# Pedigree dogs exposed



## woganvonderweidenstrasse (Nov 22, 2012)

This is a long video but worth watching...

BBC Pedigree Dogs Exposed - full movie in good quality - YouTube


----------



## SaharaNight Boxers (Jun 28, 2011)

I can't stand that video. They take the most extreme style in the breed and make it seem like the normal and that breeders are killing their dogs just to look good or make money. Most don't.


----------



## woganvonderweidenstrasse (Nov 22, 2012)

SaharaNight Boxers said:


> I can't stand that video. They take the most extreme style in the breed and make it seem like the normal and that breeders are killing their dogs just to look good or make money. Most don't.


I think it's pretty spot on. Most breeders today breed for looks rather than function. Functionality and health should be the first goal when it comes to breeding, not what the dog looks like. They show winners of cruft shows that are miles different from what the breed originally looked like - when it was still bred for function, examples are the basset, english bulldog, bullterrier, german shepherds, pugs, Char Pei's, etc. Most breed standards don't involve any way of testing functionality and the dogs ability to do what it was originally bred for, most are bred solely based on looks.


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

woganvonderweidenstrasse said:


> I think it's pretty spot on. Most breeders today breed for looks rather than function. Functionality and health should be the first goal when it comes to breeding, not what the dog looks like. They show winners of cruft shows that are miles different from what the breed originally looked like - when it was still bred for function, examples are the basset, english bulldog, bullterrier, german shepherds, pugs, Char Pei's, etc. Most breed standards don't involve any way of testing functionality and the dogs ability to do what it was originally bred for, most are bred solely based on looks.


Well, the Bull Terrier was bred for bull baiting and that was outlawed, then they were used for dogfighting and they didn't really have the heart for that, so Mr. Hinks bred them as a companion dog and that is what they truly are bred for except the miniatures are more for chasing and catching varmits. I agree the B.T. has changed a lot from the original but you can't really say anymore that they are a working dog.


----------



## woganvonderweidenstrasse (Nov 22, 2012)

whiteleo said:


> Well, the Bull Terrier was bred for bull baiting and that was outlawed, then they were used for dogfighting and they didn't really have the heart for that, so Mr. Hinks bred them as a companion dog and that is what they truly are bred for except the miniatures are more for chasing and catching varmits. I agree the B.T. has changed a lot from the original but you can't really say anymore that they are a working dog.


So do you prefer the modern day bullterrier look over the original? Would you say it is more or less healthy?








I'm not saying he is not a gorgeous dog, cause he is (and I love his pearly white teeth  ) All I'm saying is breeders have taken some characteristics to the extreme and in many cases to the detriment of the breed. IMO a dog should be as close the wild cousin as possible for optimal health...and many breeds we see today are the way they are because some person somewhere decided he liked a specific look. I have the same problem with my beloved GSD breed. I thought if I bought from a respected breeder with good championship bloodlines my dog would not have the sickle hocks you see in the breed today - I was wrong, because that is the breed standard and that is what breeders are breeding, whether its causing hip displacia or not. I don't care what judges and breeders say, the over-angulation and cow hocks in our breed is NOT normal and it is NOT healthy. No wild dog in nature looks like this, they have straight backs and straight legs...I don't know, maybe it is just me...a dog should not be bred for its looks - it should be bred for a purpose, and the dog that is best suited for that purpose should be mated to the bitch that is best suited for that purpose, and so on - not for looks.


----------



## kathylcsw (Jul 31, 2011)

I agree that too many dogs are being bred for extreme characteristics. I think GSD's look terrible with that sloped back. That seems to be fairly recent as I don't remember them looking like that when I was a child. I don't know if it was on this forum or another one I am on, but someone posted pictures of what a lot of breeds looked like 100 years ago and what they look like now. The differences were amazing and kind of sad.

Bulldogs have been bred for looks to the point that it is difficult to find a truly healthy bulldog. If they are healthy, they can't breathe and have issues if over exerting or overheating. Not to mention that they can no longer deliver without a c-section due to their huge heads. It really shoud be about function way more than form. That is why I love my JRT's. They have a wide range of looks and they have not been bred to specific physical features.


----------



## SaharaNight Boxers (Jun 28, 2011)

woganvonderweidenstrasse said:


> I think it's pretty spot on. Most breeders today breed for looks rather than function. Functionality and health should be the first goal when it comes to breeding, not what the dog looks like. They show winners of cruft shows that are miles different from what the breed originally looked like - when it was still bred for function, examples are the basset, english bulldog, bullterrier, german shepherds, pugs, Char Pei's, etc. Most breed standards don't involve any way of testing functionality and the dogs ability to do what it was originally bred for, most are bred solely based on looks.


But, form and function go together. The standard for most breeds is a working standard. For example Boxers were bred to be the all around German dog basically after bull baiting and dog fighting. Not as big as a Doberman, more versatile than the German Shepherd (I don't mean this in an insulting way, I don't want a misunderstanding), and more agile than the Rottweiler. A square, compact dog. Working and the standard go hand in hand. There's one Boxer breeder I can think of immediately. She bred the Futurity winner for this year and in that same litter she is currently training two Schutzund prospects. Form and function have to follow one another. Testing for soundness can be seen in the gait. Of course it doesn't cover everything, but you can tell if a dog's angulation is off, something isn't right in the rear, front, etc. If a dog is tripping over himself obviously somethign is off and the dog is't sound. As far as health I can vouch that in Boxers it's normally the most important thing. Not only is lining up faults in conformation important, but so is lining up faults in health testing to produce the healthiest dog possible. And what a dog looks like is important. If I have a Boxer that has a snout as long as a Lab, I would hope someone would realize that's wrong. What a breed looks like is it's stamp. What if a German Shepherd looked like a Boxer?

What the breed originally looked like is just that, the beginning. It was a rough sketch of what they wanted to create. The creators of a breed knew the first dogs in the breed weren't even close to what they wanted. They knew they were going to have to breed to what they wanted. Honestly in my opinion, saying that a dog doesn't look like what the original breed was supposed to look like can't even be argued or a point. Of course they aren't going to look like what they did in the beginning as the breed continually improves.

And if you're talking about function for pugs, bull dogs, shar pei's, and the like they were bred to be companions. The short muzzle on Pugs didn't matter, they weren't running all over the contryside, they were sitting at the side of their masters. Owners today expect their dogs to not always do what the breed was designed to do and that's when people complain that the muzzle on their Pug is too short to do agility outside in California or the like. They weren't even bred for it. And it;s interetsing you bring up cow hocks because they're actually preferred for most working, herding breeds.


----------



## xchairity_casex (Oct 8, 2011)

I friggin HATE that video, ive had this discussion SO many times with SO many people who watch it and are apalled by show breeders, listen if a breeder doesnt care about the health of a dog-then they are NOT a good breeder.
people listen to this stuff so blindly nowdays "well this docuentary says so-so it must apply to all breeders in that catagory"

why not instead of watching a video, get out and talk to a few good breeders first and see whats REALLY going on...


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

I like both..I still get dogs into rescue that look more like the older style of B.T.'s so it's just a matter of how strong the gene is to produce the nose stop.


----------



## lauren43 (Feb 6, 2011)

I can honestly say I didn't watch the video. I don't mind a documentary pointing out the faults in breeding because they do exist but you can't have a documentary without including the other half of the spectrum. Ppl how care and love their breed from the bottom of their heart and do everything in their power to better the breed and be an ethical breeder.

I will say this. Those breeds like the English bulldog make me sad and as much as I love them I wonder if they should exist. Any and all Brachycephalic breed breeders should be working to help them breathe not make it worse. And GSDs really need a re-assessment as to their hind quarters...the breeders that know about the issues that come with these different conformations and breed for it anyway are the ones I can not stand!


----------



## Liz (Sep 27, 2010)

If people really cared so much they would not purchase these breeds with severe health issues and the breeders would be forced to re evaluate. It is always easy to bash one party but if there were no market then things would change quickly. People need to be responsible for what they are encouraging and promoting. If you want the best then go to a breeder that breeds according to standard for health, temperament and working ability first. Structure (looks) is necessary for work. Bad structure causes health issues. You can't separate the two.


----------



## Sprocket (Oct 4, 2011)

I love this video. It is very eye opening for certain breeds and also points out the fact that you need to consider much more than the cute puppy face, what will make you money or win you that blue ribbon.

I also love the topic of genetic diseases. Many time people who buy from breeders might see the health testing acronyms but not understand it entirely. They need to do more research and learn what affects their breed of choice and what they might have to look forward to if their breeder is not doing their job.


----------



## woganvonderweidenstrasse (Nov 22, 2012)

SaharaNight Boxers said:


> But, form and function go together. The standard for most breeds is a working standard. For example Boxers were bred to be the all around German dog basically after bull baiting and dog fighting. Not as big as a Doberman, more versatile than the German Shepherd (I don't mean this in an insulting way, I don't want a misunderstanding), and more agile than the Rottweiler. A square, compact dog. Working and the standard go hand in hand. There's one Boxer breeder I can think of immediately. She bred the Futurity winner for this year and in that same litter she is currently training two Schutzund prospects. Form and function have to follow one another. Testing for soundness can be seen in the gait. Of course it doesn't cover everything, but you can tell if a dog's angulation is off, something isn't right in the rear, front, etc. If a dog is tripping over himself obviously somethign is off and the dog is't sound. As far as health I can vouch that in Boxers it's normally the most important thing. Not only is lining up faults in conformation important, but so is lining up faults in health testing to produce the healthiest dog possible. And what a dog looks like is important. If I have a Boxer that has a snout as long as a Lab, I would hope someone would realize that's wrong. What a breed looks like is it's stamp. What if a German Shepherd looked like a Boxer?
> 
> What the breed originally looked like is just that, the beginning. It was a rough sketch of what they wanted to create. The creators of a breed knew the first dogs in the breed weren't even close to what they wanted. They knew they were going to have to breed to what they wanted. Honestly in my opinion, saying that a dog doesn't look like what the original breed was supposed to look like can't even be argued or a point. Of course they aren't going to look like what they did in the beginning as the breed continually improves.
> 
> And if you're talking about function for pugs, bull dogs, shar pei's, and the like they were bred to be companions. The short muzzle on Pugs didn't matter, they weren't running all over the contryside, they were sitting at the side of their masters. Owners today expect their dogs to not always do what the breed was designed to do and that's when people complain that the muzzle on their Pug is too short to do agility outside in California or the like. They weren't even bred for it. And it;s interetsing you bring up cow hocks because they're actually preferred for most working, herding breeds.


You are lucky that your breed does not look unsound structurally - I like the look of a boxer. Incorrect breeding also caused other problems that is not visible to the eye. You would know your breed better than me, but I read that they are prone to cancer and epilepsy? I've heard of many, many breeders who will breed father to daughter or mother to son, or even grandfather to granddaughter and so on...this would be illegal in humans so why is it accepted among dog breeding?Surely this can't be healthy. And why do they allow breeders to breed with dogs that's been proven to have a genetic disorder/disease. The Cavalier king Charles that won best in show in Britain was found to have a condition were the brain is to big for the scull and causes them severe headaches and pain. The breeder knew of this and still continued using him and he sired over 30 litters passing this disease to all the puppies he sired. Pugs originally looked like this:









A much healthier looking dog that what you see today. Sure they didn't have a specific purpose, but at least the animal should be able to breath effortlessly? Bull dogs were used to fight bulls - even if they are not used for that anymore today, the form should enable the dog to do what is was initially bred to do. Shar Pei's were used as general herders and hunters in the Chinese countryside.
Cow hocks? I really want to believe what you are saying, but the truth is you will never find a show line GSD in the police force..they use working lines - with straight legs and straight backs, and more recently they've started using the Belgian shepherd, because the German shepherd is no longer up to the task. Von Stephanitz (founder of the GSD) would turn around in his grave if he saw what we were breeding today.


----------



## xchairity_casex (Oct 8, 2011)

Sprocket said:


> I love this video. It is very eye opening for certain breeds and also points out the fact that you need to consider much more than the cute puppy face, what will make you money or win you that blue ribbon.
> 
> I also love the topic of genetic diseases. Many time people who buy from breeders might see the health testing acronyms but not understand it entirely. They need to do more research and learn what affects their breed of choice and what they might have to look forward to if their breeder is not doing their job.


that would be all good and well- if thats what the video were promoting or if thats what most people tok away from watching it- but its not. they are simply trying to bash breeders


----------



## doggoblin (Jun 6, 2011)

I dont see it as pure breeder bashing. What I see is the breeders banding together to hide problems rather than exposing it. It's only a small number of breeds which are really in difficulty. Things are being done about it but there's an attitude of sweeping it under the carpet. That is the main problem. By not pushing visibly for the necessary the majority of good breeders are condoning the bad.

The UK Kennel club, just prior to PDE2 produced the following:
Dogs - A Healthy Future - YouTube

Question of course is why they couldn't produce something until a couple of years after the initial PDE.

It's not a new problem.. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1583599/ in 1962, the issue was also raised in the 1980's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5RMa7AW5u8) and new standards created.. result things continued to get worse.

As it stands Health Tests are being pushed as the solution. They are not. They are a useful tool but not the solution to the core problem.


----------



## Sprocket (Oct 4, 2011)

xchairity_casex said:


> that would be all good and well- if thats what the video were promoting or if thats what most people tok away from watching it- but its not. they are simply trying to bash breeders


They are not bashing breeders. They are "exposing" what people should already be aware of. People think PUREbred, meaning that the dogs are perfect, but they are not. There are many issues that arise with line breeding(inbreeding) and moulding a dog to be a certain way. That "perfection" that is in the show ring is not always what it seems to be.

People need to be aware of that and be smarter and not support breeders that don't do their breed justice.


----------

