# BBC ready to dock Crufts coverage after ‘Nazi-style’ breeding



## domari (Jun 17, 2008)

I'm glad they are doing something to show the public the truth about breeding animals for looks. Hopefully the US media will follow. 

_The RSPCA’s chief veterinary adviser, Mark Evans, told the BBC: “The show world is about an obsession, about beauty, and there is a ridiculous concept that that is how we should judge dogs. 
“It takes no account of temperament or fitness for purpose potentially as a pet animal, and that to me makes no sense at all. It is a parade of mutants; a freakish beauty pageant.”_


http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article4561098.ece


----------



## BabyHusky (Jul 21, 2008)

amen to that.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2008)

Oh give me a break.

The show and working breeders are the ones screening their dogs for hereditary diseases, not Joe Schmoe down the street. Ol' Joe Schmoe there is too worried about money to spend his profit making sure his dogs are healthy and supplying the rescues and shelters with animals to care for. 

What a bunch of BS.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

LPacker79 said:


> The show and working breeders are the ones screening their dogs for hereditary diseases, not Joe Schmoe down the street.


Show breeders are the main cause of the hereditary diseases.


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

Yeah I thought they were the ones breeding bulldogs, pugs, Boston terriers to have super smooshed faces so they can't breathe and snort and snore and have respiratory problems all the time. Or borzois who have noses so long they can't even suckle their mothers. Or chihuahuas who are bred to be so tiny with no regard to personality that they're usually vicious and insane.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

So I have a lot to say about this subject. I recently bred my Great Danes, the litter is about 6 weeks old now. I learned almost everything I know from my mentor, a Dane breeder with about 30 years under her belt, and from numerous text books. I would be considered a "back-yard breeder" to many. There are a few reasons for this. 

One, and most importantly to those who judge, I do not show my dogs. I do not believe in showing. It is all too political and unjust IMO. Both of my Danes are AKC registered, but that is only because it is too hard to find a breeding quality dog that is not AKC, UKC etc, registered nowadays. I do not believe in the AKC and what it stands for. I have never thought that the AKC, or many kennel clubs for that matter, truly care about the dogs they have registered. Registration with a kennel club does not guarantee quality, health, temperment, etc. Registration is just paperwork that tells you that your dogs is purebred, but that is not always the case! Registration papers are so easy to forge its a bit rediculous. I do not think that I need a judge to tell me if my dog is exceptional or not. Most of them give their own biased opinions anyways and pick their favorite breed, not the dog that deserves to win. Instead, I have my dogs temperment tested, trained (both are canine good citizens and therapy dogs at a local nursing home), health checked (hips, eyes, heart, blood, etc) and well socialized (members of one of the largest Dane clubs nationally). They are apart of my family, they are our "kids."

Two, our puppies are not registered. This is because every puppy that we bring into this world is pet only. This correlates to my opinion on showing and the above paragraph. Registration is not needed unless the puppy is going to be shown or bred (in the general public's opinion), and since all of our puppies are pet only, we don't bother with registration. We have the papers and pedigrees to show people that they are in AKC registered parents and are not related in any way, as well as all their health records. I personally think that a pedigree is the number one tool that a breeder can use, along with health checks and temperment testing, and that show titles are just bragging rights. I talked with probably 100 people about our puppies who were interested in adopting one. Almost all of them asked if they were registered or not, and almost all of them did not mind one way or another. I would say that about 98% of people (based on the people that I talked to) were looking for a pet only puppy anyway. Why should a pet-seeking family have to pay thousands of dollars for a potentially unhealthy, ill-tempered "show dog" that has been bred to look good? I am certainly not saying that all show dogs are like that, but you have to admit that some really are that way.

Three, we own both parents and only have this one breeding pair. Most top breeders have multiple breeding/show dogs. We do not breed as a way to make money and its certainly not our "career." Instead, our dogs are our lives! We live and breathe for their well being. We do not treat them as property, but as family. A lot of the breeders that you will come across treat their animals as property, but I am not saying that they do not love and care for their pets. Its just a differece of outlooks on the situation.

On another note, I think that it is absolutely necessary to have a spay/neuter contract on every puppy, no exceptions. To ensure this, I give them $100 back after I see that their puppy has been fixed, which can cover the entire cost of the surgery if they go to the right place (which I recommend to them). I also donate $50 for every puppy to a local rescue of the adopting family's choice to give back to the community. I also volunteer for the local Dane rescue too. How many breeders do you know that do all of this?! I certainly havent met any...

So, IMO I am proud to be what most would call a "back-yard breeder" no matter how much criticism I get!

To get back to the whole reason this thread started, I whole-heartedly agree that there is a huge problem with the entire setup of dog breeding these days. People need to realize what is most important for the *dog*, not for them or their pocket book. I wonder if anything will change after this whole thing?!


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Danemama, I like your philosphy about breeding. Yes, show breeders would definately call you a back yard breeder. I think you are the ideal breeder. The big problem with show breeders and the reason I stated in my previous post about show breeders causing most of the genetic problems in dogs is because their gene pool is closed and so small. The smaller a gene pool, the more genetic problems you are going to have.

The show breeders will only allow their dogs to be bred with other show dogs. They would die before they would allow their precious little show dog breed with an "outsider". This keeps the gene pool small. There are so few show dogs in any breed that is it close to impossible to breed two dogs that aren't related in some way. I suspect, but have no way of proving, that show breeders caused things like hip dysplasia, heart problems, digestive problems, and other such problems by using such a small gene pool. We can thank the pious elitist show breeders for the health problems of our dogs.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> Danemama, I like your philosphy about breeding. Yes, show breeders would definately call you a back yard breeder. I think you are the ideal breeder. The big problem with show breeders and the reason I stated in my previous post about show breeders causing most of the genetic problems in dogs is because their gene pool is closed and so small. The smaller a gene pool, the more genetic problems you are going to have.
> 
> The show breeders will only allow their dogs to be bred with other show dogs. They would die before they would allow their precious little show dog breed with an "outsider". This keeps the gene pool small. There are so few show dogs in any breed that is it close to impossible to breed two dogs that aren't related in some way. I suspect, but have no way of proving, that show breeders caused things like hip dysplasia, heart problems, digestive problems, and other such problems by using such a small gene pool. We can thank the pious elitist show breeders for the health problems of our dogs.


Not to sound full of myself, but most of the people that I have talked to are really glad to find a breeder out there that is not truly backyard or show, which is where I fall. 

I purposely bred our two dogs because they are of different bloodlines! I would have bred out of the color family, but I just love harlequins, but I'm keeping it in mind! Better mix of genes in my opinion. And I agree with what you are saying with a closed gene pool. We only have so little to work with in the first place, so why make it more narrow??? I don't really understand it. 

Im not too sure of how some of the genetic disorders came about, but they are perpetuated throughout the gene pool because of such narrow genetic diversity within breeds, and I guess in part, linebreeding and inbreeding are to blame for this. 

I wonder where the genetic health of our pets will be in the next 100 years?!?!


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2008)

Okay, now that I've actually got time to sit down and type.....

This article to me is extremely swayed, and they're painting the whole industry with one wide brush, which is unfair. There are good and bad apples in everything, and this article says NOTHING about all of the good that the responsible breeders have done. Inbreeding and line breeding in dogs isn't nearly as serious as it's made out to be. I personally wouldn't ever go to a breeder who inbreeds, but I don't have an issue with linebreeding as long as there's a purpose to it. In order to do any kind of linebreeding, you really really have to know what's in that dog's genetic background. Inbreeding and linebreeding don't _cause_ genetic defects, they just bring recessive genes to the forefront. They were there all along, which is why you absolutely need to know the pedigree.

Also, I said "show OR working" breeders. I would NEVER in a million years support a breeder who does nothing with their dogs to prove that they're worthy of passing on their genes. I don't care if it's working (i.e. field trials, schutzhund, mushing) or showing. I would prefer sire and dam be titled on both ends, but that's not always possible considering how much time that takes. Not all dogs like to show, and in that case, they should be evaluated by several outside parties. All people love their dogs, and many are blind to faults. That's why we have judges, and in a perfect world (yeah, right) all opinions would be subjective. 

Like I said, when it comes to genetic defects (cardio, CERF, HD, etc), it's the responsible breeders who are trying to weed it out. The BYBs on the internet classifieds and in the newspaper aren't testing for these things. Don't want to cut in on their profits, dontchaknow!

You all have your opinions, and I have mine. Neither of us will waiver. I've had primarily rescue dogs other than the dogs I had growing up (who were titled show dogs). My next will be a puppy, a doberman, my dream dog. I've got several breeders in mind, and they all show. After that it'll be a rescue dobe.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2008)

danemama08 said:


> I do not believe in the AKC and what it stands for. I have never thought that the AKC, or many kennel clubs for that matter, truly care about the dogs they have registered. Registration with a kennel club does not guarantee quality, health, temperment, etc. Registration is just paperwork that tells you that your dogs is purebred, but that is not always the case! Registration papers are so easy to forge its a bit rediculous.


I agree completely. The AKC isn't in it for the love of dogs, they just want the money out of your pocket. I've heard of several litters registered as a breed other than they are, and done just to prove it could be done. 



> Three, we own both parents and only have this one breeding pair. Most top breeders have multiple breeding/show dogs. We do not breed as a way to make money and its certainly not our "career." Instead, our dogs are our lives! We live and breathe for their well being. We do not treat them as property, but as family. A lot of the breeders that you will come across treat their animals as property, but I am not saying that they do not love and care for their pets. Its just a differece of outlooks on the situation.


Reputable breeders never make money on a litter, they're lucky to break even. Showing, finding the male that complements the female they have (after all, it's highly unlikely that the right male for that particular female belongs to the breeder), health testing, travel, stud fees, shipping fees for the female or AI expenses, time off work (breeding isn't their job, it's a passion), vet fees, etc. all add up. I know several breeders personally who've LOST several thousand dollars on their last couple litters. They even (gasp!) GIVE puppies away if they truly believe that's the right home for one of their pups. Bottom line for most reputable breeders: they're pets first and foremost. Showing is just a way to prove which ones should pass on their genes.



> On another note, I think that it is absolutely necessary to have a spay/neuter contract on every puppy, no exceptions.


 I completely agree with you here, if I hear one more person claim that their puppy has to "pay for himself" I think I'll vomit.



> To ensure this, I give them $100 back after I see that their puppy has been fixed, which can cover the entire cost of the surgery if they go to the right place (which I recommend to them). I also donate $50 for every puppy to a local rescue of the adopting family's choice to give back to the community. I also volunteer for the local Dane rescue too. How many breeders do you know that do all of this?! I certainly havent met any...


Just about all the breeders I'm acquainted with, both online and in real life, are very active in rescue both monetarily and in fostering. 



> So, IMO I am proud to be what most would call a "back-yard breeder" no matter how much criticism I get!


I'm not criticizing you at all, as you're definitely doing positive things by health testing and being active with your dogs in something as well as having your dogs evaluated by another experienced person. I may not agree with all of your philosophies, but you don't exactly fit the definition of "BYB" that most people use.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

LPacker79 said:


> Okay, now that I've actually got time to sit down and type.....
> 
> This article to me is extremely swayed, and they're painting the whole industry with one wide brush, which is unfair. There are good and bad apples in everything, and this article says NOTHING about all of the good that the responsible breeders have done. Inbreeding and line breeding in dogs isn't nearly as serious as it's made out to be. I personally wouldn't ever go to a breeder who inbreeds, but I don't have an issue with linebreeding as long as there's a purpose to it. In order to do any kind of linebreeding, you really really have to know what's in that dog's genetic background. Inbreeding and linebreeding don't _cause_ genetic defects, they just bring recessive genes to the forefront. They were there all along, which is why you absolutely need to know the pedigree.
> 
> ...


I advertised on the web through the local newspaper and internet classifieds, but then again Im technically a BYB, not to mention I have a website How else are people going to know about available puppies and learn about the parents? 

Remember that most people don't go to dog shows so they will not know about the titled dogs or dog showing in general, especially breed standards and conformation (but these are set by kennel clubs and are not necessarily the healthiest option for the dog in question).


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2008)

danemama08 said:


> I advertised on the web through the local newspaper and internet classifieds, but then again Im technically a BYB, not to mention I have a website How else are people going to know about available puppies and learn about the parents?
> 
> Remember that most people don't go to dog shows so they will not know about the titled dogs or dog showing in general, especially breed standards and conformation (but these are set by kennel clubs and are not necessarily the healthiest option for the dog in question).


Most breed clubs have a list of breeders on their website (that you've still got to weed through - just because they're members doesn't necessarily mean they're ethical).

You may be a BYB, however you're a rarity in BYB-dom: you actually health test and have a spay/neuter contract.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

LPacker79 said:


> There are good and bad apples in everything, and this article says NOTHING about all of the good that the responsible breeders have done.


I would like to hear what good the "responsible" breeders have done. Have they eliminated any genetic problems they helped create? What have they done for the general population of their breed? What have they done for the general dog population? 



> Inbreeding and line breeding in dogs isn't nearly as serious as it's made out to be. I personally wouldn't ever go to a breeder who inbreeds, but I don't have an issue with linebreeding as long as there's a purpose to it.


There is no purpose that outweighs the dangers of creating damaged puppies. The only purpose I know for inbreeding or linebreeding (same thing) is to make a more beautiful dog. 



> In order to do any kind of linebreeding, you really really have to know what's in that dog's genetic background. Inbreeding and linebreeding don't _cause_ genetic defects,


They more than double the chances that these defects will happen in any give litter.



> they just bring recessive genes to the forefront. They were there all along, which is why you absolutely need to know the pedigree.


Exactly ... they increase the chances of defects plus ALL the puppies of those litters will have a stronger likelyhood of producing puppies with defects.



> I would NEVER in a million years support a breeder who does nothing with their dogs to prove that they're worthy of passing on their genes.


Prove to who? Any healthy dog is worthy of passing on their genes.



> I would prefer sire and dam be titled on both ends, but that's not always possible considering how much time that takes.


What about a sire or dam who has never been shown but has never produced a defective puppy nor have shown any health defects in themselves?



> Not all dogs like to show, and in that case, they should be evaluated by several outside parties.


I think I would be completely satisfied to evaluate the sire and dam myself. Several outside parties just aren't necessary. BTW: I never buy puppies anyway. All my dogs have been rescues or BYB dogs.



> Like I said, when it comes to genetic defects (cardio, CERF, HD, etc), it's the responsible breeders who are trying to weed it out.


They aren't seriously trying. They are putting on the act that they are.



> The BYBs on the internet classifieds and in the newspaper aren't testing for these things. Don't want to cut in on their profits, dontchaknow!


I know show breeders who have genetically defective dogs who breed them for the same reasons.



> You all have your opinions, and I have mine. Neither of us will waiver.


Hehe, I love to discuss with people who think they will never waiver.


----------



## domari (Jun 17, 2008)

Here's the videos of the BBC show. http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=-1LyjlX4Mp8
There are six parts, so watch them all then see if your views are changed. This is going on in the show community all over the world. 

Everyone here is concerned about feeding the right food to prevent pain and suffering in animals, so why not be concerned about people who breed and mutilate dogs just for looks?

This really angers me, it's being done to dogs and cats, for no good reasons.


----------

