough votes to squeak by, and become an exceedingly tiny majority.

The GSDCA membership couldn't agree that a conformation champion should be required to have hips and elbows x rayed in order to take a high honor at the national, and because of that, we have Select dogs (dogs without official passing hip and elbow screenings) and Select Excellent (dogs that do have official passing hip and elbow screenings). So a dog can be dysplastic fore and aft, but still garner a prestigious title at the national.

The Select Excellent does not reward health testing. Not while untested animals (or failing animals) can still obtain such an honor.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

brandiw said:


> That answer just isn't real convincing.
> 
> Considering there is a very large population of purebred dogs that aren't health tested, I hardly think you can use the fact that most mixed-breed dogs aren't tested against them. The fact is, no one can say definitively if either group is healthier because there isn't enough scientific data for comparison. You just can't make a valid comparison at this time.
> 
> Based on my own experiences, I suspect that the population of purebreds and mixed-breeds have roughly the same amount of health issues, but that is simply conjecture on my part.


I'd say it depends on the health issue. Mutts are clearly a large diverse group, mixes including many different breeds VS a pure breed where health issues within the breed are known and tracked. 

Data being used might not be able to give us a 100% accurate answer. (From observation, labs, breeding colonies, data collected from vet practices, ect) I think you could be right but some breeds are overall less healthy, so on average not as healthy as mutts. Others just as healthy as mutts. 

To me it doesn't really matter if sample groups at times show mutts ON average are healthier because the unhealthy ones still exist, it also vs the pure breeds they look at. If 25% of mutts have a heart defect thats still 25 out of 100, 100 out of 400.


----------



## lucidity (Nov 10, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> I sincerely hope that cavaliers survive. I love the cavs I meet and I think the breed is otherwise amazing. I was not meaning to 'give up on them'. I just feel that when you are facing problems so insurmountable in a breed as 70% SM rate (possibly higher) not to mention the heart problems which affect almost every dog in the breed... breeding within that genepool even with all the health testing in the world is like trying to put a band-aide on someone that is bleeding to death and expecting it to help. I would feel the same way if it were my own little spaniel breed in such dire straights.
> 
> I have made the mistake of asking a cavalier breeder I know why they aren't considering outcross projects to bring in some non affected dogs. It was not met well... I will be honest and say I just do not understand.
> 
> I started reading on some cavalier forums a while back since there aren't any papillon forums and cavs are the closest relatives I knew of and there are very many forums for them. The health sections and memorial sections blew me away. I knew it was bad but I really didn't know just how bad.



Since I've decided to show Lyra and am now in contact with many Cavalier breeders, I find that I cannot bring up the topic of SM with 90% of them. It's like a taboo subject that nobody wants to talk about (or acknowledge). I think it's safe to say that they still believe that SM is not a big problem in the breed (because they've owned/bred so and so number of Cavaliers who are totally asymptomatic, and they don't think the stats make sense etc etc).

I have to say, that as much as I love Cavaliers (they are just the sweetest!), I am constantly terrified ANYTIME Lyra scratches her head/neck. I am always watching her for signs of SM (even though she comes from SM and heart tested lines). Every time we step into the vet's office, I get him to listen to her heart just to be on the safe side. I have been thinking about going seriously into showing/breeding Cavaliers but... it's just so hard for me because deep down I think that the only way now to make them a healthy breed again is to outcross. I would be 100% supportive of an outcross to Phalenes or Cocker Spaniels (there was an outcross in the 1950s to an Australian Cocker anyway).

That said, I think that reading the health sections on the Cavalier forums is kind of skewed because mostly only people with dogs suffering from SM/MVD post on there. I know many, many Cavaliers who are perfectly healthy and asymptomatic (nobody knows what their grading will be in an MRI scan), so these days I am a little more hopeful about the breed.

So for now I am pretty sure that I'm sticking to Papillons. I like that they have a big gene pool, they are generally a million times healthier, and the popular sire syndrome isn't as bad as in Cavaliers. Honestly, I've seen MANY, MANY show Cavalier pedigrees and they ALL share various ancestors at one point--especially the popular sires such as Maibee Montrose especially. In a breed that has SO many health problems, this really worries me.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RubyDog said:


> Johnny Bandit--- I don't believe I ever said I was an expert on breeding or genetics. Are you?? Ok so no that we've established that neither of us are professionals I can state my OPINION.
> I agree with you on a lot of pound dogs being unhealthy and byb or puppy mill dogs but hey... they need homes too.
> Mine is neither a pound dog or a pedigreed dog. She is a mutt. She has at least three breeds in her (the only one I'm sure about is Boston Terrier, the rest are all guesses). I guess you could call her a byb puppy.
> I know her genes are diverse because she has a few different types of dog in her. That doesn't mean that she will be any healthier. I've always preferred a mutt. All the mutts I've had have been FAR more intelligent then any purebred dog I've ever owned and far more healthy (could be fluke). BTW-- I owned a CKC registered poodle from champion bloodlines that was a complete idiot.
> I still think dog shows have no real purpose. I don't like them and don't watch them or get involved with them. I believe a lot of the breeds "to show standard" ARE mutants like the documentary stated. THESE ARE OPINIONS.


I have been involved with breeding most if not all of my life. My father, grandfather, and great grandfather were all breeders. I was a biology major, one semester from graduation at USF, when I left for a job offer. (one of the smartest moves I have ever made) I have been around wellbred dogs, owned stud dogs, etc my entire life. Given my history and background, my statements on the matter go far beyond opinion. 

Anyway..... I never commented on your opinion.... I commented on your statement about Natural Selection. I could care less of your opinion of dog shows, purebred dogs, etc. But when you make incorrect statements in support of your opinions, I am liable to comment.


----------



## RubyDog (Feb 29, 2012)

Good job Johnny. Good job.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

lucidity said:


> Since I've decided to show Lyra and am now in contact with many Cavalier breeders, I find that I cannot bring up the topic of SM with 90% of them. It's like a taboo subject that nobody wants to talk about (or acknowledge). I think it's safe to say that they still believe that SM is not a big problem in the breed (because they've owned/bred so and so number of Cavaliers who are totally asymptomatic, and they don't think the stats make sense etc etc).
> 
> I have to say, that as much as I love Cavaliers (they are just the sweetest!), I am constantly terrified ANYTIME Lyra scratches her head/neck. I am always watching her for signs of SM (even though she comes from SM and heart tested lines). Every time we step into the vet's office, I get him to listen to her heart just to be on the safe side. I have been thinking about going seriously into showing/breeding Cavaliers but... it's just so hard for me because deep down I think that the only way now to make them a healthy breed again is to outcross. I would be 100% supportive of an outcross to Phalenes or Cocker Spaniels (there was an outcross in the 1950s to an Australian Cocker anyway).
> 
> ...


It's nice to see someone who owns an affected breed be so concerned about health and welfare of the puppies you'd be bringing into the world. Good for you for not being swayed by the cavalier (ha!) attitudes of the "good" breeders. If you went through with an outcross with the intention to carry it forward through many generations and ultimately restore some amount of genetic diversity (however small) to the breed, I'd support that.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

Xeph said:


> Here in America, individual breed clubs are in charge of their breed's standard, and they set the bar for the health testing that needs to be done within the breed. Nobody is required to be a member of a breed club to be a breeder of that breed. They can breed on their own, and still get AKC papers.
> 
> Breed clubs can impose restrictions on memberships, and say that to be a member of their club, you must perform x y z health tests on your breeding stock, but the ones who are not interested simply will not join, and will keep doing as they're doing.
> 
> ...


Ok, but what if it didn't have to be that way? What if the new governing body (NOT government, NOT AR!) made it so that it was impossible to register puppies without health testing the breeding stock? The breed clubs clearly can't police themselves, so take the decisions out of their hands!


----------



## Equinox (Nov 11, 2008)

RCloud said:


> Yeah. While I 100% support good, ethical breeders, I find the whole dog show scene to be really stupid for a number of reasons.


I find this comment so incredibly, unnecessarily rude and cannot fathom why you felt the desire to voice such an opinion, and on a thread everyone knows would bring controversy. 

I have a strong preference for working dogs. I don't understand conformation showing (literally - I do not understand how showing or the show system works) but I have enough respect for others and their hobbies and passions to not call them "stupid". "Stupid" is absolutely nothing but rude. I may not agree with everything posted to this thread, but I enjoy reading everyone's insight and the information that has been provided that has added to this discussion.



RCloud said:


> And good for you, I really don't care. You have the right to what you do and don't find enjoyable just as I have my right.





RCloud said:


> A _snide_ comment? LOL!! It's called voicing an opinion. And just what exactly does it matter to you if I dislike dog shows or not? It's not a slam against YOU personally. Sorry you can't accept that not everyone is going to agree with the same things you do in life.


You didn't say "I dislike showing", you said conformation showing is "stupid". There is a difference between "I disagree with you" and "you are stupid"...



GottaLuvMutts said:


> Ok, but what if it didn't have to be that way? What if the new governing body (NOT government, NOT AR!) made it so that it was impossible to register puppies without health testing the breeding stock? The breed clubs clearly can't police themselves, so take the decisions out of their hands!


The SV requires passing hip scores (along with a minimum "Good" show rating and a working title) in order for a dog's progeny to be registered, and I don't personally believe that the registry has preserved the German Shepherd Dog breed as it was meant to. There is also the issue of what health tests should be required - just hips? Hips and elbows? Hips, elbows, eyes, heart, degenerative myelopathy, and MDR1? Must a dog be OFA excellent hips and completely clear for DM and MDR1, and all carriers are tossed out of the gene pool? As we all know, it's never black and white and some decisions that may intuitively seem immediately beneficial might have long term consequences.


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

Some people are still stuck on talking about mutts having health problems, and failing to explain why that is relevant. Like I said before, just because any dog can have a health problem, doesn't mean breeders are justified in intentionally creating or exacerbating health problems. It just doesn't make sense to say that breeders can do whatever they want -- breed sick dogs, inbreed, breed for crippling conformation -- all because sometimes mix-breed dogs have health problems.

Something I'm wondering is what if there were no registries at all, and no breed clubs? It seems like so many of the problems, and the rigid thinking, is arising from people becoming enmeshed in these tight little communities with rules that just don't make sense, and punishment for not conforming. If everyone was left to their own devices, perhaps natural competition would take over, and people would scramble to health test and publish their results. Surely people would develop their own individual preferences more, and we wouldn't see as much popular sire syndrome. I suppose shows would have to be put on by enthusiasts.

The documentary talked about the KC and breed clubs having a profound conflict of interests. On the one hand, their customers -- who pay for their existence -- are the breeders. On the other hand, the dogs are their raison d'être, and their interests are supposed to come first. I don't see an easy way to make new governing bodies that wouldn't have this conflict at their heart as well.

I would really like to hear input from people who know more about this. What would happen if these organizations croaked?


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Ok, but what if it didn't have to be that way? What if the new governing body (NOT government, NOT AR!) made it so that it was impossible to register puppies without health testing the breeding stock? The breed clubs clearly can't police themselves, so take the decisions out of their hands!


 Some breed clubs police themselves pretty well. And many, many, many breeders do.

The issues with the idea of a "governing body" making breeding choices for people are just as plentiful as the issues with how things currently are. What health tests are required? What grading is acceptable and what is not? Can affecteds be used with non-carriers and how do you determine which should be? What if the genetic tests turn out to be inaccurate, as Pawzk9 mentioned with one of the Aussie tests? What about carriers? Or what if the majority of the breed end up being carriers for something? The more genetic tests you develop, the more likely you are to find dogs who are carrying_ something_. In health issues which only have screening, what is done with dogs who are clear but have affected siblings? What about late onset issues? Or issues which can't be tested for which in some breeds, are of a much greater concern? What about dogs who produce health issues?

And of course, I always have to wonder...what if "the powers that be" end up being wrong? When a group of people are making the breeding choices and they end up being wrong, it could be devastating for the breed they were wrong about. And it already happens all the time, in breeds who are "self policed". Basenjis used to have a genetic disease called pyruvate kinase deficient hemolytic anemia (HA), which killed affected dogs. A genetic tests was developed and breeders, in attempts to be "responsible" alimented all carriers and affecteds from the breeding population. And HA quickly became a rarity in the breed. And it was just as quickly replaced with a much higher incidence of two diseases which did not have genetic tests - PRA and Fanconi's Disease. In this case, the "powers that be" were wrong and their wrong choices had a huge, negative impact on the breed. Luckily for Basenjis, the powers that be also were open to outcrossing to unknown, unregistered African imports. A similar thing happened with PWD, where there were basically two "lines" of PWD and one of the two lines was found to have the majority of carriers for a fatal genetic disease which killed affected dogs as puppies. That line was eliminated and with it, that specific disease. However, in doing so the gene pool was drastically and quickly reduced. And the breed's health has been steadily declining ever since, with new health issues seeming to pop up all the time. And sadly for PWDs there are no unregistered, native dogs left. Those are just two examples are how "over policing" can quickly do more harm than good.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

begemot said:


> Some people are still stuck on talking about mutts having health problems, and failing to explain why that is relevant. Like I said before, just because any dog can have a health problem, doesn't mean breeders are justified in intentionally creating or exacerbating health problems. It just doesn't make sense to say that breeders can do whatever they want -- breed sick dogs, inbreed, breed for crippling conformation -- all because sometimes mix-breed dogs have health problems.
> 
> Something I'm wondering is what if there were no registries at all, and no breed clubs? It seems like so many of the problems, and the rigid thinking, is arising from people becoming enmeshed in these tight little communities with rules that just don't make sense, and punishment for not conforming. If everyone was left to their own devices, perhaps natural competition would take over, and people would scramble to health test and publish their results. Surely people would develop their own individual preferences more, and we wouldn't see as much popular sire syndrome. I suppose shows would have to be put on by enthusiasts.
> 
> ...


It might not be relevant to the issue. And I do believe there exist undeniable issues in some breeds. 

But why it becomes relevant to the topic is because PDE gave the false impression or affirmed the myth in some of the GPs mind that "pedigree dogs are all unhealthy" or "show breeders only care about winning". 

You can see some in this thread and in recent discussions even on this forum.

Pound dogs, natural selection - completely inaccurace statement. The dogs in pounds do not represent natural selection in the least nor are they guaranteed to be "better" or "healthier". Somehow it believed that going at it blind (without a pedigree) is better than with knowledge (having a pedigree).

A pedigree can give you info (more or less depending on what you can find out about the ancestors, what registries, what test have been done, ect) about several things including HEALTH of your dogs ancestors (and other relatives once you look further). But somehow pedigrees make dogs "bad". Welll bred, poor bred, sick, healthy, great workers, poor workers, champion quality, non standard, ect, ect can all have pedigrees. This doc basically singled out pedigreed dogs vs poorly bred dogs or breeds with a high frequency of health issues. That is what I feel it did overall (even if it wasnt meant to) because of the responses to it on forum or with talking to people. They truly believe a pedigreed dogs will be sick they will just adopt one or get a mutt or buy a designer dog.

They believe ALL show breeders only care about winning shows and are unethical FAR FROM THE TRUTH. 

As for your last question. 

Who knows. I've thought about not registering anymore. Not sure that it will actually happen, but I've considered how necessary is it? I know how my dogs are bred and know how to keep my pedigrees (fairly simple). Though if there hadn't been a registry in the first place it might have been hard to obtain long pedigrees. I also see the benefits with registries and clubs keeping record of dogs. On one hand you are paying them to do something you can pretty much to yourself but on the other being a central body "everybody" uses them and it allows for better records kept overall in the breed for generations produced (along with other info like health test, titles, ect).

If we did away with the show ring again who knows. It might not be so bad. Breeders can still breed dogs with good structure and who breed true to type with the extremes, popular sire sydrome, ect. It wouldn't be all bad imo. I think that STRUCTURE is far more important compared to show conformation standards.

There is also the issue people take with inbreeding, yet inbreeding isn't unique to only pedigreed dogs. It is only that WITHOUT a pedigree you don't know how much inbreeding is behind your dog (again blind is better?). In some cases it is known when someone has inbred non pedigrees but I'm talking about in general. There could also occur unintentionally inbreeding without knowing the pedigree.


----------



## RubyDog (Feb 29, 2012)

One thing I don't particularly understand is why a person can't just state their opinion without everyone analyzing the shit out of it. This should simply be a friendly discussion. ALL of this is opinion. I said I don't like dog shows--- wow I got slammed. Then I said I prefer pound dogs or mutts and im asked if I have any expertise in dog genetics! LOL!
None of what I believe is harmful.... nor is it expert opinion.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

RubyDog said:


> One thing I don't particularly understand is why a person can't just state their opinion without everyone analyzing the shit out of it. This should simply be a friendly discussion. ALL of this is opinion. I said I don't like dog shows--- wow I got slammed. Then I said I prefer pound dogs or mutts and im asked if I have any expertise in dog genetics! LOL!
> None of what I believe is harmful.... nor is it expert opinion.


I just discovered the ignore button 

Seriously though, you really can't take the stuff on here personally. A lot of the people on here are dog show enthusiasts, so it's not a surprise they are going to get offended and defend it against an opposing view point. At the end of the day, it doesn't effect your life in any way, so just let it go.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

RubyDog said:


> One thing I don't particularly understand is why a person can't just state their opinion without everyone analyzing the shit out of it. This should simply be a friendly discussion. ALL of this is opinion. I said I don't like dog shows--- wow I got slammed. Then I said I prefer pound dogs or mutts and im asked if I have any expertise in dog genetics! LOL!
> None of what I believe is harmful.... nor is it expert opinion.


I didn't see anyone slam you for not liking dog shows.

If someone prefers pound dogs or mutts that is awesome. Different strokes for different folks. I prefer pure breds or working bred crosses. It's all good.

But what you actually said is pound dogs = natural selection at its best. That is why I and JB replied to your post. Its inaccurate vs an opinion or a "like" or "dislike". 

I'm fine with anyone discussing breeding, their opinion on the subject, but someone's knowledge or background does have a factor in how much I take their opinion to heart or consider. Thats just me personally. If one doesn't have much knowledge on what they are discussing they can't provide indepth input.


----------



## RubyDog (Feb 29, 2012)

I think that I spoke incorrectly. I realize that there are a lot of puppy mill dogs in the pounds. I DO prefer mutts and can only speak about my personal experience that the mutts ive had have been healthier and less neurotic then the pedigreed dogs I've had.


----------



## Finkie_Mom (Mar 2, 2010)

RubyDog said:


> One thing I don't particularly understand is why a person can't just state their opinion without everyone analyzing the shit out of it. This should simply be a friendly discussion. ALL of this is opinion. I said I don't like dog shows--- wow I got slammed. Then I said I prefer pound dogs or mutts and im asked if I have any expertise in dog genetics! LOL!
> None of what I believe is harmful.... nor is it expert opinion.


Yeah, you never got slammed for stating your opinion on dog shows, you got asked further questions regarding your other statements in that same post... That's fine with me if you don't like dog shows. You don't have to 



RCloud said:


> I just discovered the ignore button
> 
> Seriously though, you really can't take the stuff on here personally. A lot of the people on here are dog show enthusiasts, so it's not a surprise they are going to get offended and defend it against an opposing view point. At the end of the day, it doesn't effect your life in any way, so just let it go.


Well that's easy for you to say - no one was calling something that you love to do or make your living doing "stupid."


----------



## RubyDog (Feb 29, 2012)

I just look at my dog and I think about putting her in a dog sho w-- she would resent me... Lol


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Finkie_Mom said:


> Well that's easy for you to say - no one was calling something that you love to do or make your living doing "stupid."


Honestly, I wouldn't care if they did. None of you know me or anything about me. I'm extremely happy and proud with my life and what I'm doing in it, so at the end of the day you really think the opinions of strangers on the internet are going to effect me in ANY way what so ever? Not. At. All.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

RubyDog said:


> One thing I don't particularly understand is why a person can't just state their opinion without everyone analyzing the shit out of it. This should simply be a friendly discussion. ALL of this is opinion. I said I don't like dog shows--- wow I got slammed. Then I said I prefer pound dogs or mutts and im asked if I have any expertise in dog genetics! LOL!
> None of what I believe is harmful.... nor is it expert opinion.


Are you not familiar with how a discussion forum works? It ain't always what people say, it's how they say it. 

I don't know jack about the dog show circuit other than what I read. My extent of dog show knowledge is going to local shows and watching Westminster and other televised events. When I watch I see some dogs I think are really good looking, and I see some dogs I think are.. not. I think the idea behind a show is important but things like politics will get in the way. There are people striving to change things, there are people striving to destroy them. It's important not to paint all of them with the same brush.


----------



## RubyDog (Feb 29, 2012)

Seriously though--- ppl can do whatever it is that they want to do but I can't help but think dog shows are stupid... It's like those beauty pageants for little kids... never thought there was anything good or helpful about those either. 
My current dog is a mutt (boston/boxer/pit) but I also owned a pedigreed miniature poodle (CKC registered champ) that I would never have shown either. He was a DOG not a Miss (Mr) America contestant. LoL
To each there own but I would never support something so strange.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

RubyDog said:


> Seriously though--- ppl can do whatever it is that they want to do but I can't help but think dog shows are stupid...


Well you also apparently think that pound dogs are somehow a result of natural selection, so forgive me if I take the rest of your opinions with a grain of salt.


----------



## RubyDog (Feb 29, 2012)

Thosewordsatbest-- no not particularly familiar. Im fairly new. This one I was on (before dogforums) they were JERKS. There was maybe a dozen consistent members and any opinions or insights that I attempted to give were completely attacked. Maybe I'm overly sensitive lol.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

How was your dog a champion if he was never shown? Or was he just not shown by YOU? Because being registered doesn't make them a champion. My disaster of a Dachshund with PRA is AKC registered. 

That's where people get offended. I have five dogs, three being mutts and four being shelter dogs. I've never participated in a dog show and don't really have any interest- but my lack of interest doesn't mean they're stupid. A person trying to prove their dog as a stunning example of their breed is not stupid to me. When dogs that are not stunning examples of their breed win is the problem, not the idea of a show itself.


----------



## RubyDog (Feb 29, 2012)

Sassafras-- I also stated that I misspoke. Maybe read the entire reply?? That's not too difficult.


----------



## RubyDog (Feb 29, 2012)

Sorry I meant he came from champion parents and grandparents.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

RubyDog said:


> Sassafras-- I also stated that I misspoke. Maybe read the entire reply?? That's not too difficult.


Well I think reading entire replies is stupid.


----------



## RubyDog (Feb 29, 2012)

I suppose my dislike for the shows is simply this--- it's so completely unnatural. Dogs that have been inbred from only a few dogs are paraded around like they are "stunning examples of the breed" yet for the most part are minimally health tested (not all but most). If people actually do ALL possible health testing with EVERY one of their dogs then I might not be so against it. It's for the win and it's for the title. Pompous. 
Give me a good old fashioned mutt any day!


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

RubyDog said:


> I suppose my dislike for the shows is simply this--- it's so completely unnatural. Dogs that have been inbred from only a few dogs are paraded around like they are "stunning examples of the breed" yet for the most part are minimally health tested (not all but most). If people actually do ALL possible health testing with EVERY one of their dogs then I might not be so against it. It's for the win and it's for the title. Pompous.
> Give me a good old fashioned mutt any day!


But.. that isn't.. what. Where do you get that information? Like I said about not painting with the same brush, don't paint with the same brush. As someone solely involved in rescue (my own dogs and I work for a shelter) I don't appreciate generalizations about rescue because they're just generalization not truth across the board and people who health test and carefully breed and show their dogs feel the same way about their circuit.


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

RubyDog said:


> I suppose my dislike for the shows is simply this--- it's so completely unnatural. Dogs that have been inbred from only a few dogs are paraded around like they are "stunning examples of the breed" yet for the most part are minimally health tested (not all but most). If people actually do ALL possible health testing with EVERY one of their dogs then I might not be so against it. It's for the win and it's for the title. Pompous.
> Give me a good old fashioned mutt any day!


 How many people do you know involved in showing and breeding dogs? Where are you getting the idea that _*most*_ show dogs are minimally health tested? The majority of people I know involved in showing and breeding do health test all of their breeding dogs.


----------



## RubyDog (Feb 29, 2012)

I'm good guys. Really. Nothing that you are going to say is going to make me like dog shows lol.
The poor dogs. They look like they are going to maul someone out of frustration....
I know enough people that show dogs... they also try to get me to "see their sides" and enjoy the "circus". No thanks is generally my response.


----------



## Finkie_Mom (Mar 2, 2010)

RCloud said:


> Honestly, I wouldn't care if they did. None of you know me or anything about me. I'm extremely happy and proud with my life and what I'm doing in it, so at the end of the day you really think the opinions of strangers on the internet are going to effect me in ANY way what so ever? Not. At. All.


Congrats. And you obviously know nothing about dog shows. So why do you feel the need to share your unformed opinion on them?


----------



## Loki Love (May 23, 2010)

RubyDog said:


> The poor dogs. They look like they are going to maul someone out of frustration....


LOL

My Loki is a show dog and yep, he sure is hard done by and very 'frustrated'.. careful, he may just snap and maul someone at any moment. Such a horribly rough life he has.. poor guy.


----------



## Nil (Oct 25, 2007)

RubyDog said:


> I'm good guys. Really. Nothing that you are going to say is going to make me like dog shows lol.


I don't think anyone cares if you like them or not. What we do care about is that you are making blanket statements about a group without doing the research. What we, or at least, I care about is you giving out misinformation as "fact". Next time try, "I don't like dog shows. I don't know much about them but they aren't for me". 



RubyDog said:


> Dogs that have been inbred from only a few dogs are paraded around like they are "stunning examples of the breed" yet for the most part are minimally health tested (not all but most).


----------



## RubyDog (Feb 29, 2012)

He's obviously not being shown at the moment lol


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Honestly, dog shows are not really my cup of tea, either, although I like to see all the different breeds. Having said that, I've encountered too many conscientious people who truly love their dogs and/or breed and are involved in showing to think it is "stupid". There are some stupid people who do things I don't agree with who are showing dogs, but that is a different thing altogether.


----------



## Finkie_Mom (Mar 2, 2010)

Don't let the faces fool you... They hate their lives and are going to maul everyone in the place.


----------



## RubyDog (Feb 29, 2012)

Yes well maybe I shouldnt generalize so much. Its just that they "aren't for me". Im sure that there are a few breeders that do proper health testing. Just like in designer dogs (should a person be ok with that too).


----------



## RubyDog (Feb 29, 2012)

Ive met byb breeders that take better care and do more health testing on their dogs then registered champion dogs. There was this lady (lived very near where I am) that was selling ckc/akc registered Cairn Terriers, she had these poor things living outside, their fur all matted and dirty living in a small caged area in the middle of a bush. They looked disgusting and unhealthy but they were technically champions. The puppies were outside as well. It was sad to me. I'm not saying ALL registered breeders are like this just like I'm not saying ALL bybs take care of their puppies. I'm just saying it each individual person taking care of their dogs. I saw the winner of the Westminster dog show (accidental). It was that monstrous excuse for a Pekingese. Good example of a show dog.


----------



## Equinox (Nov 11, 2008)

RCloud said:


> Honestly, I wouldn't care if they did. None of you know me or anything about me. I'm extremely happy and proud with my life and what I'm doing in it, so at the end of the day you really think the opinions of strangers on the internet are going to effect me in ANY way what so ever? Not. At. All.





RCloud said:


> I just discovered the ignore button
> 
> Seriously though, you really can't take the stuff on here personally. A lot of the people on here are dog show enthusiasts, so it's not a surprise they are going to get offended and defend it against an opposing view point. At the end of the day, it doesn't effect your life in any way, so just let it go.


Aren't you cute. Gold star for you!





RubyDog said:


> I think that I spoke incorrectly. I realize that there are a lot of puppy mill dogs in the pounds. I DO prefer mutts and can only speak about my personal experience that the mutts ive had have been healthier and less neurotic then the pedigreed dogs I've had.


RubyDog, had you posted THIS instead, no one would have had a problem, not those in the breeding world, the show world, etc. We all understand that others are entitled to their opinion, just as we are entitled to ours. But when something is said that could be so easily interpreted as purposefully malicious (regardless of the person's intentions), toes will be stepped on - common sense. As ThoseWordsAtBest said, it is not what you mean to say but how you say it. "Stupid"? That is grade school level jabs and heckling. Here I was under the impression that adults handled disagreements with more etiquette. 



RubyDog said:


> I just look at my dog and I think about putting her in a dog sho w-- she would resent me... Lol


My dog wouldn't find fun in being shown but he wouldn't "resent" me, either. Resentment is an emotion that carries a lot of implications more attributed to human nature rather than a dog's mindset.




RubyDog said:


> Ive met byb breeders that take better care and do more health testing on their dogs then registered champion dogs. There was this lady (lived very near where I am) that was selling ckc/akc registered Cairn Terriers, she had these poor things living outside, their fur all matted and dirty living in a small caged area in the middle of a bush. They looked disgusting and unhealthy but they were technically champions. The puppies were outside as well. It was sad to me. I'm not saying ALL registered breeders are like this just like I'm not saying ALL bybs take care of their puppies. I'm just saying it each individual person taking care of their dogs. I saw the winner of the Westminster dog show (accidental). It was that monstrous excuse for a Pekingese. Good example of a show dog.


Absolutely, there are awful people everywhere and it is extremely unfortunate and heartbreaking for all of those involved. 

And to be frank, I love Pekingeses, more so the pet bred individuals rather than the show bred dogs, but I did not personally like the dog that won Westminster at all.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Finkie_Mom said:


> Congrats. And you obviously know nothing about dog shows. So why do you feel the need to share your unformed opinion on them?


You know this how? Other then saying I find them stupid, I've never really commented on them.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

RubyDog said:


> Ive met byb breeders that take better care and do more health testing on their dogs then registered champion dogs. There was this lady (lived very near where I am) that was selling ckc/akc registered Cairn Terriers, she had these poor things living outside, their fur all matted and dirty living in a small caged area in the middle of a bush. They looked disgusting and unhealthy but they were technically champions. The puppies were outside as well. It was sad to me. I'm not saying ALL registered breeders are like this just like I'm not saying ALL bybs take care of their puppies. I'm just saying it each individual person taking care of their dogs. I saw the winner of the Westminster dog show (accidental). It was that monstrous excuse for a Pekingese. Good example of a show dog.


I think you're confusing registration. I have a miniature Dachshund. His ears are deformed, he is no where close to standard (not that I love the Dachshund standard anyway, but I digress) and he has PRA, a genetic condition health testing is available for. He is AKC registered. Registration is like the DMV. I can register a Ferrari just the same as any one else can register a Gremlin. It just show that they are both in fact cars. 

In my definition of a BYB, I don't know ANY one I'd consider a BYB that does any health testing at all.


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

RubyDog said:


> Ive met byb breeders that take better care and do more health testing on their dogs then registered champion dogs.


 And I've met pet owners who were horrible to their dogs but I don't think it would be fair to say "Pet owners are usually horrible to their dogs" because of that.



RubyDog said:


> Yes well maybe I shouldnt generalize so much. Its just that they "aren't for me". Im sure that there are a few breeders that do proper health testing. Just like in designer dogs (should a person be ok with that too).


 Honestly, I'm having a hard time thinking of anyone involved in my breed who is active in showing/breeding and_ doesn't _health test. Every show bred dog I have owned has come from a pedigree of fully health tested dogs. Hardly comparable to the average "designer dog" breeding practices. 



RubyDog said:


> I'm good guys. Really. Nothing that you are going to say is going to make me like dog shows lol.
> The poor dogs. They look like they are going to maul someone out of frustration....
> I know enough people that show dogs... they also try to get me to "see their sides" and enjoy the "circus". No thanks is generally my response.


 I don't think anyone is trying to "make you like dog shows". But you are stating things which are just not accurate. If the people you know who show dogs don't health test and keep their dogs in poor conditions, well that is unfortunate but it doesn't make it the norm. it sounds like you may need to hang with a different crowd.

I invite you to check out some photos of my dogs. Some of the dogs pictured are CHs (a couple close to GrCHs), some are pointed and one is a shelter rescue. You can see pictures of them at shows, both in the ring and just hanging out and pictures of how we spend the rest of our time. 

https://www.facebook.com/media/albums/?id=287557245498


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RubyDog said:


> I suppose my dislike for the shows is simply this--- it's so completely unnatural. Dogs that have been inbred from only a few dogs are paraded around like they are "stunning examples of the breed" yet for the most part are minimally health tested (not all but most). If people actually do ALL possible health testing with EVERY one of their dogs then I might not be so against it. It's for the win and it's for the title. Pompous.
> Give me a good old fashioned mutt any day!


No one bashed you or attacked you because you don't like dog shows. 

And no one bashed you or attacked you because of your opinions. And you keep saying that all you are stating is your opinion. But.... You are also making statements. 

You made a statement about Natural Selection.... That was not an opinion and it was incorrect. 

Now you are making statements about the well bred dog world. And again your statements are incorrect. 

I have no clue where you are getting your information but it is grossly incorrect. There are problems in a few breeds and there are some unscrupulous breeders. 

MOST show dogs are not inbred from only a few dogs. Inbreeding bottlenecks. You cannot sustain a bloodline with inbreeding. 
But the fact is... the VAST majority of breeders involved with conformation are in fact testing. Just about every parent club for every breed out there, places great emphasis on genetic testing. To be a recocnized Code of Ethics Breeder with every breed club I know of , you must test for everything. The AKC also has a Breeder of Merit progam... Again you have to test everything. 

The Dog World is spending MILLIONS on testing and MILLIONS on research. Many breed clubs, the AKC, breeders, and fanciers have sponsored research that has resulted in testing for genetic diseases that could not previously be tested for and better testing proceedures for other testing. There are more tests being worked on now. More studies being done to understand various genetic problems. If it was not the breeders funding them, and if the breeders were not going to use these tests, no one would be developing them. 

A new test in my breed came out in the last year. It happens all the time. 

As I mentioned..... There are some breeders that are less than savory. And some that are only looking to win today. But those people do not last. They take shortcuts in their programs, don't test, or do other unethical practices, they either fade away or get run out of town so to speak. They cannot last. Because breeders need other breeders. You want to make your line better, you need to compliment it with dogs from other lines. If you are not savory, word gets around FAST. A bad situation can go coast to coast or even world wide over night. Do something wrong and no one will work with you. 



I also mentioned that there are a problem in a few breeds. But many breeds are better better off than they were 20 years ago. 


And now... Here is my opinion.... Welcome to the forum. No one here wants to bash you or attack you. And no one is going to attack you for your opinions. But if you would stop making statements from an uninformed position and open your eyes and your mind, you might learn something. There are some very knowledgable people on this forum.


----------



## Finkie_Mom (Mar 2, 2010)

RCloud said:


> You know this how? Other then saying I find them stupid, I've never really commented on them.


Oh wait. My bad. I bet you have shown quite a few dogs.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Finkie_Mom said:


> Oh wait. My bad. I bet you have shown quite a few dogs.


Because you have to actively show dogs in order to know anything about it.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RubyDog said:


> I'm good guys. Really. Nothing that you are going to say is going to make me like dog shows lol.
> The poor dogs. They look like they are going to maul someone out of frustration....
> I know enough people that show dogs... they also try to get me to "see their sides" and enjoy the "circus". No thanks is generally my response.


No one is trying to make you like show dogs..... But you continue to make statements from a position of ignorance to the subject you are making a statement towards. 

As for show dogs...... Nearly everyone I have ever known has loved it. If they don't they have a terrible ring presence. So they never win.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

RubyDog said:


> I just look at my dog and I think about putting her in a dog sho w-- she would resent me... Lol


My dogs would resent me if I went to a show without them. In fact they can tell when its "show time" getting ready to leave for a show and pitch a fit if they can't go. One male especially (finished Champion) started doing weight pull with him and took him to a specialty show so he could still have something to do.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

If Merlin sees me in a tie, he gets as giddy as a pup in new grass. Bounces all over the place.

There is NOTHING at a show for dogs not to like. Get to hang out with other dogs, get treats, praise, get lots of attention.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

RCloud said:


> Yeah. While I 100% support good, ethical breeders, I find the whole dog show scene to be really stupid for a number of reasons.


Quoting this again because you never did answer my question -- what are the "number of reasons" why you think dog shows are stupid?

If you continue to ignore this question, I'll just have to assume that you don't actually understand what dog shows are for and how they work (hint: they are not a beauty pageant)... in which case I'm sure several of us would be happy to explain why we think they have merit, despite their problems. At least then you could make an informed decision about whether or not you think they're a good idea instead of just hating reflexively.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

RubyDog said:


> I'm good guys. Really. Nothing that you are going to say is going to make me like dog shows lol.
> The poor dogs. They look like they are going to maul someone out of frustration....
> I know enough people that show dogs... they also try to get me to "see their sides" and enjoy the "circus". No thanks is generally my response.


No one cares if you like dog shows or not, at least I don't. Me and my dogs enjoy this and other recreationally activities. 


The issue comes from you lumping everyone together because of a few pompus breeders or a few dogs that might not like showing. You don't have a clue about shows instead make false statement. 

Here is my horrible show CH along with her half sister wagging their tails in some horrible fustration. Someone please save them.



















What is ffrustrating about walking around and standing??

These are some other dogs from the show



























You can have your opinion but if you talk about others expect them to have something to say back. You are calling people pompus based on the fact that they like to show and making assumptions about them.


----------



## RubyDog (Feb 29, 2012)

Johnny Bandit-- you might be illiterate? I stated clearly about 3 times that I made a mistake saying it was natural selection. I'm not saying it again. 
As for the rest.... I said I'm done. I may be considered ignorant concerning showing dogs. That's a good thing IMO. 
I know about registration. I had a dog that was from CHAMPION bloodlines (many generations, at least 5). This dogs parents were showed heavily. I CHOSE not to show my dog because I think it's ridiculous. I'm done with this particular thread as I'm hearing most of you repeat yourself and I'm finding myself doing the same. Thanks for all of your input and canine expertise. If one day I become as superior as some of you on here, that's when I will comment on this thread. But for now I digress.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Dog Shows..... Are and always have been, an evaluation of potential breeding stock as to how it conforms to the breed standard. It is not and never has been expected to be the only evaluation. But rather one tool in the total evaluation of a given dog. 

Are there politics that go on? Absolutely. But if you have a good dog, politics will be of little bother. And if you have a great dog, they will seldom come into play at all.


----------



## RubyDog (Feb 29, 2012)

If no one cares why do you keep responding? Lol


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

RubyDog said:


> Ive met byb breeders that take better care and do more health testing on their dogs then registered champion dogs. There was this lady (lived very near where I am) that was selling ckc/akc registered Cairn Terriers, she had these poor things living outside, their fur all matted and dirty living in a small caged area in the middle of a bush. They looked disgusting and unhealthy but they were technically champions. The puppies were outside as well. It was sad to me. I'm not saying ALL registered breeders are like this just like I'm not saying ALL bybs take care of their puppies. I'm just saying it each individual person taking care of their dogs. I saw the winner of the Westminster dog show (accidental). It was that monstrous excuse for a Pekingese. Good example of a show dog.


Lots of bybs take good care of their dogs. As far as health testing for real? Because I haven't seen any bybs that do health test, most don't do much with their dogs and have never even heard of health testing. 

I know lots of bybs dogs are pets so they get a lot of care. But then as show dogs my dogs get more time, attention, exercise than many bybs dogs I'm sure. And just as you said not all BYBs take good care of their pups and I should add that just because someone breeds reg. dogs doens't make them NOT a byb or bad breeder.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RubyDog said:


> Johnny Bandit-- you might be illiterate? I stated clearly about 3 times that I made a mistake saying it was natural selection. I'm not saying it again.
> As for the rest.... I said I'm done. I may be considered ignorant concerning showing dogs. That's a good thing IMO.
> I know about registration. I had a dog that was from CHAMPION bloodlines (many generations, at least 5). This dogs parents were showed heavily. I CHOSE not to show my dog because I think it's ridiculous. I'm done with this particular thread as I'm hearing most of you repeat yourself and I'm finding myself doing the same. Thanks for all of your input and canine expertise. If one day I become as superior as some of you on here, that's when I will comment on this thread. But for now I digress.


The only person on this thread that has attacked anyone is you..... As for your comments about the other forum.... Well you had problems getting along over there and now you are having problems getting along over here... At this point I think it is safe to say the problem is you.......


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RubyDog said:


> Thosewordsatbest-- no not particularly familiar. Im fairly new. This one I was on (before dogforums) they were JERKS. There was maybe a dozen consistent members and any opinions or insights that I attempted to give were completely attacked. Maybe I'm overly sensitive lol.


Yep..... They were jerks on the last forum and now we are all jerks here...... 

You are perfect.....


----------



## RubyDog (Feb 29, 2012)

I (ME, MYSELF, I) do NOT like dogs shows OR show dogs as a general rule. Suck it up princess.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RubyDog said:


> I (ME, MYSELF, I) do NOT like dogs shows OR show dogs as a general rule. Suck it up princess.


No one cares if you like dog shows..... 

BTW..... three posts ago you said you were done with this thread......


----------



## RubyDog (Feb 29, 2012)

I love you Johnny .


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RubyDog said:


> I love you Johnny .


Would you consider that a statement or an opinion?

I would consider it weak, ill timed sarcasm.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

RubyDog said:


> Johnny Bandit-- you might be illiterate? I stated clearly about 3 times that I made a mistake saying it was natural selection. I'm not saying it again.
> As for the rest.... I said I'm done. I may be considered ignorant concerning showing dogs. That's a good thing IMO.
> I know about registration. I had a dog that was from CHAMPION bloodlines (many generations, at least 5). This dogs parents were showed heavily. I CHOSE not to show my dog because I think it's ridiculous. I'm done with this particular thread as I'm hearing most of you repeat yourself and I'm finding myself doing the same. Thanks for all of your input and canine expertise. If one day I become as superior as some of you on here, that's when I will comment on this thread. But for now I digress.


I am shocked that people at another forum didn't like you! Shocked, I say.

I find it sad when people are admittedly ignorant about a subject and yet decide they hate it. You need to have at least some knowledge of a subject in order to form a real opinion on whether or not it's stupid or useless or whatever else. I know more than I'd like to about the Twilight books and films, for example. 

Dog shows are not beauty pageants. Each breed club has a written standard of what the ideal dog of that breed should look, act and move like, and at a show, each individual dog is judged against that standard, not against the other dogs in the ring. If you have ten dobermans in the ring, each one is being compared to the doberman standard to see which dobe most closely conforms to the ideal (no one is ever perfect, but good breeders always strive for perfection). Whichever dog is chosen moves on to working group judging, where it is again judged against its standard, while the other breeds in the group (including the Akita, Boxer, Great Dane, and Rottweiler) are all being judged against their respective standards. Whichever dog most closely resembles its breed club's ideal should win. 

I don't show or breed, but in my opinion showing is a very useful tool for breeders as it allows multiple knowledgeable people (judges) to compare the breeders' dogs to the ideal and decide whether or not those dogs are worthy of being called champions, and of being bred. Breeders who don't show (or otherwise "prove" their dogs through sport or work) run the risk of developing "kennel blindness" -- thinking their own dogs are perfect examples of the breed, not recognizing faults, unknowingly breeding structural problems into the breed. Dog shows certainly are not perfect -- there are some judges awarding incorrect dogs, there are some dogs winning because their handler is a pro and not because they're the best, and yes, there are _some_ breeders tossing ethics out the window in order to win big -- but overall, I think that shows do more good than harm.

And I can assure you, most of the dogs at a dog show are really enjoying themselves. I've been to lots of shows and photographed lots of dogs, and only a handful of them have been afraid or unhappy. Most are quite happy to be getting lots of attention, seeing other dogs, and getting treats.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Equinox said:


> The SV requires passing hip scores (along with a minimum "Good" show rating and a working title) in order for a dog's progeny to be registered, and I don't personally believe that the registry has preserved the German Shepherd Dog breed as it was meant to. There is also the issue of what health tests should be required - just hips? Hips and elbows? Hips, elbows, eyes, heart, degenerative myelopathy, and MDR1? Must a dog be OFA excellent hips and completely clear for DM and MDR1, and all carriers are tossed out of the gene pool? As we all know, it's never black and white and some decisions that may intuitively seem immediately beneficial might have long term consequences.


This is why I am not in favor of mandated health testing. I don't think it will really address the problem. Where do you draw the line? Do more tests mean a healthier dog? Dobermans have TONS of genetic tests available. Are they a healthy breed?


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

The single governing body is not something that will happen in the United States. People need to remember Jeminina is in the UK and PDE1&2 reflect the KC and the UK dog culture. That culture is very different from the US dog culture. For one thing, because the United States is so much larger, there isn't much of a unified dog culture. It's much more factioned. The interests of catch dog breeders in Florida are not the same interests as the trial Border Collie breeders are not the same as the AKC conformation breeders. A single governing body is impractical in the US. I actually think the federalist system of the breed clubs and AKC is a good model. It's just the traditions that are outdated. 

We know better. We need to be doing better.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

RubyDog said:


> The poor dogs. They look like they are going to maul someone out of frustration....


This also incorrect. Not an opinion I don't agree with, incorrect.

A few days after Westminster, The View had a Mutt Show. This is their fourth year doing it. They had several owners bring their dogs on stage and tell about the dog. The announcer from Westminster would then "judge" the mutts, he'd pet them and look at them and say meaningless inaccurate blather about them.

Not a single dog should have been in that studio. They were freaked out, stressed, and on edge. Several were visibly terrified and tried to get away. I would not have been surprised if someone had gotten bit (that episode of the show is taped, it is not done live, presumably in case of some such incident).

The show before, the wining Pekinese had been on the show, as had Uggie the dog from The Artist. Both were clearly more comfortable. Maybe not stoked to be there, but comfortable enough that the crowd and lights and camera were not going to eat them. Dogs that are unhappy in the show ring do not show well. They don't win. The dogs that you see on TV at Westminster have NO problem being there. They are used to it. There are some exceptions (the Pyr Shep from a few years ago clearly thought the camera wanted to kill him. He did not show well and got little attention) but by and large show dogs do not have any beef with their life.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

My show dogs are extremely abused. Raegan knows. She's seen them. They sleep quietly in their crates waiting for their turn, and then I torture them back at the hotel by feeding them (and not all of the food is kibble).

Worst. Lives. Ever.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

RaeganW said:


> The single governing body is not something that will happen in the United States. *People need to remember Jeminina is in the UK and PDE1&2 reflect the KC and the UK dog culture.* That culture is very different from the US dog culture. For one thing, because the United States is so much larger, there isn't much of a unified dog culture. It's much more factioned. The interests of catch dog breeders in Florida are not the same interests as the trial Border Collie breeders are not the same as the AKC conformation breeders. A single governing body is impractical in the US. I actually think the federalist system of the breed clubs and AKC is a good model. It's just the traditions that are outdated.
> 
> We know better. We need to be doing better.


Great points made here.

SOB


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

RaeganW said:


> This is why I am not in favor of mandated health testing. I don't think it will really address the problem. Where do you draw the line? Do more tests mean a healthier dog? Dobermans have TONS of genetic tests available. Are they a healthy breed?


I am actually in favor of mandated health testing/reporting in order to breed. And public access to the results of that health testing. I am _not _in favor of witch-hunting or mandating decisions based on those tests' results. That should be left up to the breed clubs and breeders, who one may pray have taken the time to become educated. 



RaeganW said:


> For one thing, because the United States is so much larger, there isn't much of a unified dog culture. It's much more factioned. The interests of catch dog breeders in Florida are not the same interests as the trial Border Collie breeders are not the same as the AKC conformation breeders. A single governing body is impractical in the US. I actually think the federalist system of the breed clubs and AKC is a good model. It's just the traditions that are outdated.
> 
> We know better. We need to be doing better.


Well said.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

RCloud said:


> Because you have to actively show dogs in order to know anything about it.


It certainly helps.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Alerondogs said:


> .
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/media/albums/?id=287557245498


My god please give me Saturn.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> If Merlin sees me in a tie, he gets as giddy as a pup in new grass. Bounces all over the place.
> 
> There is NOTHING at a show for dogs not to like. Get to hang out with other dogs, get treats, praise, get lots of attention.


And SHOP! Lots of great shopping, and much is for the dogs. I don't know how many squeeky mice I had to buy for Phoebe because she'd stolen them off the rack. I don't do much conformation any more, but my dogs love dog shows and doing things. Much better than sitting home and doing nothing.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

> And SHOP! Lots of great shopping, and much is for the dogs. I don't know how many squeeky mice I had to buy for Phoebe because she'd stolen them off the rack. I don't do much conformation any more, but my dogs love dog shows and doing things. Much better than sitting home and doing nothing.


I don't enjoy dog shows but I've never gone with one of my dogs . . . have always had to leave them home as spectator dogs aren't allowed. As shows always mean travelling at least three hours I find a day is wasted without spending time out doing wonderful outside things like hiking etc. Is there places where spectator dogs are allowed on grounds?

I am in no way trying to imply others shouldn't enjoy shows. I have some city friends that LOVE them, but those tend to be people like Pawzk9 who also like to shop. 

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> I don't enjoy dog shows but I've never gone with one of my dogs . . . have always had to leave them home as spectator dogs aren't allowed. As shows always mean travelling at least three hours I find a day is wasted without spending time out doing wonderful things like hiking etc. Is there places where spectator dogs are allowed in?
> 
> I am in no way trying to imply others shouldn't enjoy shows. I have some city friends that LOVE them.
> 
> ...


I'm usually doing SOMETHING with my dogs at the show.
It's your thing or it's not. Does't really matter as long as you aren't calling other people's choice of recreation "stupid" (and you're not.) I can see not wanting to drive 3 hours just to shop - though I've done so occasionally when unentered - to do just that to shop and spectate. Wichita KS has a great cluster - wonderful vendors - and if conformation doesn't trip your trigger, obedience, rally, herding and lure coursing to name a few activities. It's about 3 hours from me and I HAVE - without a dog. I find it fun to watch good dogs even if they aren't mine. And to touch bases with friends from other places.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

My dogs love to go to shows. The minute they see me packing the grooming box, they go bonkers, not all my dogs get to go on any given weekend but they still go nuts. 

After I bring JC upstairs, he heads straight for the door to go straight to the car or RV. There is nothing more he would love to do than going to a show, he gets treats, he gets to hang out watching people groom other dogs (last show he watched people groom their OES's), he gets numerous hugs and pets from spectators stopping me while walking him around the grounds, he gets to see other bulldogs, etc etc. Yeah he's so stressed at shows that he lays down and goes to sleep, and he so upset about being the only one generally not panting in the ring. 

And don't get me started on how much BB gets stressed at shows. Poor thing is so stressed she starts wooing and jumping up and down with other dogs, swatting them on the head with her paw. Man her tail wags so fast, she must be ready to pop and maul me cause I brought her to this horrid place. 

Yeah I know I abuse my dogs so much, I'm a bad bad owner, they hate me for subjecting them to shows, where they get their picture taken all the time and are pet by many.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> I don't enjoy dog shows but I've never gone with one of my dogs . . . have always had to leave them home as spectator dogs aren't allowed. As shows always mean travelling at least three hours I find a day is wasted without spending time out doing wonderful outside things like hiking etc. Is there places where spectator dogs are allowed on grounds?
> 
> I am in no way trying to imply others shouldn't enjoy shows. I have some city friends that LOVE them, but those tend to be people like Pawzk9 who also like to shop.
> 
> SOB


Generally outdoor shows won't object. Indoor shows do because of space issues, lots of indoor show venues are tight on space. But I have seen people bring unentered dogs to indoor shows, and I have done that as well.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> Generally outdoor shows won't object. Indoor shows do because of space issues, lots of indoor show venues are tight on space. But I have seen people bring unentered dogs to indoor shows, and I have done that as well.


Other Than Eukanuba National Championship, which sounded like it was going to be similar to boarding an international flight - but in the end was not. All I did was show them my exhibitor pass on the way in, I have never seen anyone check any dog that is walking around to see if it is entered.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Another suggestion would be if you know people who show, go as an assistant so you get the 'behind the scenes' understanding and get hands on experience at the show. You'll see (good, bad beautiful and ugly) and learn who's who in the breed.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Other Than Eukanuba National Championship, which sounded like it was going to be similar to boarding an international flight - but in the end was not. All I did was show them my exhibitor pass on the way in, I have never seen anyone check any dog that is walking around to see if it is entered.


Neither have I. Most of the buildings that hold shows in VA are tight, notably Harrisonburg (where grooming is outdoors) and Doswell, but a few others like Fredricksburg and Fishersville aren't so bad, but nothing like Euk and no where near Crufts. Salem isn't bad for the entries they get, but rings are small. 

MD has some really nice indoor venues, like Timonium, they rent two buildings, one for the terrier specialty on friday and obedience/rally the other days (its the smaller building), and other for conformation and its divided into three sections, and have plenty of vendors. 

Greenville, SC uses a really nice and big building.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I have one very sad ex-showdog. I bet if he wasn't a champion, he'd be a lot happier. 


DSC_5941 by Summer_Papillon, on Flickr

We only love him because he's beautiful.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> Much better than sitting home and doing nothing.


Well, yes, that's a given. Most dogs will prefer going out to staying in. I know mine would prefer agility, disc, ball, nosework, hiking, or trick training to prancing around a show ring, though. Same goes for me.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

cshellenberger said:


> Another suggestion would be if you know people who show, go as an assistant so you get the 'behind the scenes' understanding and get hands on experience at the show. You'll see (good, bad beautiful and ugly) and learn who's who in the breed.


Have done just that a few times. I was in Edmonton a few years ago and Calgary many years before that (more than once) helping a friend and she was in her glory, but for me great effort went into not letting her notice I was watching the clock.

I know it is not my cup of tea, but as I am not one to enjoy watching sports of any kind, I am not a fan of shopping, and I DO prefer reading text books to fiction, and hiking to laying in the sun, I get it that we are all very different.

I like dog meet ups and walking groups. I need to put some thought into figuring how those types of events could be better utilized for networking and information distribution for so many of us Canadians that live where the show-event system is very scarce. I believe networking and record keeping have a place in the better breeding of dogs . . . trying to get that accessible and people on board, though, has proven a problem here.

A little earlier in this thread it was mentioned that some thought might be put into how things would work if the registries collapsed. That is pretty much how it is here as they truly have so little impact to the average person acquiring the average dog.

I should add that another friend got us turned back a couple of years ago in Calgary - cuz she attempted to bring her Papillon in (as a spectator) so I do know that they check. Won't be trying that again.

SOB


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Any time my dogs get to go somewhere, they're happy campers. Beau was a hoot to watch in the show ring, he just ate up all the attention. He was one of those dogs that just had the 'it' factor and the personality to have fun and do well. He was always the most animated one in the ring.

That said, conformation showing is definitely not for me these days. But that doesn't mean the dogs are miserable doing it or are frustrated or any of that nonsense.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

My oldest bulldog is a hoot to watch in the show ring, she has high five'd the judge before and will wag her butt all the way around the ring. She's coming out as a veteran, so she will be a ham with all the clapping. 

I have been told her father was a character at shows too. One story I have been told was at this one show, he apparently let himself out of his crate (not sure/don't really remember how he did it) and waltz into a ring while another breed was showing and set himself up to be judged. They eventually found out he was gone when they heard all the laughing.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

To AleronDogs: did you post on aol dog message boards? Some of the dogs on FB seem familiar to me, as does your name here.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I have never seen anyone check any dog that is walking around to see if it is entered.


After a ton of people telling me nobody would ever notice Mirada at a dog show if she was unentered (and I took a LOT of convincing) I went with her for socializing and what not.

We were almost immediately asked to leave. I was so embarrassed. I hate breaking rules, and I caved.

All that 'They won't notice" stuff is crap, pretty much, lol


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Xeph said:


> After a ton of people telling me nobody would ever notice Mirada at a dog show if she was unentered (and I took a LOT of convincing) I went with her for socializing and what not.
> 
> We were almost immediately asked to leave. I was so embarrassed. I hate breaking rules, and I caved.
> 
> All that 'They won't notice" stuff is crap, pretty much, lol


Don't know what to tell you...... My Lab mix.....That is OBVIOUSLY a mix.... Has probably been to at least 15 shows. No one has ever said a word......


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I also have taken Merlin to shows that I did not enter for one reason or another.... No one ever said anything about that either.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

I know very little about the show world, but I will comment on the poor, suffering, abused dogs.

A dog that isn't comfortable in a situation will make it evident. We trained a service dog that over time (he had previous foster parents) developed a fear of being around crowds. He was pulled from the program, and is a very happy pet.

If you had a dog that was terrified and unhappy, it wouldn't win ANY show. Someone please explain to me how exactly you would stack a fearful Mastiff... the only thing I can think of would be to use so much force that the dog essentially shut down out of fear and was then "pliable," for lack of a better word.

I don't know much about showing, but I'm pretty sure the dogs aren't abused, mistreated, or anything else. Dogs have to like their environment and their handlers to perform well. It doesn't just apply to showing- working, herding, service dogs, police protection dogs: yes, I suppose humans are "using" them. That doesn't equate to them hating it.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> If you had a dog that was terrified and unhappy, it wouldn't win ANY show.


Much as I hate to admit it and add fuel to the fire, this isn't true at all. There have been spooks (at least in my breed) that have been rewarded with championships and top honors at their nationa;


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Watching dog shows on TV, I've seen a few dogs who look stressed. Most look pretty happy, though. I know my dogs would be perfectly thrilled with going for a car ride and having anybody paying attention to them. . .they even like going to the vet! (Until he starts poking and prodding anyway)


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Don't know what to tell you...... My Lab mix.....That is OBVIOUSLY a mix.... Has probably been to at least 15 shows. No one has ever said a word......


I've been to several shows and only once I was asked to leave with Jack. A woman flipped when we were apparently standing too closely to her dogs and disappeared, and then a few moments later we were asked to leave. Jack is not reactive and happy to sit quietly and smile at the world, and our standing order was Jack, myself, my boyfriend 20 feet and then the woman and her two dogs. Just a random freak.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Xeph said:


> Much as I hate to admit it and add fuel to the fire, this isn't true at all. There have been spooks (at least in my breed) that have been rewarded with championships and top honors at their nationa;


Strange! I guess it must be different for service dogs versus dog shows. My experience working with SD was that the only dogs that made it to "the top" were dogs that truly loved being in public. Fearful dogs/ dogs that didn't enjoy it just didn't "perform" as well.

(words in quotes to emphasize what I felt were similarities btwn SD and show experiences)

EDIT: I dont know that it would matter, but did you mean national breed events or national all breed events? I feel like the breed events might be more accepting of some behaviors if they had seen them in their breed before- not insinuating that GSD's are a "nervous" breed at all, but they might be more accepting of a dog being temporarily spooked than a best in show judge would be when the GSD was standing next to a toy poodle.

(sorry if the last bit was offensive, I'm not trying to insult any breed.)


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Rescued said:


> Strange! I guess it must be different for service dogs versus dog shows. My experience working with SD was that the only dogs that made it to "the top" were dogs that truly loved being in public. Fearful dogs/ dogs that didn't enjoy it just didn't "perform" as well.
> 
> (words in quotes to emphasize what I felt were similarities btwn SD and show experiences)


Xeph's statement had nothing to do with Service dogs, it was a referral to the fact that 'spooky' show dogs have been awarded in her breed (GSD's) at their national specialty show.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I feel like the breed events might be more accepting of some behaviors if they had seen them in their breed before


A timid Shepherd should NOT be forgiven. It is in the GSD standard that a dog that displays weakness of character is to be dismissed. Not only does this NOT happen, but I have seen spooky dogs take the points at shows. I know spooks that have won very high honors at the GSD National in the USA.

I'm not talking about a dog that is temporarily spooked and recovers with no ill effects. I'm talking about absolute nutjobs


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I wouldn't take a spectator dog to an indoor show (unless I'd registered it on exhibition, which I believe you can do with Canadian Kennel Club-registered dogs here, even if they're not entered in anything, for a small fee -- maybe $5-$10?). There's just not much space and the people in charge like to know how many dogs are in the building. Outdoor shows here are free to watch and you can bring any dog, registered or not, mutt or purebred, as long as you stay away from the entrance to the ring. I have taken Casper before. Dog shows are a great place for me to take him because they allow us to be near a lot of other dogs, but everyone there is dog-savvy and they're not shoving their dogs in his face or even paying much attention to him at all. I can sit on the sidelines and treat him for staying calm amidst all the activity.


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> A little earlier in this thread it was mentioned that some thought might be put into how things would work if the registries collapsed. That is pretty much how it is here as they truly have so little impact to the average person acquiring the average dog.


That was me wondering. Are there any consistent differences among breeders (Canada vs. UK or US) that you have noticed, and think might be attributable to the absence of important registries? What about the breed clubs up there? (Sorry, I'm fairly ignorant about Canada, except for reading a lot about your health care. And a high school research paper about Québec separatists. And a long standing obsession with Anne of Green Gables and Prince Edward Island.)

I definitely think it's worthwhile to look at other models, as see what the results have been.

*********
ETA: Thank you also (SOB) for the much earlier response to what I said about cavaliers, that I didn't respond to but did think about. I do hope the breed is saved.

-- Liz


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

InkedMarie said:


> To AleronDogs: did you post on aol dog message boards? Some of the dogs on FB seem familiar to me, as does your name here.


 Yep for many years! I was AgileGSD 



Xeph said:


> After a ton of people telling me nobody would ever notice Mirada at a dog show if she was unentered (and I took a LOT of convincing) I went with her for socializing and what not.
> 
> We were almost immediately asked to leave. I was so embarrassed. I hate breaking rules, and I caved.
> 
> All that 'They won't notice" stuff is crap, pretty much, lol


 That is so weird. We often have at least a couple unentered dogs in our group and it's never been an issue. Talk about bad luck!


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

Alerondogs said:


> Yep for many years! I was AgileGSD


I remember you, too  I believe I was Icewarning back then.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

Crantastic said:


> I wouldn't take a spectator dog to an indoor show (unless I'd registered it on exhibition, which I believe you can do with Canadian Kennel Club-registered dogs here, even if they're not entered in anything, for a small fee -- maybe $5-$10?). There's just not much space and the people in charge like to know how many dogs are in the building. Outdoor shows here are free to watch and you can bring any dog, registered or not, mutt or purebred, as long as you stay away from the entrance to the ring. I have taken Casper before. Dog shows are a great place for me to take him because they allow us to be near a lot of other dogs, but everyone there is dog-savvy and they're not shoving their dogs in his face or even paying much attention to him at all. I can sit on the sidelines and treat him for staying calm amidst all the activity.


I did the same for Tag before he was ever entered in a trial. Dogs ignore him, people ignore him, and he finally learns the universe doesn't revolve around his existance. It was an excellent experience for us. No one ever asked us to leave, and I pretty much steered clear of everyone and happily ignored them as they happily ignored me. The main goal was for him to learn to pay attention to me and deal with the sounds, sights, and smells of a trial. IDK if it even registered with most of the people there that we weren't entered, but since we weren't causing a scene or doing any harm or using the trial as a pet fair thing, I guess people just ignored it.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Were you AgileGSD on dog.com? My mind is now blown.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I'm still going to steal Ms Whimsical, Nikki,


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

Alerondogs said:


> Yep for many years! I was AgileGSD



YES! I was, still am, Marie22ecw!


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> I remember you, too  I believe I was Icewarning back then.


I don't remember that SN at all!


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

Sometimes Whim would like to be stolen...stolen away from Savvy anyway!




InkedMarie said:


> YES! I was, still am, Marie22ecw!


 I recognize both you and LazyGRanch  The old AOL boards are gone but there's a FB page now and another forum which I can't remember the name of. I miss the "Good Ol' Days" of the AOL boards - late 90s, early 00s when there were still a lot of very active boards and really great discussions. I learned a ton from the old Canine Reproduction board. And the GSD board was always really active.

And yep AgileGSD on dog.com and the GSD forums. When I saw Xeph at a dog show, I introduced myself as AgileGSD LOL 

The GSDs are all gone now  In the time I was on the AOL board they went from puppies to seniors. They both passed away in the past year. How fast time goes by, I was in high school when I got them...


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Just a week or so ago I was looking at an old post I made on dog.com where you and I were talking pyr sheps years ago. lol I never put two and two together. Somehow I had AgileGSD pegged for a guy.


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> Just a week or so ago I was looking at an old post I made on dog.com where you and I were talking pyr sheps years ago.  lol I never put two and two together. Somehow I had AgileGSD pegged for a guy.


 LOL kinda funny! A couple other people have told me they had thought I was a guy until I posted videos or something...not sure why?

I remember chatting with you about PyrSheps a few times on Dog.com I think. I still check that forum sometimes but it seems pretty slow these days.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

For the past few weeks I've been obsessively researching pyrsheps and I remembered I'd asked about them on there (I don't go on there anymore) so I looked up that thread. 

For what it's worth, I never thought you were a guy under this username. I think that's part of why I never put the two together. My mind is now blown.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

Alerondogs said:


> I recognize both you and LazyGRanch  The old AOL boards are gone but there's a FB page now and another forum which I can't remember the name of. I miss the "Good Ol' Days" of the AOL boards - late 90s, early 00s when there were still a lot of very active boards and really great discussions. I learned a ton from the old Canine Reproduction board. And the GSD board was always really active.
> 
> And yep AgileGSD on dog.com and the GSD forums. When I saw Xeph at a dog show, I introduced myself as AgileGSD LOL
> 
> The GSDs are all gone now  In the time I was on the AOL board they went from puppies to seniors. They both passed away in the past year. How fast time goes by, I was in high school when I got them...


 Sorry bout the GSD's. I'm not exactly a favorite of the CBB so I'm all set to not be in that group! So you know Xeph too? Wow!


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Nikki and I only live about 35 minutes away from each other  Strauss, Mogwai and I train in agility with her during the summer.

Nikki, I didn't know your old biddy passed away  She was a classy old lady. Didn't act her age at all when I saw her.


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

Xeph said:


> Nikki and I only live about 35 minutes away from each other  Strauss, Mogwai and I train in agility with her during the summer.


 Won't be long now! 



Xeph said:


> Nikki, I didn't know your old biddy passed away  She was a classy old lady. Didn't act her age at all when I saw her.


 Only about a month ago. She didn't act her age up until the last week, then started really slowing down, getting picky and just acting very old and very tired. She passed away in her sleep at 14 years old, having lived a life of mostly doing whatever she pleased. She is missed by everyone and especially the wild Black Dog girls who all treated her like she was their most favorite aunt.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

Alerondogs said:


> Sometimes Whim would like to be stolen...stolen away from Savvy anyway!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think I started the AOL boards in 97 or 98. The repro board was informative, but scary  A lot of really good, interesting and passionate discussions on those boards, and when I first joined the GSD board was amazingly active. By the time I left, it was lucky to see one post per month :/ Same for the nutrition board, etc.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

InkedMarie said:


> Sorry bout the GSD's. *I'm not exactly a favorite of the CBB so I'm all set to not be in that group*! So you know Xeph too? Wow!


Same here. >snerk< xD


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> Same here. >snerk< xD


 LOL things have gotten "friendlier" in the new formats. Maybe because FB isn't so anonymous? The downfall of those boards was without a doubt the constant arguing, personal attacks, etc that become more common than actual discussion.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

Alerondogs said:


> LOL things have gotten "friendlier" in the new formats. Maybe because FB isn't so anonymous? The downfall of those boards was without a doubt the constant arguing, personal attacks, etc that become more common than actual discussion.


I'm sure it's friendlier, just not for those of us who aren't favorites among them. This is JMO from what I witnessed but the constant arguing and personal attacks were started by the people on the new fb board. Enough of that, I don't care about the cbb, I left there, found here and am better for it.


----------

