Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Pedigree Dogs Exposed

Frenchy
August 9th, 2010, 10:12 PM
Playing right now on CBC NN , so far , hard to watch. They're showing how people who show dogs , have slowly but surely , screw up the breeds. Health problems ... one of them , cancer in Goldens , something I know too well. How Daschounds have shorter legs etc ...

luckypenny
August 9th, 2010, 10:16 PM
What does NN stand for? I'm gonna go look for it.

Frenchy
August 9th, 2010, 10:17 PM
What does NN stand for?

I have no idea , that's how it's listed with Shaw satellite :o

hazelrunpack
August 9th, 2010, 10:19 PM
Do you think it's a typo for CNN? :shrug:

Etown_Chick
August 9th, 2010, 10:20 PM
CBC News Network.

Frenchy
August 9th, 2010, 10:22 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/passionateeyemonday/2008/pedigreedogs/

it's going to play again on later dates. I think you can also watch it online.

hazelrunpack
August 9th, 2010, 10:26 PM
Gol dang...I can't even get the initial page to load :shrug: I think I'm having trouble with my internet again :frustrated:

Frenchy
August 9th, 2010, 10:26 PM
CBC News Network.

That's it :)

Loki Love
August 9th, 2010, 10:34 PM
I've seen this before - and you have to take it with a grain of salt. Just remember that every documentary produced has an agenda and nothing is unbiased.

I'm not saying there are not valid points being made - for example, the utmost importance of health testing as well as being careful with close inline breeding; but they take it a bit too far when comparing the dogs shows to Nazis! :rolleyes:

Frenchy
August 9th, 2010, 10:37 PM
I've seen this before - and you have to take it with a grain of salt. Just remember that every documentary produced has an agenda and nothing is unbiased.

not really , if you look how GSD and other breeds used to look like , and how they look today , making traits stronger , creating health problems , it's kinda obvious :shrug:

but they take it a bit too far when comparing the dogs shows to Nazis! :rolleyes:

well yes , that would be taking it too far.

Loki Love
August 9th, 2010, 10:39 PM
not really , if you look how GSD and other breeds used to look like , and how they look today , making traits stronger , creating health problems , it's kinda obvious

If one is doing proper health testing prior to breeding - how is that creating more health problems? :confused:

cell
August 9th, 2010, 10:52 PM
Is this the same as the BBC documentary, highlighting Britain's champion pug, and the cavaliers skull issues? I dont really remember them talking about dachshunds or goldens much. If its the same, it's on Google video

hazelrunpack
August 9th, 2010, 10:58 PM
If one is doing proper health testing prior to breeding - how is that creating more health problems? :confused:
Because when you breed for a particular trait, you tend to bring along genes in close proximity to the ones you're selecting for...for example, some genes that might predispose the dog to a particular disease. You set the 'hidden' genes when you set the 'physical' genes, et voila! You have a breed that looks a particular way but is prone to a particular set of diseases :shrug:

That oversimplifies, but it's a common consequence of domestication/breed development.

Frenchy
August 9th, 2010, 11:05 PM
Is this the same as the BBC documentary, highlighting Britain's champion pug, and the cavaliers skull issues? I dont really remember them talking about dachshunds or goldens much. If its the same, it's on Google video

yes that's the one , no they didn't talk too much about goldens and dachshunds , but listed them as examples.

Because when you breed for a particular trait, you tend to bring along genes in close proximity to the ones you're selecting for...for example, some genes that might predispose the dog to a particular disease. You set the 'hidden' genes when you set the 'physical' genes, et voila! You have a breed that looks a particular way but is prone to a particular set of diseases :shrug:

That oversimplifies, but it's a common consequence of domestication/breed development.

Yes , that's it Hazel. They didn't care about the health problems it would bring some breeds , they just liked how they looked.

holy crap they showed a Pekenese (sp) who won best in show , had to be put on ice while getting his prize because of a heart condition. :eek: and he won best in show ! :confused: so , who cares about the health condition , the dog looks good by 'standards' !

cell
August 9th, 2010, 11:08 PM
holy crap they showed a Pekenese (sp) who won best in show , had to be put on ice while getting his prize because of a heart condition. :eek: and he won best in show ! :confused: so , who cares about the health condition , the dog looks good by 'standards' !

Just gotta look nice on the outside, who cares about the inside!

Frenchy
August 9th, 2010, 11:09 PM
Same goes for pedigree cats , I saw pictures of purebred cats from back in the 50's and 60's , they looked very different than what they do today. Not for the better health wise.

Frenchy
August 9th, 2010, 11:10 PM
Just gotta look nice on the outside, who cares about the inside!

Exactly , and these are breeding dogs ! Spreading the health problems .... :(

hazelrunpack
August 9th, 2010, 11:11 PM
They didn't do it intentionally :p Often, the health problems didn't show up clearly for generations. :shrug: Now the struggle is to breed the health problems out! And as the science and technologies become more refined, it'll make that job easier.

erykah1310
August 9th, 2010, 11:12 PM
Like with everything there are reputable and not.
In the show world there are those who are just as sneaky as a byb.
not all breeders who show do health testing, and not all breeders that do health testing show.
People who are looking to sell pups know that many people who really dont know a whole lot about what is really involved with showing and how easy it is to obtain a title if you were to "stack" your breed for points for your dogs.
Like I have said many times around here, even the best looking websites for "ethical show breeders" can have some very dark secrets, like when someone came on here looking at TM breeders in Canada and everyone here said the the one kennel who showed the dog was the only ethical one seriously made me laugh and shake my head.
What looks ethical isnt always.
Dog shows do state what dogs conform to standard but now many of you are questioning standards. So if I were to breed working GSD's but refused to breed for the sloping topline, my dogs would not conform to standard which would make many of you on here say I was unethical. then in the next breath you would be complaining about the sloping topline that is the breed standard.
There is no pleasing everyone I know, but until parent groups start standing up for their breeds and not jepordizing their health this will continue.
I will NOT breed oversized TM's no matter how well they would do in the ring (how quickly they would obtain their CH), the pro's and cons list has too many points for cons so for now I will continue working towards our working titles even though we are showing this fall, its purely for fun and I dont care either way if lets say Karma or Marv took BIS all weekend or not.

Goldfields
August 9th, 2010, 11:49 PM
I can tell you it's far easier being a pet owner than a breeder. If you really care about structure ,conformation, movement and soundness then it's an uphill battle trying to find sound stud dogs to use that also have the type, temperament. coat etc. you want. I used to start looking the minute I decided to retain a female pup. America does far more health testing than they do here so even though I hip scored my girls, finding a dog that was also hip scored was almost impossible, without all the other things like heart problems, eye problems etc. that people don't want to talk about or test for. I've seen cattle dogs change just so much in the past 35 years here. They've gone from being up to height strong dogs with their forelegs back under their withers, to small dogs with cute spitz type faces and shocking fronts. People say to me "Isn't that dog moving well?" and the answer is "NO it's not!" :eek: It's moving fast with a lot of small steps. I once took two dogs with me when we visited a friend down on his Hereford Cattle stud. I was delighted when I let them out and, without even saying hello, he said, pointing at the short stocky one, "I don't know whether you own that dog but I don't like him". I just laughed and said "neither do I, Jack, he won't be used for breeding". He really loved my blue girl though, and the point is, that sort of opinion, from a chap who worked his cattle with dogs all his life, was more important to me than what any judge would tell me. I think I'm lucky though, I live in the country, midway between two capitals, and we don't have many of my breed in the area. I've got my eye in on a working type of dog, not what is fashionable(and sometimes so wrong) in the show ring.

Loki Love
August 10th, 2010, 06:50 AM
There is no pleasing everyone I know, but until parent groups start standing up for their breeds and not jepordizing their health this will continue.
I will NOT breed oversized TM's no matter how well they would do in the ring (how quickly they would obtain their CH), the pro's and cons list has too many points for cons so for now I will continue working towards our working titles even though we are showing this fall, its purely for fun and I dont care either way if lets say Karma or Marv took BIS all weekend or not.

I agree - it's for the parent clubs to step up and reexamine the standards, if necessary.

Having a GD, I can understand the sentiment of 'bigger is better' - and yet, all those who want (and have) the biggest, bulkiest GD on the block will no doubt end up with a dog with joint issues at a younger age. What is preferred in the ring though? From my limited showing experience, it's been a toss up. Some judges prefer the bulkier/bigger look - others prefer the leaner look. We insist that judges compare to the 'standard' - but the competition in itself is flawed because it's based on opinion. Myself, I'm happy as a clam that Loki is on the leaner side and sitting at a comfortable 35".

I think I had a point to make at one time.. but now it's lost.. and it's early in the morning.

catlover2
August 10th, 2010, 10:44 AM
Same goes for pedigree cats , I saw pictures of purebred cats from back in the 50's and 60's , they looked very different than what they do today. Not for the better health wise.

I was involved in the cat fancy breeding and showing from late '70s to early '90s, I remember when Persians had a nose to now having the nose up between the eyes! Of course this has messed up the tear ducts and sinus cavities. How does this happen? well part of it is the breeders' fault and part is the judges themselves. Even though the "breed standard of perfection" and any changes to it are written by breed council members of a particular breed, changes voted on etc. What happens in the show ring is the judges' "interpretation" of the breed standard. So you get a judge that likes a shorter nose on a Persian, puts the Persian in his "finals". Of course breeders like to get ribbons and titles on their cats, some a lot more than others and but for some it becomes "the be all to end all" to get ribbons. Before you know it only those Persians with shorter and shorter noses get the ribbons, and if you want Ch. and GrCh. titles on your cats breeders have to go along with it, otherwise no other breeders are willing to sell you breeding stock when you have to bring in new bloodlines. Today's CFA standard says the Persian nose should be: "short, snub and broad with break "centered" between the eyes". The only "disqualification" about the head is "deformity of the skull resulting in an asymmetrical face and/or head. Crossed eyes." Most have the whole nose including nostrils centred between the eyes, not just the "break"!


The same thing happened to the Burmese which now have such flat faces they look ugly from the very sweet faces they used to have. There are some breeders who refused to "go along" with this nonsense and in CFA they actually have two Burmese recognized now--- the "European Burmese" or traditional one, and the more extreme one. Fortunately, there are breeders who are interested in the health and vitality of their cats, who refuse to breed to such extremes that is detrimental to the breed and keep the cat's health foremost in their minds. There are some breeds that have not changed their standard very much over the years, the Korat, Manx and Birman come to mind.

cell
August 10th, 2010, 10:56 AM
FOr those interested here is a Youtube clip of the documentary, highlighting German Shepherd dogs and their sloping backs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIaM3hYFszc

full video

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=44215931

After the airing of this documentary the Crufts dog show (biggest show in Britain) from airing on TV. I don't know if it is still airing or not.

I wonder how many of the same issues found in UK dogs are found in common North American pets. Unscrupulous breeding, and non conformity to standards in pet bred animals could possibly be saving the dogs from some conditions, while unfortunately causing them new ones.
I personally think it is worst to breed a dog KNOWING it has a history of medical ailments then putting the breeding up to dumb luck (even though 2 perfectly healthy dogs can still create medical disasters for puppies).

Frenchy
August 10th, 2010, 11:00 AM
I remember when Persians had a nose to now having the nose up between the eyes!

And they were so much cuter before IMO. :cat: they all were.

Frenchy
August 10th, 2010, 11:02 AM
FOr those interested here is a Youtube clip of the documentary, highlighting German Shepherd dogs and their sloping backs.



Again , that is so sad , GSDs were beautiful as they were.

Masha
August 10th, 2010, 11:51 AM
When we were looking for a GSD breeder, we did not want an oversized GSD or one with a sloping back because of the health problems.
Now when we walk our guy, people often stop to chat and i hear the following way too many times 'oh, my friend has such a BEAUTIFUL GSD, he is a king GSD, so large, he is 8 months and already the size of yours and his parents were so big, he will weigh 130 punds for sure' (i leave it at that, but in my head i think... imagine the health problems... why would u intentionally oversize a GSD??')
Another one i often get is 'oh is that a pure bred??? cuz his back isnt sloped.... the real GSDs have sloped backs'.... :shrug:
People's bias towards 'looks' creates a demand for dogs that look good, not dogs that are healthy... and as long as demand is there.... there will be people to capitalize on that and breed dogs taht look good but have a myriad of health issues.... :(

Goldfields
August 10th, 2010, 12:28 PM
Masha, what makes me shudder is to see GSDs with that exaggerated slope walk by at a show and see the hocks wavering from side to side. :eek: Or in my breed, the ACD, to see dogs with deep stops. The reason the standard asks for muzzle and skull to be on parallel planes with a slight but definite stop was so that if the dog was working and got kicked in the face by a steer, the blow would glance off over the skull, instead of smashing it. It is really the judges that mess breeds up. If they had always judged to the Standards, breeders would try and breed to it. I only chose two of the obvious faults there of course, there are many more.

cell
August 10th, 2010, 12:33 PM
I saw a 4 month old GSD pup at the dog park the other day, could barely pull its butt off the ground, sad sight when it should have been ripping around having fun. Instead it was withdrawn and uninterested.

Love4himies
August 10th, 2010, 12:52 PM
I was involved in the cat fancy breeding and showing from late '70s to early '90s, I remember when Persians had a nose to now having the nose up between the eyes! Of course this has messed up the tear ducts and sinus cavities.

Thanks for mentioning that, it was going through my head while I was reading this thread.

Floppy Dog
August 10th, 2010, 03:43 PM
This is exactly what I was ranting about a while ago. My Cocker Spaniel has the heart and mind of an excellent retriever but the physiology of a "parlour dog". It's so frustrating when we take her out for a ramble by the river. She's got the attitude but she'd never survive in the field.

BTW, have you checked out the Working vs. Show thread? I've posted some pictures and there's a comparasin of Dachshunds too. Very interesting.

cell
August 10th, 2010, 04:57 PM
Yeah this thread/documentary definitely sparked my interest in show vs working/ historical vs modern bred dogs, hence why I started a new thread not to thread-jack :party:

ancientgirl
August 10th, 2010, 07:25 PM
Not surprising in the society we are living in. For all we know, some of the things that are breed into these dogs were at one point some mutation and not healthy. Like Scottish Folds ears, or white tigers. Those traits that are so longed for are gene mutations.:(

hazelrunpack
August 10th, 2010, 09:31 PM
All traits were mutations at one time or another, AG. If you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint, all 'higher' organisms are the product eons of accidental mutations of non-essential genes. Normally, mutations causing advantageous traits would tend to be perserved; mutations causing disadvantageous traits would be eliminated through natural selection.

Where humans run into problems is when they select for the nonadvantageous traits--the ones that would cause the animal to be less viable in a natural setting. :shrug: Hairless cats, for example, or brachycephalic dogs.

ancientgirl
August 11th, 2010, 08:05 AM
Where humans run into problems is when they select for the nonadvantageous traits--the ones that would cause the animal to be less viable in a natural setting. :shrug: Hairless cats, for example, or brachycephalic dogs.

Unfortunately, those trains mean $$ and prestige for the humans at the cost of the animals well being.

BenMax
August 11th, 2010, 12:38 PM
Seeing the GSD's made me cry...for real:(. I cannot believe how terribly 'mutilated' they were. You know just by watching them move, their days are numbered...and cannot believe that they will be bred. Just horrible.

Then finding out that ridgeback pups born without ridges are killed???? Euthanizing perfectly healthy puppies for that? Which is a defect as it is? Amazing how non chalante (spelling..) those 'women' were in saying that they seek out vets who will kill healthy pups. I just cannot believe what I saw and heard.

And those spaniels????:cry: (sickening)!

Sure is an eye opener.

I say RESCUE and forget those types of 'reputable breeders' that hide behind the umbrella of 'Kennel Club'.

Floppy Dog
August 17th, 2010, 01:08 PM
I don't even want to think about the spaniels, since I own one. Beena (12 year-old daughter) had to leave the room when this show aired, it made her so upset.

Interesting note about GSD's in Canada. When I was doing research about 3 years ago into various dog breeds before I purchased our dog, I did some extensive research into GSD's because I'd heard about the back and hip problems. It seems that the CKC (Canadian Kennel Club) has put in some very stringent health test requirements before they will issue certificates. I seem to recall that 2 sets of x-rays were required (at 3 and 6 months, I think), a DNA test was optional depending on the results of the x-ray and there were limits on how closely in-bred dogs were allowed to be. I think the closest common ancestor had to be 3 or 4 generations back.

Does anyone know if the CKC was just more proactive than the UKKC? Or did the bad press hit North America first?

The documentary also mentioned that Sweeden's Kennel Club has banned certain matings in their dogs (father-daughter was the one specifically mentioned). How about other Kennel Clubs around the world? Have they been more proactive than the UKKC or are they just as blinded to the science of genetics as the UKKC?

clm
August 18th, 2010, 01:17 PM
I think the kennel clubs need to be more proactive when it comes to their breed standards. If the breed standard for GSDs is changed so that large sloping back was a fault for instance, or all titled dogs must be health tested yearly for diseases known to their breeds and their titles revolked and no litters allowed to be registered from those parents, etc. Then you may see some positive changes regarding the health of those shown and bred.
I think a lot more involvement by the CKC, AKC, etc is both warranted and necessary.

clm

ancientgirl
August 18th, 2010, 01:23 PM
I think the kennel clubs need to be more proactive when it comes to their breed standards. If the breed standard for GSDs is changed so that large sloping back was a fault for instance, or all titled dogs must be health tested yearly for diseases known to their breeds and their titles revolked and no litters allowed to be registered from those parents, etc. Then you may see some positive changes regarding the health of those shown and bred.
I think a lot more involvement by the CKC, AKC, etc is both warranted and necessary.

clm

It's sad that humans have bread traits that eventually produce health issues.

I remember when I was a child. I loved GSD's, still do, but I remember they didn't look the same as they do now.

clm
August 18th, 2010, 01:30 PM
I agree, it is sad. I know with our breed, in just the 24 years we've had them, they've gone from being a medium sized dog to a small to medium sized dog. Our first dog was above standard size, but would have been standard size 20 years before that. Poms used to go 30lbs in size.
What about breeds like danes? Harlequin breedings commonly result in blind dogs......IMO then Harlequin danes should not be a registerable breed with any kennel club.
There are ways to fix these things, but the kennel clubs need to start being part of the solution IMO.

clm