BBC on Purebred dogs

Being from the US I saw the BBC broadcast for the first time this morning and am shocked by what I saw. I am not surprised that there are unethical breeders out there because unfortunately there are. But there are unethical people in any profession. I guess what has upset me the most about this documentary is how one sided it was and the implication that all breeders of purebred dogs are the same. I know a lot of breeders and the ones I associate with are all extremely honest, well versed and concientous about what they do. None of them, myself included would ever breed a dog that has serious genetic faults. In the documentary they interviewed a lady who knew her dog had a serious disease and even bred 26 times after she found out. This to me is an unethical breeder and should be censored by the Kennel Club itself. Mostly in my experience its the back yard breeder who does no research and is in it for the money only that causes a great deal of problems in every breed. Puppy mills also share a great deal of the blame for inherent problems. To have been fair this documentary should have also interviewed those who are responsible breeders and see how much trouble they go to in order to insure their respective breed is kept healthy. I would like to hear thoughts from people and how they feel about this.

Re: BBC on Purebred dogs

Unfortunately, I think the bad outweigh the good to be honest. We see it all the time on Dogsey and it really does get me down.

However most of it is down to education and what's acceptable in society - I've learned so much since starting Dogsey that my views have changed on a number of issues.

I do think we need stricter laws on breeding of animals tho - at the end of the day animals can't defend themselves so it's down to us to do it for them.

Re: BBC on Purebred dogs

I agree completely Azz. Its up to the breeder to ensure that what he or she is doing is being done with all care possible. However the implication that 50 years ago dogs were much different today is not entirely true either. I can trace Cassies linage back 10 generations and if you looked at her and her ancestors you would be amazed at how close she resembles them. But unfortunately not all breeders are as diligent in what they do. It takes me a year sometimes to decide on who I breed to for the very reason I have spoken of. Research and testing. On average I spend several thousand dollars on a dog that I plan to breed beginning at a year old with the penn hip. At two I do the ofa on hips, elbows, pantela, cerf for eyes, and thryoid. Reason is if the penn hip is below the norm then I pull that dog out of the breeding program and have it spayed or neautered and placed in a family home. Not all breeders will go to that extent. But its better to be safe then to take a chance of passing on bad genes. It can be difficult sometimes when a dog is beautiful and borderline but it has to be done.

Re: BBC on Purebred dogs

Steve, let me say first that I haven't been able to see that programme (We don't get all the BBC channels where we are) but it has caused huge controvosy in UK and I think I'm right in saying that the BBC is no longer going to cover the Crufts show (The biggest in UK and known in many countries)

The Kennel Club lodged a compaint after the programme was aired which got a partial apology from the BBC but they basically stood by the programme maker and her team.

There is some talk about licensing breeders but I don't think it will happen any time soon, it would cost money to administrate and the UK is up to it's eyeballs in debt right now so the government won't even consider it.

I think Steve that it all comes down to morals and ones desire to do a good job, if I may say so I have always found the 'American Way' so much better in this respect, one only has to look at some of the magazines to see this, and here I am refering not just to dog publications. The attention to detail, the time spent, the research before publication, all these things leave most UK publications far behind and of course the publishers only reflect the readers.

As you say there are bad breeders everywhere and puppy farmers and BYB's so in the end it comes down to what morals people live by. My own personal opinion is that the media are forever 'dumbing down' and so many people are slaves to what they are brainwashed with in the media.

Only recently we had a big TV company trying to get Dogsey members to participate in a stupid, low class, voyeuristic, programme about pets. I went ballistic and the thread subsequently disappered (I like to think it was because they, the TV company, got a shock because no one had ever talked to them like that, pompous narcissitic morons that they are)

Just carry on doing what you are doing, take as much time and do as much research as you can, learn and keep on learning, and try not to think about all the idiotic money grabbing low lifes there are out there

Re: BBC on Purebred dogs

Harvey, that was a great reply to my post. Thank you. After I saw the documentary I found it hard to believe that soemthing so one side would cause such a controvery. Its sad that Crufts will no longer be aired. Suffice it to say that we are having our problems here as well. I just do not get the logic when they say a desiger (mixed) breed is in the same league as a dog that has been carefully bred by a reputable person. Most of the designer dogs here are coming out of puppy mills and being sold to the very people who are promoting the ire against those of us that try to do the correct thing. Just last week I saw an ad for a cocka-poo what ever that is selling for 2750.00. I rarely get that much for my dogs and I can supply pedigree's most would die for. I guess its each to thier own and like WC Fields said long ago there's a sucker born every minute.

Re: BBC on Purebred dogs

It wasn't a balanced programme imo. There are plenty of people who bred for the wrong reasons (I was shocked to see a thread on our sister site where a stupid woman called her bitch Sellum as she planned to use the poor girl as a moneymaking machine, and a breed that already has horrendous rescue issues and bad press already) there are also plenty of ethical breeders too.

If all prospective owners did a bit of research into the breed they are interested in, health issues, breed characteristics etc and considered what their expectations were. Unethical breeders and puppy farms would not exist, and dogs would not end up in unsuitable homes.

More education is needed!

Re: BBC on Purebred dogs

My overall view at the time was one of extreme gladness that the BBC had had the b******* to air such a programme. In my view, it was long overdue and although I agree very much that there are many ethical breeders out there ... more than unethical ... nonetheless there are well over 2,000 genetic diseases in our pedigree dogs, mostly caused by IMO the revolting practice of inbreeding. Nothing on God's earth will convince me that it is OK to mate brother with sister, cousin with cousin, grandsire to grand-daughter etc. etc., and as all pedigree breeds must be bred within a closed gene pool, then you have your answer as to why we have well over 2,000 genetic diseases. I for one am delighted that Crufts is no longer aired live on the BBC, and I truly hope that the pedigree dog world cleans its act up as a consequence. Unless a rescue, nothing would persuade me to ever purchase a pedigree dog (although I am very tempted by the Alaskan Malamute - I currently have an Alaskan Malamute cross Siberian Husky). I love dogs, am mad about them all, and I hate to see our beautiful breeds being destroyed by poor breeding practice.

Re: BBC on Purebred dogs

Unfortunately there are a lot of these so called breeders giving the decent ones a bad name.

Regarding the selective "fashionable" breeding of certain breeds leading to the mutation of those breeds (Bulldogs, Cavs and others), . . IMO the Kennel Club here is totally responsible.

Their judges IMO need their backsides kicked for allowing things to get so out of hand that even vets are appalled at the state of some breeds.
The situation here could've been avoided if the judges had stuck to breed standards and not to what they thought looked "nice on the day of show" in their opinion.

They (some of the judges) and the KC (they appoint the judges) should hang their heads in shame.

Re: BBC on Purebred dogs

Well said Nero, I quite agree! Take the issue of docking ... I am totally against any docking whatsoever (I don't agree with the argument at all about spaniels getting their tails caught in brambles etc. etc., and I don't agree with removing dew claws either, but I digress) ... I am told that those dogs that traditionally were docked, but are now left entire, such as a Doberman or a Rottie, never do any good in the show ring, in other words the judges (appointed by the KC, as you rightly say) are effectively condoning the continuation of this barbaric practice because people who show their dogs rather understandably want to win and do well with their animals.

I know nothing about the showing world as I love my wolfie crosses, but I have been told this by one or two people I know who show dogs.

Re: BBC on Purebred dogs

The docking ban only came in 2 years ago so there's still a lot of docked dogs in the show ring, the reason they're winning is because in their haste to ban docking the KC have not totally agreed on a tail standard yet IMO.

It just goes to show the KC are a bunch of clowns when 2 years down the road they still can't decide how a tail should look.