Pedigree Dogs Exposed

**Miss Z** · 08-20-2008, 08:00 AM

I wasn't exactly sure where to post this - it does concern dogs, but I thought it may be a bit controversial so I put it here. I'll move it if need be.

Did any UK residents (or anyone else who watches the BBC1 channel) watch a programme called 'Pedigree Dogs Exposed' last night? I found it shocking.

For anybody who doesn't know what I'm talking about, you can watch the full 1 hour documentary here. I really reccommend that you watch it, it is a real eye-opener, BUT I must mention there are some distressing scenes in the programme.

I was sick to my stomach listening to showing breeders condemn 'young' vets for refusing to put down healthy Rhodesian Ridgeback puppies simply because they were born without a ridge. It was even more overwhelming to discover that, up until now, the Kennel Club had encouraged the practice.

Also, looking at how we've squashed and contorted so many breeds, including German Shepherds, pugs, King Charles spaniels and basset hounds, really made me stop and think.

I know that here on this board we always champion shelters and 'good' breeders that love the breed and want to make it better. We always tell people not to breed unless their animals meet a 'breed standard'. But are these 'good' breeders the people on this programme, breeding father to granddaughter, furthering the development of genetic diseases, and creating animals to mirror a 'breed standard' that causes them a life of suffering?

I think we need a new definition of 'good' breeder.

**moosmom** · 08-20-2008, 08:31 AM

Hey Zara,

I got called into work and am running out the door but I will be sure and watch it when I get home. Thanks for posting it!!

Donna

**Catty1** · 08-20-2008, 10:20 AM

Zara - even good breeders have to conform to standards. I think it is the boards or whoever that determine the STANDARDS that should come under fire.

Although...breeders that are greedy won't want to spend the money to feed and raise a "defective" pup.

I wish there could be a national (every country) moratorium on breeding until the shelters empty out....I can dream, can't I?

**IRescue452** · 08-20-2008, 08:02 PM

Truely good breeders are like needles in a haystack. This is why we encourage research, research, and more research into the specific breeder if you choose that route over a rescue dog. Buying a dog from a breeder should take a good amount of time, not just an overnight venture.

**Giselle** · 08-21-2008, 02:56 AM

It's all subjective.

There is no definitive good or bad breeder. There is no definitive natural or unnatural breed. It's all completely subjective and open to your wildest interpretation. If you want to look at it fundamentally, ALL dog breeds are unnatural and to continue such unnatural bloodlines is unethical.

To many people, brachycephalic dogs with short backs, profuse fur, curved legs, and deep chests are abnormal and should not be bred. Yet, I've just described what a Pekingese is. And Pekingese have been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Yet, the modern Pekingese is a far cry from the olden Pekingese. Before modern Pekingese were molded into the hairy furballs of today, they looked like Ah Cum:

Yesterday's Pekingese did not have the coat, nor the legs, nor the nose, nor the backs of today's Pekingese. So how do we evaluate this? Is this normal? Does it fit your definition of normal or are these physical attributes hindrances? Are modern Peke breeders only breeding a bunch of deformed congenital defects? Should the breed be eliminated?

This is an extremely common trend with ALL breeds. German Shepherd are supposed to look like this:

Now, they look like this:

And for what purpose? For conformational purposes? For a flying gait to pizazz the pants of a judge within a 30 second time frame?

The whole fancy of dogdom needs to be re-evaluated, IMO. There are serious flaws within conformation. While I love dog shows deeply and was close to many Peke breeders/handlers, I've come to view the conformation ring with a tinge of disdain. What has been done to these dogs is all subjective, but in MY opinion, something drastic needs to happen. In my opinion, there are very very very few truly reputable breeders left in this world.

Most, if not all, breeders inbreed. Whether you think it's a good or bad thing is up to you. Whether you think a standard causes mental/physical suffering is your prerogative. Good breeders try not to further congenital defects, but even a great breeder will not spay/neuter her winningest dogs because a single puppy got cancer or hip dysplasia.

And so that begs the question: are we breeding for our benefits or for the dogs'? I do believe in furthering breeds, but I believe we have lost sight of our original, honorable intentions.

**Whisk_Luva** · 08-21-2008, 04:27 AM

Yeah, I saw that too.

I thought the king charles spaniel thing was awful... how could anyone breed a dog with that... its so cruel to the pups

It was interesting when they did the skull things as well showing how much the dogs had changed.

The kennel club really needs to change some things in my opinion- especially the ridgebacks....

Really makes you think.... dont think I will be able to watch crufts again without thinking about that show.....

**Catlady711** · 08-21-2008, 08:07 AM

I haven't seen the documentary yet, but when I have a bit more time I'll watch it.

Since someone already mentioned something about skulls. I have noticed that certain large breeds (GSD, Rott, Collie, Lab) used to have MUCH larger heads 25-30 years ago and seemed to be more stable, family dogs. Now what I'm seeing at work most of the time, the dogs have much smaller, narrower heads and are flighty, nervous, hyper, and unpredictable temperments, not all but a very high percentage. The few that come in that still have the larger wider heads seem to be more like the dogs I remember from the past.

**Miss Z** · 08-21-2008, 08:53 AM

Giselle, I agree 100% with you.

It's wonderful that we have such a variety of breeds, but if we are creating animals with looks in mind over health - well, maybe we should not allow a breed like that to continue.

Danny the peke, Crufts winner in 2003 (and featured in the documentary), looked more akin to a dustball than a dog. If that's a 'beautiful' creature, then beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder. The poor guy had to sit on an ice-pack to have his winner's photograph taken in case he over-heated, and it looked to me like his face was so squashed up that he couldn't even get his tongue out his mouth to pant.

Ellie, I too found the images of the affected King Charles harrowing, as well as the epileptic boxer - simply awful. I can't imagine how much pain his owners must feel everytime they see their dog fit.

Catlady, you are very right - in the documentary it mentions that breeds like the King Charles spaniel now have skulls too small for their brains, and because the brain is so squashed up it is unable to pulsate as blood flows through it, which leads to such awful brain and nervous conditions. The only hope for affected animals is to have the back of their skull removed to give the brain room, but the procedure has a high mortality rate.

**Giselle** · 08-23-2008, 03:39 AM

So just for kicks and giggles (or sad and remorseful kicks and giggles), let's share what breeds looked like back then (how they were supposed to look) and how they do now:
Pekes

German Shepherd Dog

Doberman Pinscher (Dobes don't count as much because they've been crossed with many breeds over time, but you get the idea)

Rottweiler

Labrador Retriever

**Giselle** · 08-23-2008, 04:02 AM

Pomeranian

Need I go on?

Shows are meant to preserve breeds as they were originally meant to function. Do you feel like this is truly preserving the breed?

On the OTHER hand, there are dogs who have been bred to maintain their original functions:

Greyhound

(Westy Whizzer ~1960's)

(HB's Commander ~1980-1990. Virtually unchanged)

Saluki (just imagine it with all the hair)

So what are we doing with some and not others that causes such a dramatic difference in form and health???

**Miss Z** · 08-23-2008, 11:59 AM

Add to that list, the pug....

.... is now this.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2005/...g?v=1204434008

**cali** · 08-23-2008, 06:48 PM

the original BC, Old Hemp

Wiston cap, the father of todays working BC

working BC now

now...a show BC
this was the BOB winner at the world dog show this year
http://www.tkdogs.com/dog/database/I...kory+Incognito

**IRescue452** · 08-23-2008, 11:51 PM

Last time I was watching a dog show I was wondering how obesity became a dog breed standard for pugs, pekes, norfolk and norwich terriers, westies and so on. Why do they have to be fat? I see plenty of skinny pugs at the dog park, but not at shows.

**CathyBogart** · 08-24-2008, 01:13 PM

Working in a vet clinic I don't think I EVER saw a pug that wasn't fat fat FAT! It made me so sad. There are two that come to my dog park that are in great shape, and I always say something to the owners about how wonderful they look....it's pathetic IMO that we have bred them to the point where fat is "normal".

Brachycephalic syndrome breaks my heart too. Pugs and Pekes in particular have a very special spot in my heart for their wonderful temperaments, but the problems we've bred into them in the name of good looks....it's awful.