# Pedigree dogs exposed BBC 1 19th August



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

This program is quite the talk of the dog community atm and the KC has already released a statement condemning it

*Tuesday August 19th on BBC 1 at 9:00pm*

===========================================

This in-depth investigation into the health of pedigree dogs examines the level of inherited disease and other welfare concerns in man's best friend, featuring strong testimony from experts. 
It reveals the surprising historical reasons that have contributed to problems in some breeds and explores what might be done to tackle these serious and debilitating health issues.

============================================

KC statement below

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1976/23/5/3

============================================

From what I have been told it covers the genetic health problems seen in a few breeds we have personally owned in the past, so I am quite curious as to what the KC and breeders are up in arms about over it.


----------



## KayC (May 3, 2005)

I wonder if it will be on in the states. I'll have to check it out.


----------



## furriefriend (Jul 25, 2008)

There have been quite a few comments about prog on champ dogs website 
if you are interested google champdogs forum


----------



## freedomchis (Jul 28, 2007)

i have it booked to remember to watch it 
checking out champ dogs thanks for the info


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

*bump* it's on tonight and if you have seen any of the news coverage it could cause big changes

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...ows-Pedigree-Problems/Article/200808315081922

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7569521.stm


----------



## Jayne (Jul 8, 2005)

Looks like its going to be a good program


----------



## freedomchis (Jul 28, 2007)

its really interesting i felt so sorry for that little cavie 
but i am looking forward to watching the program tonite does anyone know if there is chihuahuas on it??


----------



## Jayne (Jul 8, 2005)

OMG it is SO sad  I am balling my eyes out. Those poor cavaliers  poor poor babies shouldnt suffer like that.


----------



## Pat Ross (Feb 3, 2008)

Hi 
I am also crying, I know cavs have heart problems, but that was so sad to watch, and the poor GSD with those back legs,


----------



## Maleighchi (Jan 6, 2008)

I wanted to see it, but it doesn't look like I get BBC.  Drats.


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

This is why I said get your Cavaliers health tested before you breed! but at least now everyone can see why I said SM is crippling the breed. 

What hurts is I grew up knowing a lot of those people


----------



## sullysmum (Mar 6, 2004)

Very very sad, those poor dogs and ignorant breeders!


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2008)

I am so mad right now  

I'd like to hear the opinions of some of the breeders on here that watched the show, just to hear what their opinions of the program was.


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

For anyone who missed it, it's on iplayer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00d4ljk/b00d4l8y/


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2008)

I was DISGUSTED by some peoples attitudes on that programme last night, sorry if that offends anyone, but mY GOD what are they playing at?

To BREED 34 litters (or more) after your dog is diagnosed with that cavie condition, in my eyes, is appalling.
And for the few cavaliers I saw, why are the owners letting them suffer that much for that long?
It was heart breaking to watch that, and yes I cried too.

And those poor GSD, how can anyone HONESTLY think it good practice to breed AND SHOW (and let them WIN) with hips like those?

It made me so angry as well, listening to the head of the KC going on about he wont listen to scientists and will allow father to daughter breeding etc.
As I see it, it is the scientists who have the knowledge to proove in-breeding passes on these conditions.

And when he was questioned about stopping breeders breeding from dogs that have problems, or being more strict with breeders, he as much said we'd rather have the money coming in from bad breeders than get stricter and loose those bad breeders.

It has really made me think if I want to show/breed in the future at all now. I feel so strongly that I want nothing to do with the KC. I simply dont agree with what they seem to now stand for.

Surely they should be promoting health over beauty, and I really feel sad that they dont seem to stand for that anymore.

It is terrible what the KC is allowing to happen


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2008)

This is what me and Sarah have been trying to say for a while, I'm glad the show was on and makes people realise that KC isn't all it's made up to be  and that breeders who inbreed their dogs are not doing the right thing, it's not ok, no matter how long you have been breeding or showing for. It's just wrong.


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2008)

Seems to be some breeders saying the programme was rubbish, on a lot of other forums. 
Ok it might not have given much of the other side of the story, but it did not say all pedigree dogs have health problems, just that we are over breeding and causing many many problems that will evnetually cripple breeds, as in the cavaliers.

I agree jojobean, the kc is NOT what it's made up to be. I already decided previously that the accredited breeder scheme was a diabolical sham, now i think much the same of the whole KC TBH


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2008)

TBH really the only good KC dog you are going to get, and it's still not guaranteed, is going to be one thats been bred to work, not show. I don't think you get many chihuahuas bred to work :lol:


----------



## pompom (Oct 1, 2007)

That programme made me mad, some people are so ignorant.


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2008)

lol, what work could a chihuahua do?

It opened my eyes to the KC, i'll be looking around other dog related forums etc finding out more about what other people think of the KC. I think KC could stand for komplete crap (Yes i know it not spelt that way lmao)


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

Breeders would rubbish it, because at the end of the day if they have to compulsory health test it costs THEM more money to produce a litter. Point is they are breeding dogs with genetic and hereditary faults because they don't want to loose BREEDING STOCK. If they have to screen all of their dogs do you think they'd all pass? No so what are they going to, basically find homes for then all an with a good stud dogs fee's being £400 - £1000 a go of course a lot of them are going to lie about it having a problem they still get their money. The same with the KC they'll register anything because it gives them money they don't care what it is.

I myself am more appalled with the southern counties cavalier club as I was a member for a very long time, and I know at times they allowed dogs with temperament issues to slip through the net and be used in breeding if the dog had amazing confirmation but not a genetic illness that brings about pain and suffering. How can people say they love animals and allow that to happen?

The KC needs to recheck a lot of it's breed standards and decide what is for the welfare of the dogs and what isn't and they need to reign in the damn breed clubs who are letting people 'play god' because they can, I'm sick of hearing breeders say because I've bred for years I know of course they don't know unless they have scientific back up.

Whats wrong is these bad breeders who don't care do give the few who do care a bad name  but health testing should be done and like Sweden we should ban inbreeding, it's not needed and it's lazy on the breeders part because an outcross then takes longer to produce a dog to the 'type' they want. Health should be paramount not how pretty a dog is and it doesn't seem to be going that way anymore.

The point is if these breeders love their dogs and their breed they should all be working together to KEEP THE BREED ALIVE!! and create healthy dogs, I thought that was the point of showing to provide the healthiest dogs for breeding and furthering the breed, not genetically ill train wrecks that are covered by a nice shell so they're ok to breed! It's the same with temperament people should care about what they are breeding not just that they can. I hope the KC bloody sorts itself out atm because it's coming across as a just greedy, they all are.


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2008)

I agree Sarah,
i was thinking much the same thing, about the breeders protesting perhaps being because theyre worried about their profits or because theyve in-bred themselves.

It is about time people stood up and told the truth about these issues.

How the head of the KC can say the scientists are wrong is beyond me, I mean theyre the people who KNOW about genetics etc!

I was appalled at the breeders on last nights show, the ones who will not listend to reason. Obviously far too many breeders care more about the money than the health of the dog.

I Wonder if there is some sort of petition related to last nights show? Say - to stop in-breeding and bring in compulsory health tests.

The KC as good as said they would rather have LOTs of breeders who are bad breeders than have less "members" !!! :foxes15:

How on earth can these people call themselves animal lovers and breed dogs like this and let dogs suffer like that? Have they no sense of moral right and wrong?


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

They aren't animal lovers that's kinda the point we've been trying to press forward for a long time, it's all about money and personal vanity often at the expense of the animals they own  

Breeders don't want to do these tests because they lose money and they also hate being told they're wrong because they've bred for years. Well they are wrong or don't a lot of the statistics prove it, much like when people say they won't get health tests done, the only reason they won't is because they have something to hide.

The show ring is very competitive and a lot of people will do anything to win, why do you think it's so bitchy? And when you look at the prices for a good stud dog on fee's it all starts to make sense as to why they act like it, PERSONAL VANITY, PLAYING GOD AND COLD HARD CASH

New KC statement below, I can't really see how the KC can get out of this unless they look into some of the breed standards and reign in the bad breeding practices in the breed clubs, and ENFORCE health testing unless they won't issue paperwork.

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1995/23/5/3


----------



## Keeffer (Feb 26, 2008)

I really wanted to see it. But uhm, I forgot.


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2008)

That seems a massive grey area within the kc, all this harping on theyre doing (the KC that is) about breed tests being around for years etc, but theyre not enforced. So yes, some are there, but nobody HAS to do them, so most people arent. As you rightly say due to loss of profits.


----------



## pompom (Oct 1, 2007)

I will never and i mean never, after watching that show, buy an untested or interbred dog!


----------



## pompom (Oct 1, 2007)

Them poor pugs, when the champion pug breeder said they cant breathe when they get excited, but its okay they just pass out and wake up fine, im sorry but that is not normal! Poor Puggies!


----------



## Chigang (May 15, 2007)

Well I can not believe how these breeders think, anyway it seems when people keep going about getting ''good pup'' from a breeder and only kc ones, in my eyes it seems to get kc one could be getting a dog which all these problems breed into them.

I have admit I am really concidering not KC freg my pups anymore as I am just paying for the KC to carry on as they are and I do not agree with it.


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

Apparently since this morning there have been a few Cav's dumped at rescue  this is a sad day for the breed. 

I also just found out the dog with SM was related to my old girl further back in the line, but at least that was before we knew about SM, but she did develop a heart murmur later on in life. I honestly am hoping they sort themselves out and bring the Cavie back to it's full health again but with the current health stats I'm not sure what may happen to them.

I do think people are going about it the wrong way, apparently puppies are being returned and people are canceling on pedigree pups they've reserved. Shouldn't they be asking about more health testing and pushing that not condemning pedigree dogs, they need to change the ethics of some breed clubs and actually care about what they are doing. The KC needs to do something!!


----------



## jesshan (Sep 15, 2005)

I hope this isn't going to turn into some sort of witch hunt for all the "pet" breeders to attack the "show" breeders. I don't think there are actually many show breeders who will speak up anyway and as Jodie wanted show people opionions I will give mine:

IMO I thought the program was VERY one sided, they have tarred ALL breeders with the same brush. 

It was a totally biased and prejudiced opinion. They were only out to totally slate exhibitor breeders – they have probably undone in one hour what has taken us years to build up – reputations!

What are they trying to say; that a pedigree dog is deformed because it has epilepsy or a skin allergy!!! All due to in breeding? Are they mental?? Does this mean that a human who suffers from hay fever, epilepsy or eczema is “in bred?” or "deformed"

Do they not know what happens to the mongrels which runs the streets and gets caught by another stray dog…….they either get abandoned or downed….the difference with this “culling” is that a show breeder will take a pup to the vets to be euthanised not put in a bucket or a bin bag. Whilst I DO NOT condone what is done to the ridgebacks without a ridge, it is perhaps something which sometimes has to be done. (I don't know enough about them to actually comment) 

Why didn’t they show the problems with cross breeding – eye problems, hearing etc. They didn’t show the problems that the pure white dogs have such as boxers, GSD or Dally’s. They didn’t say the reason why a lot of the white ones are put to sleep - being blind and/or deaf. Why didn’t they hammer breeders of these colours which WOULD NOT be bred by exhibitors because they are not a recognised colour within the KC because of health problems.

They didn’t say whether the boxer breeder was from show lines or just someone who “bred for the money” however they did tell the world that the pug was from a show breeder. This tells me that the boxer wasn’t – they didn’t say whether both the boxer and pug breeder have been told and what they did regarding the lines. I know that I have only once in the past had a bitch with PL, she was neutered as were her only 2 puppies – END OF LINE! 

Would they have known the pug had problems had it not been x-rayed as part of the program. 

Granted I understand that some of the breeds such as GSD back ends are ridiculous but this does not mean that ALL pedigree breeds are bad.

I did think that the cavi breeder was appalling, again giving show breeders a bad name - the BBC however they seem to think that this has been a well known problem for decades.
They indicated that the Cavi’s illness has been known for YEARS, sorry but I think it has only been highlighted in the last year or so. How about the KC pulling up its socks and making ALL breeders (both show and pet) complete basic tests before breeding like they do overseas – it might stop all these BYB from breeding puppies and cross breeds. 

I KNOW I WOULD COMPLETE TESTING ON ALL OF MY DOGS IF IT WAS COMPULSORY. I have actually already enquired about PL testing and what the process is.

They are claiming that crossbreeds are supposed to be more healthy – where is their proof? Where did the cross breed originate from.....What is to stop a cross breed from inbreeding anyway - the stray in the street woudldn't say "oh sorry, you are my mother, I can't possibly mate you what would the BBC say?"


----------



## bindi boo (Jul 2, 2008)

oooh gosh i posted about this on another forum... i cant stand what the kc are encouraging  heres what i worte on the other site save me typing out what i think again lol

did any of you watch pedigree dogs expsed tonight?? what a shocker i thought they would be praising the kennel club and now i know just how bad they are.. they are continuosly breeding unhealthy dogs and saying that is how the breed standard HAS to be.. the pug the pekinese and the bulldog. all three of these breeds are dying on their families quite often because they have been bred and bred to make their noses shorter. now breeders knowing this they continue to do it.. their noses are so short they just cant breathe right and they pass out a number of times a day in hot weather with some of these dogs..

the cavalier why do they bother testing their dogs if they aint going to listen to the vets.. the vet told one woman NOT to breed her male cavalier EVER because he had a very painful inherited condition.. this dog was able to win crufts with the judges knowing of its condition therefore became a very popular stud dog and sired 34 litters. times that by the average litter of 6 and you have ALOT OF VERY POORLY PUPPIES. how can they claim to love animals if they are gonna put them through this.. it told of loads of pedigree dogs being bred to standards.. these standards are causing breeds such as the cavalier and boxers brains to grow bigger than their skull. giving them fits (that was sooo upsetting because watching the boxer fit reminded me of when kenzo died in my arms same thing happened to him) they are having neuriogical (sp?) problems and are generally breeding unhealthy dogs because it is the breed standard. TO HELL IS IT BREED STANDARD ...IT IS KC STANDARD AND IT KNOCKS ME SICK.. i am now more than glad i chose angel (my unregistered cavalier) seems they are loved and bred much better than these show dogs..

the german shephards have been bred to have a slanted back they can barely walk.... this is breed standard they say.. ok now date back german shephard are NOT supposed to have slanted back and hip problems they seemed in a lot of pain.. if you look at a working police dog or any form of working gsd. they DO NOT HAVE SLANTED BACKS.... so plese explain to me how this is breed standard..



now the one that got me most is the ridgebacks.... the ridge in their back causes them pain ect later on in life it causes them a lot of problems and they are still being bred this way... the kc is encouraging this with their bullshit about breed standards.. now why does a dog have to be unhealthy and hurting to be breed standard. i dont understand that at all. you know the kc club and the breeders actually stated that they do a cull of any ridgebacks born without the ridge.. ok soooo WHY THE HELL!!! they breed a litter of puppies put the UNHEALTHY ONES INTO SHOW AND KILL THE HEALTHY ONES in what universe does that make sense..



i am sooo sorry for my rant what do you all think about this.. its so disturbing to think that a club with so much encouragment towards this type of breeding is named as reputable...


----------



## bindi boo (Jul 2, 2008)

btw on the other forum some people thought what i was saying is about breeders and that... its not.. its alll the kc that im raged at right now and of course the individuals who do follow it.. i hate that the kc are encouraging this kinda breeding and telling people thats how the animals are supposed to be. nothing against breeders


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

bindi boo said:


> btw on the other forum some people thought what i was saying is about breeders and that... its not.. its alll the kc that im raged at right now and of course the individuals who do follow it.. i hate that the kc are encouraging this kinda breeding and telling people thats how the animals are supposed to be. nothing against breeders


But didn't you previously state you wanted to breed your Cavalier? the question is would you honestly do it now without the 3 health checks that are needed? 

The KC is a problem but the breeders are a bigger problem in ignoring health problems! I don't personally see how a mongrel is any different than a pedigree dog if the health checks have not been taken. What I always thought separated KC show breeders from BYB's was health checks, now I know some check their dogs but breeding a dog that you KNOW is sick is an outrage just because it's a beautiful dog.

People appear to not be highlighting the problem here which is health checks and genetics, the gene pools are too small in some breeds we already know that which will now become smaller anyway if health checks are imposed. The point is breeding healthy, typey dogs that aren't over exaggerated not dogs because they are pretty like I see far too often


----------



## *Chloe* (Feb 6, 2006)

bindi boo said:


> i am now more than glad i chose angel (my unregistered cavalier) seems they are loved and bred much better than these show dogs..


i dont really think that is generally the case, there are good and bad show breeders and there are good and bad pet breeders - alot of unregistered dogs have genetic health issues too - i mean most probably Twig's breeder bred her parents knowing one/both of them has a Patella Luxation which is genetic and has passed it down to Twig and however many other litters :angryfire:


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2008)

I'm pretty sure they did show about problems pure white dogs have 

I think the show was very good and I don't see how anyone can complain about a show like that. Breeders need to change and if by people watching the show it makes them only want healthy dogs maybe the breeders will change. Some show breeders are pretty much all about supply and demand, they want the best looking puppy, or the puppy with the best pedigree and they don't care if it will have problems.

I just don't get why all breeders don't get their dogs health checked, is it really all about costs? I thought they were supposed to be trying bettering the breed. Wouldn't that mean getting them checked for genetic things? Even if it's not compulsory? WTF why does it need to be made compulsory before people will actually breed responsibly.

I had Roxy and Macky health checked before breeding them and I wasn't even breeding for show dogs, not that it should make a difference. Is it really all about profit?

On a unrelated note, Denise, you bred Brad with his mum, yes, the first time was accidental but then you did the mating again because "The puppies looked good" Were your reasons for doing this purely about good looking puppies? Breeding a mother with her son is wrong. This isn't a dig BTWI just want to understand exactly why people inbreed.


----------



## Maleighchi (Jan 6, 2008)

*Sarah* said:


> For anyone who missed it, it's on iplayer
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00d4ljk/b00d4l8y/


 It won't let me watch it here in the states.


----------



## Maleighchi (Jan 6, 2008)

I found it on you tube for those that want to watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1LyjlX4Mp8


----------



## furriefriend (Jul 25, 2008)

Well found be interested to know what non Brits think about this.
Most of the dog forums are really upset by the content and the comments of the KC---( ineffectual )and certainly the actions of the majority of the breeders shown--( appaling)


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2008)

I think there is to much inbreeding going on in all breeds... And the KC need to look at this and stop the breeding of mother to son and father too daughter.....like the reporter said would you have a baby with your daughter.......I don't think so........As a show breeder i would not do this breeding...............people are trying to breed the perfect dog without thinking about the damage that could Come out of the future prodigy like the poor bulldog that cannot have pups without a C section.........And has for the cavalier breeder that used her stud dog 34 time knowing he had a neurological condition wants shooting................ there will be alot of worried cavalier breeder with puppies by this dog poor little babies.........


----------



## chibellaxo (Jul 6, 2008)

sunshine45 said:


> I think there is to much inbreeding going on in all breeds... And the KC need to look at this and stop the breeding of mother to son and fater too daughter.....like the reporter said would you have a baby with your daughter.......I don't think so........


i used to be so offended when someone mentioned that my chi is going to be some inbred, but then i learned what linebreeding was. i heard that breeding within the family was the only way to establish a line, though. Maybe father to daughter isnt acceptable but I heard that in the breeding world, breeding grandfather to grand daughter or aunt to nephew was actually common-- and even encouraged because it helps you keep the features you like in your dogs (and because youre making your own lines) you know what kind of genetic diseases could crop up in future generations. Of course, i dont know many people who would want to sleep with their grandfathers or aunts, either... no, offense to breeders but i find the whole thing gross. So, i just try not to think about it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2008)

I like to do a total outcross with some of my dogs i call it fresh blood


----------



## jesshan (Sep 15, 2005)

JoJoBean said:


> I'm pretty sure they did show about problems pure white dogs have
> 
> I think the show was very good and I don't see how anyone can complain about a show like that. Breeders need to change and if by people watching the show it makes them only want healthy dogs maybe the breeders will change. Some show breeders are pretty much all about supply and demand, they want the best looking puppy, or the puppy with the best pedigree and they don't care if it will have problems.
> 
> ...


I thought that they just informed viewers that white dogs were destroyed but did not state the reason why these dogs were destroyed. I could be wrong and will rewatch it as I SKY+ it. 

I think the prgram enlightened people to problems within specific breeds but it also implyed that ALL breeds had severe health problems when they don't. It tarred ALL show breeders with the same brush.

I don't know of any breeders who breed to "order" so how can it be supply and demand. I never take names or deposits or for that matter advertise my puppies on the internet. I have show dogs, and retired dogs but most of all they are my pet dogs. I don't part with my dogs when they too old to breed from or don't want to show any more. I keep them to the end.

Anyone can have their dog checked over for basic health checks - I do get them checked out myself and MOST breeders do. However there are no checks for PL. I would do it without a shadow of a doubt and have already been looking into testing like they do in Europe for Patellas. If it was all about the profit we would ALL be selling our puppies without vaccinations and at 7-8 weeks old. I do not however come under that catagory.

I wondered how long it would be before you singled me out again Jodie. The initial mother/son mating I had was a total accident however I DID NOT repeat it because they just "LOOKED GOOD" I repeated the mating because the result was 2 VERY soundly constructed, healthy, typey puppies. The 2nd mating did the same, there were no mutated or deformed puppies in the litter and trust me, I would be the first to say if there was - I don't hide things.

You could do a total outcross and have a MASSIVE disaster, if you know what problems you have in your lines breeding shouldn't be a problem. 

I have now done line breeding, in breeding and total outcrossing. So I presume that makes me a bad breeder?


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2008)

jesshan said:


> I have now done line breeding, in breeding and total outcrossing. So I presume that makes me a bad breeder?



No, just in the inbreeding. You didn't wait for the puppies to get old enough before you redid the breeding, how can you know the puppies are all ok?

And you said to me on MSN that you redid the breeding because the puppies looked good.


----------



## chibellaxo (Jul 6, 2008)

JoJoBean said:


> I'm pretty sure they did show about problems pure white dogs have
> 
> I think the show was very good and I don't see how anyone can complain about a show like that. Breeders need to change and if by people watching the show it makes them only want healthy dogs maybe the breeders will change. Some show breeders are pretty much all about supply and demand, they want the best looking puppy, or the puppy with the best pedigree and they don't care if it will have problems.
> 
> ...


wait. back up. i thought show breeders always tested their mating pairs and that was why to buy from one was so expensive. i may not have watched that show but this thread alone has taught me a lot. this makes me sad. I naively thought show breeders could be trusted...i hope i misunderstood and that most show breeders ( except those who are obviously mills i.e Davishall) do health check their dogs...cause that is so shady to charge so much if the dogs werent even genetically tested...because when i talk to show breeders, they always talk about "wonderful pedigrees." Im buying a pet not a show dog. Therefore, i assumed they meant a line with very little health issues.


----------



## jesshan (Sep 15, 2005)

JoJoBean said:


> No, just in the inbreeding. You didn't wait for the puppies to get old enough before you redid the breeding, how can you know the puppies are all ok?
> 
> And you said to me on MSN that you redid the breeding because the puppies looked good.


It was a figure of speech - obviously you are taking EVERYTHING literally. I will ask how do you know I haven't waited until the puppies were old enough before I redid the breeding? How long do you have to wait until you know the puppies are OK - from the first litter I kept 2, neither have yet been bred from yet. The 2nd litter I kept 3 none of them have yet been bred from either. I don't sell everything I have just for the money.

Once again, I feel that you are singling me out to have a go or are you just trying to get the other members on here to turn against me?


----------



## jesshan (Sep 15, 2005)

chibellaxo said:


> wait. back up. i thought show breeders always tested their mating pairs and that was why to buy from one was so expensive. i may not have watched that show but this thread alone has taught me a lot. this makes me sad. I naively thought show breeders could be trusted...i hope i misunderstood and that most show breeders ( except those who are obviously mills i.e Davishall) do health check their dogs...cause that is so shady to charge so much if the dogs werent even genetically tested...because when i talk to show breeders, they always talk about "wonderful pedigrees." Im buying a pet not a show dog. Therefore, i assumed they meant a line with very little health issues.


In the UK there ARE no health tests compuslory I wish there was because I definately would take them.

Ah "Davishall" we have all heard of Wade Davis and the auctions. Don't tar all breeding with the same brush as him though. 

Taking them to the vets to have a general "health check" before breeding is all you can do because they don't do any full testing - I do think that people who know their lines however know a bit more background than someone who doesn't.


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

In all honesty Denise I doubt anyone is being singled out here besides we know that you are the only person who posts here who does actively inbreed her dogs. 

The point of the program last night was to highlight how breeders do actively inbreed their dogs and due to this the medical problems that have surfaced. As for knowing age it is a known fact that with inbred dogs the medical problems often surface in later generations with reduced immune systems and other medical problems. As for age a lot of medical disorders don't surface until after a dog is over 2 years of age or that they have been bred from (you yourself said you don't always know they have PL until you have bred the bitch). The problem with current breeding practices is the gene pools are tiny as it is all 3 of my dogs are related to each other further back by one dog or another and that begs a tiny gene pool. 

Point is when you originally did that breeding you didn't know what you were going to produce and were actively 'playing god' with that litter, as with the second you could easily have ended up with a problem ,or alternatively something may not have surfaced yet. Now I beg to ask unless you have a PhD in Genetics HOW can you say that there is 100% chance all generations related to that litter will be completely healthy due to the risk you took in breeding them. 

Is it really unnecessary when we now have a world wide resource for import and export. why shrink the gene pool even further? Doesn't line breeding limit the genes enough without active mother to son, father to daughter or sibling matings? I also doubt this practice would have been banned from the Swedish kennel club if it was seen as 'ok' to do.


----------



## jesshan (Sep 15, 2005)

*Sarah* said:


> In all honesty Denise I doubt anyone is being singled out here besides we know that you are the only person who posts here who does actively inbreed her dogs.
> 
> The point of the program last night was to highlight how breeders do actively inbreed their dogs and due to this the medical problems that have surfaced. As for knowing age it is a known fact that with inbred dogs the medical problems often surface in later generations with reduced immune systems and other medical problems. As for age a lot of medical disorders don't surface until after a dog is over 2 years of age or that they have been bred from (you yourself said you don't always know they have PL until you have bred the bitch). The problem with current breeding practices is the gene pools are tiny as it is all 3 of my dogs are related to each other further back by one dog or another and that begs a tiny gene pool.
> 
> ...


Sorry Sarah but every oppertunity Jodie gets to stick the knife in she does. No one except Jodie mentioned the fact that I had "in bred" however she, once again, went out of her way to make me the bad guy in this.

I have only done it in the last 2 years NEVER prior to that, I do feel that I have the experience and the quality of dogs to have done it though. I did not do it with average dogs or dogs with severe faults. 

Currently I have not had ANY medical problems with any of them so how can you say that due to this breeding medical problems have surface. As both of the parents have had their legs checked (not fully tested) but the vets said there isn't any movement in them, it is unlikely that they will have PL, severe PL generally comes through at a much earlier age too. Only slight PL will come out at a later age such as 2. What other problems am I likely to encounter after the age of 2?

Obviously I am about to be shot at by most on this forum once again. Nice to see that the BBC have managed to make me out to be a bad breeder.


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

I never once used the phrase bad breeder? I asked why it was done with the gene pool in chihuahua's is renowned for being tiny as it is.

What I said was you were willing to take a risk with that litter and I guess as a 'dog lover (which I know you will take the phrase the wrong way) I can't understand sacrificing any living creature for that or on the off chance there could be problems. As for the risks after 2 depleted immune systems, higher risk of cancer and other immune deficiencies not to mention as I did say previously that it is known to not necessarily surface in the initial crossing but later litters are known to suffer. Not necessarily conditions usually associated with the breed itself can be brought on by too small a gene pool.

What I asked was why do it? what were your ethics behind it when you could technically find a nice line related stud? First time ok an accident but it didn't need to be repeated or aren't you then making the genes within your line too close and you're going to need to out cross all your dogs next time?


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2008)

Your first litter was born 14/03/2006, second litter 14/05/2007, so the first pups were only 14 months old. How can you know there is nothing wrong with them at 14 motnhs old 

I'm not digging at you, I'm digging at people who inbreed.


----------



## pompom (Oct 1, 2007)

I really hope i dont make any enemys or such by this, but i do generally feel by reading this, that Denise is being Digged, as she has been on a couple of other threads.
As my mother always said if you have nothing nice to say, then dont say anything atall.
And i do not wish to get involved or in a riot, but this is just my opinion and how it has come across to me, Sorry to affend anyone


----------



## freedomchis (Jul 28, 2007)

poppy i was just about to say the same thing if jodie hasnt got it in for denise why is she checking up the dates of litters that denise has had??
also i have noticed this in other threads too

i have stayed out of this thread because i havent bred a dog myself so i dont know exactly what to say


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2008)

The puppies are related to my male dog WTF why would I have anything against Denise? I don't I just have a thing against in-breeding. I didn't "check up" the DOB I just looked on a website. I don't see what's wrong with me saying the dogs DOB?

The program was partially about in-breeding so of course a breeder who in-breeds is going to get dragged into the conversation about the show.


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

Personally I thought at least myself I kept in line with the subject of this thread which is genetic health problems caused by breeding? Denise is not the only person I have ever known to inbreed her dogs, it's often a very touchy subject with dog breeders as to why it is done due to the possible risks to any litter or subsequent litters from this mating.

I don't see any singling out here or at least not on my part but I would like to know if Denise would be kind enough to inform me the ethics and reasoning behind inbreeding which out weights the possible risks or are these litters just seen as collateral damage? After all we are talking about living creatures here? Not toys or play things these are living, breathing creatures that can be put through a lot of pain due to genetic health defects. I also somehow doubt if Denise does indeed see it as she has done nothing wrong that she needs anyone to defend her, after all she is not the first person to inbreed nor do I doubt she will be the last unless the KC does tighten its breeding rules. What I wanted to know was why inbreed when you can closely line breed and have fewer possible health defects, why risk it?


----------



## freedomchis (Jul 28, 2007)

jodie in previous threads you seem kind of narky towards denise and narky against people who show their dogs and now in this thread you are actually saying things about inbreeding dogs towards denise
denise has said yes she has done this and i do feel personally its her business
and if your dog is related to the dogs in question here why did you then go on to use him if you are so worried about the risks that are being passed down the lines with inbred dogs surely you got him checked out and there isnt anything to worry about as denise stated when she told you earlier there hasnt been any problems with these dogs so far!!
i myself when i do bred wont line/inbreed dogs as i dont think its right my personal opinion
i am not getting into an argument i am just stating what i have read in threads


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2008)

Macky isn't inbred 

Macky's mum had puppies with his brother, how wrong does that sound, just say it out loud and then say it's right.

Macky is healthy, perfectly healthy. Roxy and Macky's puppies really have nothing to do with this conversation considering they weren't inbred and they were both fully health checked before being bred from. 

I'm not "narky" towards Denise and the times I've mentioned her in threads has been when she's already involved in the conversation. I don't agree with her in-breeding her dogs, simple as that. Bt I don't agree with anyone inbreeding their dogs, it's not just Denise. I'm sure she's a nice enough person, I'm not saying I don't like her, just the inbreeding.

If Denise believes inbreeding is ok I'm sure she has enough evidence to defend it.


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

I hate to say it but you are currently echoing the views of the 'breeders' last night who said 'it's none of your business'.

As I believe was shown to everyone last night it is everyone's business as to what is going on or is everyone going to join the masses here and turn a blind eye to often unethical breeding practices. This is what got all dogs into the mess they are currently in! These are living creatures people seem to be forgetting that.


----------



## freedomchis (Jul 28, 2007)

i haven't stated that i agree with inbreeding dogs i wouldn't do it myself so i really don't have to say it aloud as my partner and i have discussed this for a number of years with my father as he breeds racing pigeons and also he chooses to inbreed and line breed them
so this topic has been discussed in my home and i don't agree with it!!


----------



## freedomchis (Jul 28, 2007)

sarah i haven't turned a blind eye at all i have stated that i don't agree with inbreeding as you can see!!!


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2008)

People say I'm making Denise out to be a bad person but all I've said is that she inbreeds and I don't like that, if people believe inbreeding isn't a bad thing then why would they think Denise is a bad person? The only people that will think she is are the ones that think inbreeding is wrong, in which case nothing I say will change that.


----------



## chibellaxo (Jul 6, 2008)

Willowanne said:


> I found it on you tube for those that want to watch.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1LyjlX4Mp8


thanks, willowanne  im watching it now!


----------



## Yoshismom (Jul 6, 2005)

sunshine45 said:


> I like to do a total outcross with some of my dogs i call it fresh blood


I havent watched the video but plan on doing so as soon as I get a chance. From the way it sounds it is going to be painful to watch Here is my 2 cents worth. I am not a breeder but I did do some extensive research into breeding and talked to many breeders of different breeds to get my info when searching for my show boy Great Dane. To the above statement of outcrossing? From what I have read and been told outcrossing is worse than inbreeding as you are bringing in a whole other line of health issues into the pot that can lead to disaster and you cannot guarantee what may pop up even with health testing as you are adding two different lines and that can explode in your face? From my understanding with inbreeding is not like inbreeding in humans and does not have the same results as human inbreeding? I have also read and been told that inbreeding although it should not be done often can give you the best of the best and the worst of the worst and no inbetween to pop up somewhere down the line, so if you know the lines well that have been linebred then it is less chancey than outcrossing? Again this is just what I have found and I may not have worded it very well but I dug very deep into the subject.

Now as for show breeders not caring for their dogs. I agree and disagree, just with bybs and hobby breeders some really care for their dogs and feel they are doing the right thing breeding them and some are in it for the money I dont care what they say. Now I know alot of showbreeders that love their dogs and would get rid of a husband or family member before their dogs and they feed them healthy and go all out for them and do not overbreed. Some only breed when they are looking for another show prospect and then will give the other pups away free as long as they are finding the best home that is all that matters. So if you ask me it is hard to point fingers and judge people for their breeding practices and say show breeders are bad or hobby breeders are bad because there are good and bad out there just with anything.

I think its an interesting subject as I am always willing to learn but I am the type that needs proof to go in one direction or the other.....this may never happen as there is so much research out there that prove and disprove each other so to say.

I prefer not to take sides but just learn;-)

We are all allowed to our opinions and we all agree to disagree. Lets try not to call out other members here as we are a peaceful community and all this is is ones opinion against another and everyone has the right to their own opinion;-)


----------



## chibellaxo (Jul 6, 2008)

i didnt even know that the pug even had a nose before! i bet in a hundred years, people will probably be saying the same thing about the chi...it was a good video. i was surprised by a lot of the stuff in it (i.e promoting the practice of culling dogs that were out of standard, and that people would encourage the breeding of dogs with health problems because i thought only the most healthy dogs were shown!), but i guess i shouldn't be too surprised. after all, money and ego are involved in dog showing ( actually with breeding in general). I know some of the breeders ive dealt with were greedy but I like to think *no one* i considered buying from could be as heartless as those breeders in the video, though...actually, i like to think not to many breeders in general are that heartless.can you believe that one pug breeder? she knows the pugs face is so pushed back that if the dog gets excited, its soft palate can block its airways and cause it to pass out, but she makes it seem like its not really that big of a deal. can you imagine having to worry about not getting your dog too excited less you want to risk his soft palate from blocking his airways and having the dog pass out??


----------



## jesshan (Sep 15, 2005)

*Sarah* said:


> I never once used the phrase bad breeder? I asked why it was done with the gene pool in chihuahua's is renowned for being tiny as it is.
> 
> What I said was you were willing to take a risk with that litter and I guess as a 'dog lover (which I know you will take the phrase the wrong way) I can't understand sacrificing any living creature for that or on the off chance there could be problems. As for the risks after 2 depleted immune systems, higher risk of cancer and other immune deficiencies not to mention as I did say previously that it is known to not necessarily surface in the initial crossing but later litters are known to suffer. Not necessarily conditions usually associated with the breed itself can be brought on by too small a gene pool.
> 
> What I asked was why do it? what were your ethics behind it when you could technically find a nice line related stud? First time ok an accident but it didn't need to be repeated or aren't you then making the genes within your line too close and you're going to need to out cross all your dogs next time?



No you may not have said it BUT the BBC implied that people who did this were bad breeders.

In answer to your next question I AM going to have to out cross the next time - which is what I am going to to do, which is generally the way things are doing, line breed - then out cross.


----------



## jesshan (Sep 15, 2005)

JoJoBean said:


> Your first litter was born 14/03/2006, second litter 14/05/2007, so the first pups were only 14 months old. How can you know there is nothing wrong with them at 14 motnhs old
> 
> I'm not digging at you, I'm digging at people who inbreed.


At 14 months old there was nothing physically or mentally wrong with the first 2 puppies! 14 months isn't such a short peoriod of time.

You are not digging at me, but digging at people who in breed - so that must mean me because I have done it.


----------



## jesshan (Sep 15, 2005)

JoJoBean said:


> The puppies are related to my male dog WTF why would I have anything against Denise? I don't I just have a thing against in-breeding. I didn't "check up" the DOB I just looked on a website. I don't see what's wrong with me saying the dogs DOB?
> 
> The program was partially about in-breeding so of course a breeder who in-breeds is going to get dragged into the conversation about the show.


Unfortunately though Jodie, it was you who dragged me into the conversation. Thank you other guys for your support though.


----------



## jesshan (Sep 15, 2005)

I don't really think there is much more I can say no on this subject, I think that both Sarah and Jodie have formed their opions me so matter what I say will be sufficient to defend what I have done. 

Except that many breeders not just in dogs but in a lot of other animals, pigs, pigeon, cows etc dogs, have in bred and DO in breed.

As has been previously said, NO ONE knows what will happen when breeding anything to anything. two perfectly healthy dogs on an outcross can also produce deformed puppies. It depends on the genetics of the individuals


----------



## Keeffer (Feb 26, 2008)

Okay so now I'm going to say something. Let me fist say I don't have a problemm with inbreeding, if and only IF the breeder knows what he/she is doing. If someone breeds dogs for more than 10 years, they will know their lines and if they have a good reputation they won't do anything to destroy it. Inbreeding can be very good, because you can see what faults your lines might have. 

Here in holland we don't NEED to do PL checks or PRA checks or something like that. Most breeders just go to the vets, let them feel the knees, and the vet just says they're ok. BUT the serious breeders do get them tested for PL. And if anyone wants to know: you can go to a specialist. They touch the knees and make an x-ray and by that x ray they can tell if the dog has a grade 1 to 4 or no PL at all. Their must be specialist in the UK? If not you're more than welcome to come to holland.


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

I don't believe I do have a formed opinion of you Denise, I personally don't know you hence I tend to refrain from forming opinions. The only opinion I can admit to having about you from prior knowledge and from reading what you have previously stated is that you have bred dogs for a number of years and I hoped you would be knowledgeable on the subject and possibly enlighten me as to why certain risky practices are carried out.

I guess point I'm making I am yet to see one argument as to how close inbreeding is any better a tool than line breeding (which I do agree with) besides inbreeding gives quicker and riskier results. I don't class line breeding (breeding within a certain extended family gene pool) and inbreeding (breeding within one generation of each other mother/son, father/daughter, siblings) as anything like the same thing and there are many breeders who wouldn't touch an inbreeding with a barge pole. 

I still would like to know if anyone would answer this question why is in-breeding chosen as a tool with all it's risks and implications when you could easily line breed to get similar results with less risks?


----------



## jesshan (Sep 15, 2005)

This is the point what I have been trying to get across – I know my lines, I know where the faults are – can anyone who has just “had a litter” for the sake of it say what faults are in their breeding lines. Just for an instance, take Jodie’s Macky, Do you actually know any of the dogs in Macky’s lines or for that matter seen them without looking them up on the internet?

Macky was by Sam and Sassy just using Sammy’s lines – Sam was red dog by Chelsie and Chris – Chelsie was a red sable and Chris was a Red dog. Chelsie was by Zippy who was a cream sable dog who I handled for another owner in the 80’s early 90’s. Chris was by Teddy who was a cream dog who I regularly saw around the ring. So there is 3 generations of dogs (off the top of my head) which I have known on a personal level – I have had close contact with and know them.


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

Faults are faults I'm arguing depleted gene pool here and I aware you know your lines but why not cross cousins they have the same genetics don't they? but there is a larger amount of extra genes in the mix to avoid a lot of addition health problems which will effect future generations. 

You still haven't answered my question why inbreed when you could have line bred for similar results, what was your logic in taking the risk with the litter initially. Plus as you claimed the breeding was initially an accident not researched prior to doing it? So it's not something I'm guessing you would have considered doing if your dogs hadn't done it for you? Also just even by the looks of them do you have any idea as to what genes are inside the dogs and what health problems could be lerking, and with such a close cross the likelihood of something being passed on is raised 10 fold.


----------



## Keeffer (Feb 26, 2008)

*Sarah* said:


> I still would like to know if anyone would answer this question why is in-breeding chosen as a tool with all it's risks and implications when you could easily line breed to get similar results with less risks?


(My english is really bad, lol I KNOW. So I hope I use the right words, I have a very big dictionnary right next to me. Hope you understand what I'm saying)
I think, in breeding is a good way to see what diseases and faults your dogs carry. With line breeding it takes years, and a male can be used as a stud over and over again. And after 5 years all the faults come up. And I know a lot of breeders, they still use the 'healthy' puppies (which are actually carriers) because they don't want to lose their line. I think, if you in bred your dogs, than you should either keep all the puppies, or sell them but they have to be neutered. So other people can't use them for breeding. A breeder could keep the dogs, and inbreed them again, to know the faults they have. And if you sell the dogs, you should tell the owners the dog comes from in breeding and they can have serious faults. The new owner then knows that and if they're willing to take that risk, than it's up to them.

With line breeding their are eventually many more dogs than can have serious diseases or faults. Here in holland we have them as well. 2 dogs out of a litter of 3 died from a heart disease, it was from line breeding. The breeder still says it isn't a genetic fault (yeah right). Also a few males are used very often. And now after 6 years, a lot of the dogs out of these lines have PL, or undershot/overshot or something else with the mouth. Heart diseases, or a twisted tail and that means their spinal column is deformed. If they used in breeding, than all these faults would have turned up very early, and maybe 10 dogs would have these faults. The male wouldn't have been used that often, and his genes wouldn't have spread. Now half holland is infected with his genes, thats why I chose a breeder whose dogs are from totally different lines. But other breeders are still using the male, just because he's pretty. They know that he carries these faults, and the owner won't neuter him. Because he makes money of course.


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

Hence as I said previously the litters are basically collateral damage? They are innocents that get in the way and can be sacrified to a bigger goal in the end? How this that not blatant cruelty? That is someone sitting there and saying 'because I can, I will and I'm more likely to produce puppies with major health problems so I can see whats in my lines and iron it out, but initially lets create these dogs who could possibly be in pain so I can see'?

As for using studs with genetic problems I believe that has already been touched on in this thread it is unforgivable for people to put the health of their animals in jeopardy because the dogs pretty.


----------



## Keeffer (Feb 26, 2008)

But in the end you get very ill dogs from line breeding as well, and there are many more of them than from in breeding. Line breeding isn't a good thing as well, unless you get fresh blood every 2 to 3 years, but some won't call that line breeding. I'd rather have 10 puppies with diseases, then 50. And they will be used for breeding as well, so you have at least 200 dogs from the same line. The 10 from inbreeding won't be used for breeding, because they're neutered. It's the same thing as don't buy a dog from a puppymill. If they won't be bought, than only the dogs that the miller currently has will die an unpleasant way. But if you keep buying them than the puppy miller won't stop breeding unhealthy dogs and he won't stop breeding a bitch every half year. That in my eyes, is cruelty. You can stop a line very quick and have only 10 puppies with (or without) faults. You can also continue the line and have over 200 dogs with the same genes, and eventually find out all these dogs have or carrie faults.


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

But you have pretty much answered my question that there is no ethics behind this bar personal satisfaction of the breeder as opposed to the health and welfare of the dogs. As I said I agree more with line breeding but new blood should be introduced every other cross to keep the gene pool larger. This is another reason why I said health testing needs to be implemented on a large scale as opposed to breeders making up their own rules. In all honesty there is no gain from inbreeding is there besides for the breeders themselves not the animals? Point is a lot of breeders will still use these animals for breeding because they don't wish to lose their lines, but what they have created is a possible larger health hazard than seen previously, as the breeders will then still breed the inbred dogs back into their lines and linebreed them again. I'm actually not shocked at the state of the pedigree dog world if this is the attitude of a lot of people, who don't health check, breed their dogs however they wish and do whatever they want without any regard for possible suffering.

No one here appears to care that these dogs are living creatures? What right does anyone have to breed something that they know will probably be sick just because they can? How is that not a complete animal rights violation? Hence you pretty much argued as to why that program on tv shocked, stunned and angered a lot of people because it appears animal welfare is being forgotten and the dogs are being treated like stock not living creatures.


----------



## MORELIACHIS (Feb 25, 2008)

Its a shame discussions like this have to single people out and turn into a slanging match  Thats not what this should be about...

I, like many others was disgusted by the revalations of what goes on in within the cavalier breed. The lady who's cav won the show that had SM is absolutely disgusting, but what goes around comes around and on the show she was portrayed as nothing more than a liar and a cheat. What was sad and shoclking to me was that the other breed club members/exhibitors were defending her as such, which is morally wrong. This would not happen in our breed. They clearly within that breed are only kidding themselves and have major issues within their breed that need to be addressed.

The attitudes of the cavalier breeders/exhibitors worries me as they came across awfully. I would hate to have a non show person think we are all like that in every breed, so please do not tar us all with the same brush... we have no problems anywhere near that in our breed. I make no secret of the fact there are breeders/exhibitors that I think are quick to judge, do not like new people, are two faced, believe the first gossip they hear and are bitchy but hey, you can't like/agree with everyone you meet just like in everyday life and I know from friends in other breeds it is rife there too. If you are passionate about the breed you rise above it and take no notice! They are the ones with the problem, not you!! I judge people by MY own decision 

KC/Show breeders work for years and years perfecting their lines, how can you say they do not care about dogs?! People like Denise have spent a large portion of their life researching, learning, etc and have bred some lovely dogs as a result of this. It is very time consuming and believe me, it is hard work, you could only breed/show if you are really and truly dedicated to the breed.

Also people who complain about the prices of chihuahuas niggle me. Raising a litter properly is time consuming, and not to mention expensive! But of course it is extremely rewarding too. Only show breeders could realise the excitment of a new litters from dogs of lines you admire and have strived to weave into your line. S howing/breeeding is not about just owning many dogs, sacrifices have to be made in your everday life, and it becomes a way of life, so to speak. People do not realise when they buy a chihuahua for £1000-£1500 that the breeders have spent years researching and learning lines and pedigrees to produce the best puppy they can. Then you come along with your money and you are buying something in one day that has taken the breeder years to build up to and produce, so it's not going to be cheap, that is obvious I would have thought?! You want a nice dog, you pay your money but the breeder is the one that has put years of time and effort into producing that beautiful litttle dog that you own! I just don't see how people can say now that this is the wrong way to go! :foxes15:

I have not been breeding/showing long enough to talk in depth about inbreeding as I still have so much to learn and have only had a couple of litters myself so far that were outcrosses. But I will say I am not against it. If you have been in the breed years, like Denise and know your lines well, know the lines strengths and weaknesses I have no problem with inbreeding. 

You can put two Champion dogs together and have problems, rare yes, but not impossible, you just cannot tell, but it becomes far more risky with two pet dogs that you have no idea of the history and pedigree for. Everyone makes mistakes, but as long as people step up and get educated, and breed the correct way, breeds can be saved.

I will probably get shot at now too, but I had to step up and support a fellow show breeder, because my beliefs are the same. rotest:


----------



## Keeffer (Feb 26, 2008)

*Sarah* said:


> But you have pretty much answered my question that there is no ethics behind this bar personal satisfaction of the breeder as opposed to the health and welfare of the dogs. As I said I agree more with line breeding but new blood should be introduced every other cross to keep the gene pool larger. This is another reason why I said health testing needs to be implemented on a large scale as opposed to breeders making up their own rules. In all honesty there is no gain from inbreeding is there besides for the breeders themselves not the animals? Point is a lot of breeders will still use these animals for breeding because they don't wish to lose their lines, but what they have created is a possible larger health hazard than seen previously, as the breeders will then still breed the inbred dogs back into their lines and linebreed them again. I'm actually not shocked at the state of the pedigree dog world if this is the attitude of a lot of people, who don't health check, breed their dogs however they wish and do whatever they want without any regard for possible suffering.
> 
> No one here appears to care that these dogs are living creatures? What right does anyone have to breed something that they know will probably be sick just because they can? How is that not a complete animal rights violation? Hence you pretty much argued as to why that program on tv shocked, stunned and angered a lot of people because it appears animal welfare is being forgotten and the dogs are being treated like stock not living creatures.


I said that breeders that breed for a long time know their lines and they know what they are doing. They won't try to destroy their reputation by in breeding. But if you have a great line, and everybody wants to use your male as a stud, than you also might want to know if he carries serious faults. They aren't trying to breed dogs with many faults, but they just want to know what faults they might carry. If you breed for a long time, than you know your lines and you also know they won't carry many faults, else you would already stopped breeding them. If you have a great line and haven't got any faults in years, than you can use in breeding and than a single fault might turn up. Breeders love their dogs, they are not all puppy millers you know. They wouldn't do an in breeding if they thought the pups might have ánd epilepsy ánd heart diseases ánd a bad PL ánd a very large overshot ánd a deformed spinal column all at the same time. They're not stupid. But they might want to know if their dogs carry PL or something like that. If the pups are perfect than you can use an out cross male for your in bred bitch. And you know that the chances are very small that the bitch will inheritate faults or diseases. So the pups from that combination will or be carriers or wont have any faults as well. In breeding can be a good thing, but you shouldn't do it too often.


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

Umm I'm curious as to why people believe I'm so opposed to show people, I personally have been involved within the show/dog world since I was 9 year old, I've seen a lot of breeding practices, I've been to a lot of shows in my life and because I choose not to show now doesn't mean I disagree with showing?

What I asked was genetically what is the reason for risking a mating that could produce health problems when there are enough sick dogs out there? There may not be as many health problems atm but due to the shortening of chihuahuas skulls even more dramatically now we may end up with similar problems to other brachiocephalic breeds. But over exaggerated characteristics are still being encouraged within the show ring, the point I guess is when are people going to stand back and go we're going to try and keep the breed as is not exaggerate the features anymore? We also already have the possible merle problem within the breed which could easily creep in via a back door over here and I'm curious as to if anyone within the club is actually taking steps to ensure the health of the breed in this country?


----------



## Keeffer (Feb 26, 2008)

The chihuahua breed standard hasn't changed much. I guess the problem lies also by the judges. If there are 4 dogs that get 'Excellent' than they still need to be placed. The judge picks the one he likes and makes him number one. And then all breeders are trying to get a dog like that. So if there is a Chihuahau with a very short nose and big head. Then all the breeders want one like that. But if a judge picks a dog with a longer nose, then breeders will eventually breed for longer noses.


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

So it is the KC and breed clubs who eventually ends up being at fault as it is they who 'train' judges. Maybe there does need to be a huge turn around in the points system for how dogs are judged and more given to general health rather than 'type' and exaggeration. 

As for inbreeding I personally can't see how the 'pros' outweigh the 'cons' when it comes to animal health and welfare, I have seen enough amazing dogs in my life who are purely linebred with no inbreeding involved in their pedigrees.


----------



## Keeffer (Feb 26, 2008)

The judges might be trained by the KC and breed clubs, but they're just trained how to interpret the breed standard. And if they have 4 very good examples of the breed standard, then they just pick the one they like the best. Don't want to brag, but my Keeffer is also a nice example of the breed. French judges most likely pick the tiny dogs, so if I would show him under a French judge, he would be first if all the other males would be bigger. But I don't need to think about showing Keeffer under a german judge, because they like the bigger dogs. So he will end up last.


----------



## jesshan (Sep 15, 2005)

So they bring in health tests – how many people OUTSIDE of the dog show fraternity would test their dogs? 

People are still breeding litters without pedigrees. 
People are still breeding dogs which they don’t know what hidden faults are in the pedigrees because they don’t know the lines.
People are still breeding from dogs (outside the dog show fraternity) with PL.
People are still breeding merles in the UK and charging MORE than the average Chihuahua WITHOUT having the recommended tests done. Merles are banned in the UK so why continue to breed from them? Merles have KNOWN health issues but they are still being bred. (This is not a jab at merle breeders by the way because I know they aren’t banned in all countries – as you have seen in the past by our merle debates - I am not a witch hunter)

In the wild a wolf would mate with its mother, father, sister, brother, etc they don’t stop themselves from doing it. Has it had any major effect on them?


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

If you read studies Inbreeding has in fact effected the wild wolf populations quite badly. As for the testing does it really matter as long as KC members and show people DO TEST their dogs, isn't then how KC will actually mean something and show breeders can then claim their dogs are better because they are healthier? If the KC demanded health testing on all litters yes it wouldn't stop the unregistered litters but it would stop BAD BREEDERS from KC registering and effectively split everyone down the middle. Then the process of educating the general public to not breed unregistered dogs should be introduced.

The point is testing and education is the way forward not silly slagging matches of my dog is better than yours. Everyone should be working together to better the breed not damn in because some people choose to as atm without health testing I see no division between BYB and Show people, except the show breeders SHOULD KNOW BETTER!


----------



## Krista (Dec 29, 2005)

*Sarah* said:


> If you read studies Inbreeding has in fact effected the wild wolf populations quite badly. As for the testing does it really matter as long as KC members and show people DO TEST their dogs, isn't then how KC will actually mean something and show breeders can then claim their dogs are better because they are healthier? If the KC demanded health testing on all litters yes it wouldn't stop the unregistered litters but it would stop BAD BREEDERS from KC registering and effectively split everyone down the middle. Then the process of educating the general public to not breed unregistered dogs should be introduced.
> 
> The point is testing and education is the way forward not silly slagging matches of my dog is better than yours. Everyone should be working together to better the breed not damn in because some people choose to as atm without health testing I see no division between BYB and Show people, except the show breeders SHOULD KNOW BETTER!


I agree with you Sarah ... at least byb's in one way aren't using their pups are test subjects. If it keeps going this way, the 'poorly' bred will end up being the 'healthy' bred.


----------



## Yoshismom (Jul 6, 2005)

Sarah I think your question about inbreeding has been answered several times over....Inbreeding makes health issues come to the surface plain and simple...linebreeding and outcrossing can take years and generations before the health issue pops up and then you have multiple dogs out there with these issues that are still breeding. If you line bred they come to the surface quicker and you know to stop breeding (if reputable) so that is WHY they do inbreeding. Now yes dogs are living creatures but would you rather have thousands of unhealthy dogs suffer due to linebreeding and outcrossing or would you rather have a litter or two suffer..I prefer none suffer and that is why I myself do not breed;-) But there is going to be breeding (whether it is done correctly or not is up to the breeder themselves) So there is much controversy as to why there is inbreeding and outcrossing and linebreeding all of the above is playing with fire and create living and breathing creatures that will suffer with some sort of health issue or another:-( But think of it as if there was not breeding at all then we would not have our beloved pets/family members...that is what is happening with this PETA mess here in the states..no one realizes that PETA's goal is to get rid of pets all together because we shouldnt own animals or eat animals, etc... I just cant imagine what the world would be like without my dogs:-(

Now with testing...I agree 100% that an animal being used in breeding should be tested as well as his/her parents and all other ancestors in the line...problem is even testing animals are not fool proof as there are alot of issues that will not show up on tests right away if ever? Sometimes it takes years for an animal to have issues and they pass and you still never knew what killed them after multiple tests??

I have had 2 of my beloved Great Danes both pass before the age of 5 yrs, I watched my first Harl suffer greatly before making the decision to euthanize..he had many health issues some were underlying and no matter how much testing we still didnt know what some of the exact issues he was having? We did know by 8 months old that he had Wobblers Syndrome, he also had a heart murmur that was detected very young as well as demodetic mange. He was bred by a couple who had his sire and dam as pets but felt that they were too good of dogs to not breed, so no research no linebreeding. Now my Fawn boy was bred by a Hobby Breeder that knew his lines and did alot of linebreeding and outcrossing and no inbreeding and the rare heart disease that Bailey initially died from had not popped up in their lines yet (so they say?) Now my new show boy had inbreeding 2 breeding behind him so now I am just waiting and seeing? As you can see the other 2 danes I had were not healthy at all and it was heart breaking to lose them so now I have done my research and chose knowingly the dog I have chosen in hopes that I will get a longer life out of him (all health testing done in all of his ancestors) You just never know. But I couldnt imagine my life without danes and Chihuahuas (no particular order;-) )


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

Enough people breed perfectly healthy litters without ever having the need to inbreed! It's been stated by enough top breeders it's something they would never do. As I said in my eyes it's all *beep* and a bunch of people with a Dr Moreau complex who like to 'play god', if you mess around enough you get a prize winning dog and a lot of very sick descendants, and enough decent show people would condemn this type of breeding as wrong. KNOWING LINES AND HEALTH TESTING ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!

As for PETA please don't drag them into this as a defense. What the hell has PETA got to do with the ethics of dog breeding? Yet again instead of looking at the genetics picture and suffering that is being inflicted because people CHOOSE TO DO IT!


----------



## Yoshismom (Jul 6, 2005)

First of all I wasnt being mean to you or using language with you that is btw not allowed on this forum so I would expect the same consideration from you. 2nd I was not using PETA as an excuse either...I just brought them up as another group that is trying to knock out breeding and pets altogether I am sorry you saw it as a defense mechanism??

As for the breeding part I just was helping you understand what I and others were trying to get across to you because you stated "We still were not telling you WHY use inbreeding" I was trying to give it to you in simpler terms so you would understand that we had explained what you were still questioning.

NO need to get mean about things as it is still your opinions against mine and others and I havent even been disagreeing with you just trying to explain things a little better?

I do not want to see animals hurt or in pain in any way shape or form..I am not taking up for what some breeders are doing. I am simply saying that it is going to happen one way or another, throughout history there have been genetic issues and health issues in lines even from just plain old breeding without the inbreeding and the only way to stop it really is to stop breeding once and for all for the sake of the animals but where would that put us with owning pets?? Why I brought PETA in to begin with they are trying to stop breeding altogether so I do see it as pertaining to breeding? ..sorry if that disturbed you. 

You guys keep this up and we will have to close the thread;-)


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

I give up with this argument some people will never change, and you seem to forget the way these breeders are breeding is how a lot of animals became very sick in the first place. 

As I claimed previously a LOT of very respected show people believe this breeding is unnecessary and unneeded and in light of the health problems now arising is it now not making even more sense to rely on medical science and genetics where it's clearly stated that this type of breeding is damaging the breeds and dogs themselves. It appears few people here care about the general health and wellbeing of the breed as opposed to how pretty a dog looks. And I didn't swear I wrote beep 

As for PETA I personally am an active member of their organization, I'm also a vegan if you want to then add that to my animal rights lunacy. But no creature should have to suffer when they don't have to and as stated by enough breeders, this type of practice is not needed.


----------



## jesshan (Sep 15, 2005)

*Sarah* said:


> If you read studies Inbreeding has in fact effected the wild wolf populations quite badly. As for the testing does it really matter as long as KC members and show people DO TEST their dogs, isn't then how KC will actually mean something and show breeders can then claim their dogs are better because they are healthier? If the KC demanded health testing on all litters yes it wouldn't stop the unregistered litters but it would stop BAD BREEDERS from KC registering and effectively split everyone down the middle. Then the process of educating the general public to not breed unregistered dogs should be introduced.
> 
> The point is testing and education is the way forward not silly slagging matches of my dog is better than yours. Everyone should be working together to better the breed not damn in because some people choose to as atm without health testing I see no division between BYB and Show people, except the show breeders SHOULD KNOW BETTER!


So your argument for this is that show breeders should know better and shouldn’t do it, they should health test their dogs but it doesn’t matter if a pet breeder does it because they don’t know any better? Show breeders DO NOT claim to have better dogs, however they ARE less likely to have faults because of the selective breeding of 2 soundly constructed dog.

You obviously think that pet breeders are far superior because you are tying in BYB and show breeders in the same bracket.


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

jesshan said:


> So your argument for this is that show breeders should know better and shouldn’t do it, they should health test their dogs but it doesn’t matter if a pet breeder does it because they don’t know any better? Show breeders DO NOT claim to have better dogs, however they ARE less likely to have faults because of the selective breeding of 2 soundly constructed dog.
> 
> You obviously think that pet breeders are far superior because you are tying in BYB and show breeders in the same bracket.


In all honesty unless the dogs are health checked especially in breeds that have major health problems there is no difference between a BYB and a show person. As a responsibility to both the breed and the dogs themselves every breeder should health check their dogs before breeding them! 

As for the whole pet/show breeder issue, just because one side won't do it does that honestly mean you can't do it or does everyone need to follow the crowd here?


----------



## Yoshismom (Jul 6, 2005)

Well when I said no need to use language I was referring to "What the hell has PETA got to do with the ethics of dog breeding? " as that is still considered swearing;-)

I do not think it is a fair statement to say that .."It appears few people here care about the general health and wellbeing of the breed as opposed to how pretty a dog looks." And again I say that I do care about animal welfare as I do not breed and do not plan on breeding and I do not believe in most breeding ethics. I didnt even say that I agreed with inbreeding and that seems to be the argument here? I just said that I did alot of research and decided to go with a pup from a inbred history to see if that would work better for me? I also ONLY tried to explain to you about the research that I have done on inbreeding and there are just as many reputable and respected breeders that DO believe in inbreeding...but that doesnt mean I agree with it again I say....I was only trying to explain to you WHY people inbreed?!?!

This shouldnt even be an argument?? You are the only one that seems to be trying to argue and cram your views down others throats? You may be very passionate about how you feel and that is great but this is JUST how you feel and your views and opinions. 

If you are an active member of PETA then I am suprised you have pets?? or was planning on breeding at one time or another or may be planning to in the future?? Maybe I am wrong but there is alot of controversy around PETA themselves as what there true underlying intentions are? And I did not realize you were with PETA so that was not an insult to you in any way shape or form as again you have the right to believe what you believe, as I do;-)

BTW..my daughter is a vegetarian and I do not feel that it is lunacy that she is so..it is her right;-) 

"But no creature should have to suffer when they don't have to and as stated by enough breeders, this type of practice is not needed."

Whats to say that the domestication of animals all together is not making them suffer? Some would say being in captivity no matter how well they are treated is considered abuse to what once was a free creature?

Again not arguing with you or PETA just some food for thought? ;-)


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

Hence you turned this into an animal rights argument not me, so I bow out of this pettiness, this is getting pathetic.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2008)

pompom said:


> Them poor pugs, when the champion pug breeder said they cant breathe when they get excited, but its okay they just pass out and wake up fine, im sorry but that is not normal! Poor Puggies!


THAT woman made me so angry, since when has it been NORMAL to faint??? :foxes15:


----------



## Yoshismom (Jul 6, 2005)

You have been arguing the suffering of animals throughout the whole thread way before I ever commented? Is that not animal rights? 

The only pettiness here is where you feel everyone should have the same thinking as you do and you cannot seem to handle others disagreeing with you? And you are bowing out when you are called out on contradicting your own beliefs? 

I have kept the thread open just so you and others could have their say. I could have easily said my peace and closed the thread as it was getting out of hand? You and another member are the only ones calling others out and stating that the board has few people who care about animals? That wasnt very nice was it?

Your right it does seem pathetic;-)

This has been a very intersting topic and interesting to see how others have THEIR OWN views about the subject.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2008)

well, i'm not getting overly involved in bickering. ALl I will say is Denise was a world of support to me when I had nobody to turn to, and not only about dogs but to me personally as well.

I wont mention names, but basically a "show" dog was purchased (NOT from Denise) that turned out to have serious health issues.
What comment was made from the breeder? "well she's a show dog ALL show dogs have open molera's and hydrocephalus"

IS THAT the sort of breeder you want to buy from???? I expect most people would say no, but there have been people on here say "oh but the dogs bred are so pretty", your basic point made on the BBC show. Yet that breeder and that breeders friends say that breeder is doing NOTHING wrong. 

My view is that breeder fits right in with those atrocious breeders on the BBC show.

AS for Denise, I could NOT have go through the past few months without her. SHE came to ME offering me support and advice, saying she would never ever breed or sell or show a puppy with any medical issues etc.
I have heard LOTS about Denise, all through word of mouth, none from Denise herself, all of it good.

Each person WILL have different views on things, we cant all agree all of the time. Personally I was horrified that the cavalier breeder bred him so often knowing he had such a serious conditon. I was equally appalled that the cavaliers at the start of the programme were let suffer like that and not PTS for their own dignity and peace!

AS for Denise, I cant stand by and see her slated over something on a BBC programme, when i have found denise to be nothing but caring, supportive, informative, and above all she is mad about her dogs (or just maybe plain mad ) but I do NOT see her as a bad breeder, my personal opinion.

As for in-breeding, i know little about breeding and dont understand a word of genentics usually, so I am not going to make an uninformed comment on that issue, as i really dont talk about things I know nothing about.

I would welcome a dog from parkbow into my home in a flash if I were offered one, I dont have any problems with that.

Getting back to the main point....


I can see the BBC show was fairly one sided. It did make it seem 100% of pedigrees were poorly, or would be.

I do NOT agree with the breeding of dogs to accentuate a feature that is actually a deformity, the poor pugs and bulldogs, and i can not comment on how enraged culling the rhidgebacks makes me!
The stupid woman showing the cavalier, IMHO needs PTS herself!!!! it upsets me to think of howmany litters of cavaliers are now suffering and in pain because of her stupidity and plain greed. To breed AFTER a vet says dont breed from this dog is outragious, but again I know a chihuahua breeder who has done that exact thing! I also put THAT breeder into a category of complete butthead (I was going to swear but wont!) with those from the BBC show.

I noticed the head of the KC say test have been available for years, why are they not cumpulsory then? I know you cant test for every condition in every dog, but surely the major ones specific to each breed you can?

I also noticed he said the scientists were wrong about inbreeding, all I can say on that is personally I would believe a scientist over the kennel club, as theyre the experts in genetics etc.

The white dogs were mentioned, but they didnt say white boxers CAn be deaf etc.

My point is the breeders shown were mostly people to loathe, good on that lady ( was it carol) who was standing up and telling the truth about the cavaliers. For others to shun her just shows they have something to feel guitly about! If they hadnt done anything wrong themselves they wouldnt have a problem with her standing up and saying "oh but cavaliers have this condition......."


----------



## chibellaxo (Jul 6, 2008)

MORELIACHIS said:


> Also people who complain about the prices of chihuahuas niggle me. Raising a litter properly is time consuming, and not to mention expensive! But of course it is extremely rewarding too. Only show breeders could realise the excitment of a new litters from dogs of lines you admire and have strived to weave into your line. S howing/breeeding is not about just owning many dogs, sacrifices have to be made in your everday life, and it becomes a way of life, so to speak. People do not realise when they buy a chihuahua for £1000-£1500 that the breeders have spent years researching and learning lines and pedigrees to produce the best puppy they can. Then you come along with your money and you are buying something in one day that has taken the breeder years to build up to and produce, so it's not going to be cheap, that is obvious I would have thought?! You want a nice dog, you pay your money but the breeder is the one that has put years of time and effort into producing that beautiful litttle dog that you own! I just don't see how people can say now that this is the wrong way to go! :foxes15:


are you serious? your reward should be to further the breed, like most of you are trying to claim, anyway. But if youre breeding for profit then please just admit it. its unfair to mislead th rest of us into thinking that you do it solely for the "love of the breed" and how evil everyone else is who makes money off of their dogs when youre doing the exact same thing.


----------



## ~Kari's*4*Chis~ (Sep 7, 2004)

chibellaxo said:


> are you serious? your reward should be to further the breed, like most of you are trying to claim, anyway. But if youre breeding for profit then please just admit it. its unfair to mislead th rest of us into thinking that you do it solely for the "love of the breed" and how evil everyone else is who makes money off of their dogs when youre doing the exact same thing.


I haven't said anything in this thread because I think it is a little ridiculous to argue....since most of us here agree....But I think you comment is out of line....

Where did she say that she was in it for "only" making money??? What she said was that it cost LOTS of money over the years to breed the quality of dog the YOU want.

I have a question for you experts??? Why is it such a "crime" to make some money off of breeding your dogs???? I mean it does cost money to raise and breed a dog.....besides the time factor. The funny thing is that most people that complain about the price of dogs are people that wouldn't do ANYTHING for free. So why should the people that have put the time and effort to breed quality dogs do it for free or even eat some of the cost. 

My belief is that people that complain about that are the ones that want something for "cheap"........give me a break.....I mean NO business would run well if they gave away everything....NOW....don't jump me saying that I am comparing a dog to merchandise cause I am not.....but how can you expect to get a good quality dog from someone if they are breaking even or even loosing money.....how are they paying for things that they and their dogs need????

I mean you all want all this testing and vet checks and all of that...well do you think they have money growing on their trees out back????

I know I am going to get blasted for this post, but I am soooooooooo tired of people sitting on their high horse and telling breeders that they shouldn't make anything on their litters....GET REAL PEOPLE......


----------



## bindi boo (Jul 2, 2008)

*Sarah* said:


> But didn't you previously state you wanted to breed your Cavalier? the question is would you honestly do it now without the 3 health checks that are needed?
> 
> The KC is a problem but the breeders are a bigger problem in ignoring health problems! I don't personally see how a mongrel is any different than a pedigree dog if the health checks have not been taken. What I always thought separated KC show breeders from BYB's was health checks, now I know some check their dogs but breeding a dog that you KNOW is sick is an outrage just because it's a beautiful dog.
> 
> People appear to not be highlighting the problem here which is health checks and genetics, the gene pools are too small in some breeds we already know that which will now become smaller anyway if health checks are imposed. The point is breeding healthy, typey dogs that aren't over exaggerated not dogs because they are pretty like I see far too often



yes we already mated angel on the 10th august and are hoping she is pregnant. the vet gave her the all clear and he actually said its a nice idea to breed her because shes a good example of her breed and he would like one of her pups if he can convince his wife..
not breeding angel just because she is pretty. (although she ver much is  )
chose to bred her because shes a good example of her breed , has a great temperment ect aswell. and we chose a stud whos also perfect and has strong points in any of angels weaknessess.


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

bindi boo said:


> yes we already mated angel on the 10th august and are hoping she is pregnant. the vet gave her the all clear and he actually said its a nice idea to breed her because shes a good example of her breed and he would like one of her pups if he can convince his wife..
> not breeding angel just because she is pretty. (although she ver much is  )
> chose to bred her because shes a good example of her breed , has a great temperment ect aswell. and we chose a stud whos also perfect and has strong points in any of angels weaknessess.


Let me get this straight you bred an unregistered dog, that in my honest opinion and I have been around cavaliers a long time isn't a shining example of the breed at all. You did no heart checks, no MRI's and no eye tests? And you slam the KC previously? 

In all honestly I don't know what to say to that.


----------



## chibellaxo (Jul 6, 2008)

~Kari's*4*Chis~ said:


> I haven't said anything in this thread because I think it is a little ridiculous to argue....since most of us here agree....But I think you comment is out of line....
> 
> Where did she say that she was in it for "only" making money??? What she said was that it cost LOTS of money over the years to breed the quality of dog the YOU want.
> 
> ...


1) do i care what you think?? look, some of you may play God when you breed but youre not so dont come at me like i actually care about what you think. 

2) most show breeders claim they do it solely for the love of the breed and to further it. That video and that comment shows that is not the case. price your dogs however way you want but at the end of the day dont lie and say it like you dont profit. read that part again: *dont say you dont profit when you do!* i dont care if you like me because im going by something called "ethics."


----------



## freedomchis (Jul 28, 2007)

so do you not like people breeding unregistered dogs now sarah????


this thread is getting worse and worse 
previously it was all about inbreeding now its going towards breeding unregistered dogs


----------



## MORELIACHIS (Feb 25, 2008)

chibellaxo said:


> are you serious? your reward should be to further the breed, like most of you are trying to claim, anyway. But if youre breeding for profit then please just admit it. its unfair to mislead th rest of us into thinking that you do it solely for the "love of the breed" and how evil everyone else is who makes money off of their dogs when youre doing the exact same thing.


Yes I am totally serious.... what you don't seem to realise is chihuahuas are expensive over here in the UK...period.. you could never get a chihuahua here for what you can get them in the US for. Believe me, £1000-£1500 is average for a good quality chihuahua! And most people are happy to pay it. All of my dogs were in that price bracket and over, and I was happy to pay it because most are champion sired and have excellent lines. So when I have litters from those dogs are you trying to tell me I should give them away for next to nothing??!! When I have paid maybe upto £1500 for the quality parents?? I don't think so!! :foxes15: All show breeders charge around the same, so why would it be fair for someone else to make a huge loss? We don't all have money to give away! I think your post was extremely rude in what you are implying.


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

freedomchis said:


> so do you not like people breeding unregistered dogs now sarah????
> 
> 
> this thread is getting worse and worse
> previously it was all about inbreeding now its going towards breeding unregistered dogs


No it's someone breeding a dog from a BREED WITH MASSIVE HEALTH PROBLEMS ATM or did you not hear those screams. I hope all of you can sleep at night.


----------



## jesshan (Sep 15, 2005)

*Sarah* said:


> In all honesty unless the dogs are health checked especially in breeds that have major health problems there is no difference between a BYB and a show person. As a responsibility to both the breed and the dogs themselves every breeder should health check their dogs before breeding them!


But there AREN'T any health checks done in the UK on chihuahuas. The main problem we have in chihuahuas is PL - how many pet breeders do this test? It is one thing taking your breeding pairs to the vets to check their heart BUT this doesn't mean they won't throw a puppy with a heart problem. So again, the show breeders are bad, the BYB are bad but the pet breeders have not to be tarred with this brush? Surely as tests are not compulsory this means that pet breeders ARE the same as BYB as are the SHOW breeders?

I for one am currently looking into having ALL my dogs PL tested fully, not just a wiggle of the back legs at the vets. i have been finding out from someone in Europe where they have to be tested.


----------



## ~Kari's*4*Chis~ (Sep 7, 2004)

chibellaxo said:


> 1) do i care what you think?? look, some of you may play God when you breed but youre not so dont come at me like i actually care about what you think.
> 
> 2) most show breeders claim they do it solely for the love of the breed and to further it. That video and that comment shows that is not the case. price your dogs however way you want but at the end of the day dont lie and say it like you dont profit.



You know it is funny how opinionated you are and how you come across as such a know it all...but when someone confronts you...you act like you could careless.....I have seen how you have bashed breeders on here and in all honesty....I think it is a shame. Most breeders do breed to better the breed, are there some that are strickly out for the money, of course. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be "allowed" to make some profit to be able to help with expenses...that is all I am saying.


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

jesshan said:


> But there AREN'T any health checks done in the UK on chihuahuas. The main problem we have in chihuahuas is PL - how many pet breeders do this test? It is one thing taking your breeding pairs to the vets to check their heart BUT this doesn't mean they won't throw a puppy with a heart problem. So again, the show breeders are bad, the BYB are bad but the pet breeders have not to be tarred with this brush? Surely as tests are not compulsory this means that pet breeders ARE the same as BYB as are the SHOW breeders?
> 
> I for one am currently looking into having ALL my dogs PL tested fully, not just a wiggle of the back legs at the vets. i have been finding out from someone in Europe where they have to be tested.


Exactly but thats the point isn't it you said if there were compulsory tests then you would do it and I was implying pedigree dogs as a whole not just Chihuahua's as a lot of other breeds have very serious health problems atm.

My annoyance is at people who wouldn't agree to test their dogs even if the tests are available.


----------



## chibellaxo (Jul 6, 2008)

MORELIACHIS said:


> Yes I am totally serious.... what you don't seem to realise is chihuahuas are expensive over here in the UK...period.. you could never get a chihuahua here for what you can get them in the US for. Believe me, £1000-£1500 is average for a good quality chihuahua! And most people are happy to pay it. All of my dogs were in that price bracket and over, and I was happy to pay it because most are champion sired and have excellent lines. So when I have litters from those dogs are you trying to tell me I should give them away for next to nothing??!! When I have paid maybe upto £1500 for the quality parents?? I don't think so!! :foxes15: All show breeders charge around the same, so why would it be fair for someone else to make a huge loss? We don't all have money to give away! I think your post was extremely rude in what you are implying.


you say i am rude, i say youre unethical if you tell your buyers you dont profit. simple as that. and dont put words into my mouth ( so to speak) unless of course it helps you with your argument  if you arent doing it for profit, you shouldnt charge anymore than it takes to get the puppies/mom checked and to care for the litter. have a nice day. its pointless to keep arguing this.


----------



## chibellaxo (Jul 6, 2008)

charging the amount it takes to get the puppies/mom checked and to care for the litter isnt the same thing as "giving them away" or "charging next to nothing" unless you view charging a reasonable amount "charging next to nothing." 

i tried to edit this into my last post but it didnt show so im putting it here.


----------



## jesshan (Sep 15, 2005)

IWAC said:


> well, i'm not getting overly involved in bickering. ALl I will say is Denise was a world of support to me when I had nobody to turn to, and not only about dogs but to me personally as well.
> 
> I wont mention names, but basically a "show" dog was purchased (NOT from Denise) that turned out to have serious health issues.
> What comment was made from the breeder? "well she's a show dog ALL show dogs have open molera's and hydrocephalus"
> ...


I know I should have cut some of this out but I would like to say thank you for saying such lovely things about me (and I didn't pay you to say these)


----------



## chibellaxo (Jul 6, 2008)

~Kari's*4*Chis~ said:


> You know it is funny how opinionated you are and how you come across as such a know it all...but when someone confronts you...you act like you could careless.....I have seen how you have bashed breeders on here and in all honesty....I think it is a shame. Most breeders do breed to better the breed, are there some that are strickly out for the money, of course. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be "allowed" to make some profit to be able to help with expenses...that is all I am saying.


no, i just dont care what YOU think. i obviously care what ethics dictate. something you seem to not understand if you lie to your buyers. you seem to have missed the part where i said show breeders that ive come across claim they dont profit off of the puppies...if that doesnt pertain to you because you admit you do it for profit, then chill out.


----------



## jesshan (Sep 15, 2005)

*Sarah* said:


> Exactly but thats the point isn't it you said if there were compulsory tests then you would do it and I was implying pedigree dogs as a whole not just Chihuahua's as a lot of other breeds have very serious health problems atm.
> 
> My annoyance is at people who wouldn't agree to test their dogs even if the tests are available.



Like I said I am actively looking into doing this for PL, the main hereditary fault - so out of curiosity and this isn't another dig BUT how many of you would buy from a show breeder IF they knew that both parents had been PL tested - or would you still go to the pet breeder?


----------



## MORELIACHIS (Feb 25, 2008)

~Kari's*4*Chis~ said:


> I haven't said anything in this thread because I think it is a little ridiculous to argue....since most of us here agree....But I think you comment is out of line....
> 
> Where did she say that she was in it for "only" making money??? What she said was that it cost LOTS of money over the years to breed the quality of dog the YOU want.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your support, Kari, we seem to definately see eye to eye on this


----------



## *Sarah* (Apr 19, 2005)

I have no problems buying from show people  but it depends on the show person, as I said I care about the health of the dogs. I agree to disagree with you on inbreeding Denise but everyone is entitled to an opinion I personally wouldn't risk it. 

But breeding dogs you know could have health problems and not checking is unforgivable and even you must see that?


----------



## ~Kari's*4*Chis~ (Sep 7, 2004)

chibellaxo said:


> no, i just dont care what YOU think. i obviously care what ethics dictate. something you seem to not understand if you lie to your buyers. you seem to have missed the part where i said show breeders that ive come across claim they dont profit off of the puppies...if that doesnt pertain to you because you admit you do it for profit, then chill out.



I don't admit to do it for profit...infact that last puppy I sold (out of 2 pups) I lost $1000 on him.....so what I am saying is that why is it wrong to make a little to be able to set aside for medical expenses, living expenses...etc.


You don't care what I think....but yet you want everyone to care what you think??? Are we not intitle to our opinions??? I didn't think it was fair for you to bash a breeder who never said she was making a profit anyway.....

I would love to hear an answer as to "why" it is sooooooooo bad to make a profit....I mean can breeders not better the breed "AND" have a profit???? How do you expect them to continue with no money????


----------



## chibellaxo (Jul 6, 2008)

i wouldnt have a prob if a show person admitted they profited from the beginning. if they explain why the prices are so high, rather than pass if off as "the cost of producing a litter because of the cost it takes to get the mom and puppies checked and to be there 24/7."


----------



## ~Kari's*4*Chis~ (Sep 7, 2004)

MORELIACHIS said:


> Thank you for your support, Kari, we seem to definately see eye to eye on this


You are more then welcome!!!! 

What ticks me off is the people that get on their high horse about this issue are the ones that have never breed a litter anyways...they have no idea the time and money invested into these litters....it is really sad.


----------



## chibellaxo (Jul 6, 2008)

~Kari's*4*Chis~ said:


> I don't admit to do it for profit...infact that last puppy I sold (out of 2 pups) I lost $1000 on him.....so what I am saying is that why is it wrong to make a little to be able to set aside for medical expenses, living expenses...etc.
> 
> 
> You don't care what I think....but yet you want everyone to care what you think??? Are we not intitle to our opinions??? I didn't think it was fair for you to bash a breeder who never said she was making a profit anyway.....
> ...


i was under the impression that they do it as a hobby and like i said,if they make enough to cover their costs of getting the puppies and mom checked then its not like theyre losing money... i thought i made that clear? to be a breeder, shouldnt you have some money to ensure the puppies you breed can still get care even if they dont sell?

oh and yeah. i really dont care what you think. so, i thought it was pretty pointless and silly of you to tell me i was out of line like you telling me that actually mattered.


----------



## ~Kari's*4*Chis~ (Sep 7, 2004)

chibellaxo said:


> i was under the impression that they do it as a hobby and like i said,if they make enough to cover their costs of getting the puppies and mom checked then its not like theyre losing money... i thought i made that clear? to be a breeder, shouldnt you have some money to ensure the puppies you breed can still get care even if they dont sell?
> 
> oh and yeah. i really dont care what you think. so, i thought it was pretty pointless and silly of you to tell me i was out of line like you telling me that actually mattered.


So why again are you posting in this thread?


----------



## MORELIACHIS (Feb 25, 2008)

chibellaxo said:


> you say i am rude, i say youre unethical if you tell your buyers you dont profit. simple as that. and dont put words into my mouth ( so to speak) unless of course it helps you with your argument  if you arent doing it for profit, you shouldnt charge anymore than it takes to get the puppies/mom checked and to care for the litter. have a nice day. its pointless to keep arguing this.


So you didn't answer my part about how much the parents cost me....is that because I am right? I didn't just go get them for free, I paid my money like I would expect people to do if they wanted a puppy from me! 
Previously you PM'd me to say my dogs were perfect and lovely looking, as well as replying to posts about my dogs with compliments. Well I am afraid ii is a fact that the nice well bred dogs are expensive!


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2008)

~Kari's*4*Chis~ said:


> You are more then welcome!!!!
> 
> What ticks me off is the people that get on their high horse about this issue are the ones that have never breed a litter anyways...they have no idea the time and money invested into these litters....it is really sad.



Which is exactly why I dont comment on breeding and genetics etc.
But I have to say not only do i support denise, but the both of you as well.

It seems some people have turned what started out as an interesting debate, into a personal slanging match, and are being very immature in their responses.

All I want to add is Chibellaxo, if you SO ARENT BOTHERED, why are you still replying? and still being rude and abusive? I thought you said you had enough of it all as it was getting silly? 

I totally agree it IS getting silly.
Surely as adults people on here can have a debate, EVEN a slightly heated one, without turning round and pointing the finger at other members of the forum?

AS I said before we cant all agree on everything, but i think the one point the vast majority of us would agree on is to breed from dogs with KNOWN health / genetic problems is NOT acceptable.

Now could we please get back to the discussion on the programme and stop the finger pointing and slanging match? I see no reason why we cant carry on discussing this issue like sensible adults! Unless of course some of us arent sensible adults!


----------



## Rosiesmum (Oct 14, 2007)

jesshan said:


> Like I said I am actively looking into doing this for PL, the main hereditary fault - so out of curiosity and this isn't another dig BUT how many of you would buy from a show breeder IF they knew that both parents had been PL tested - or would you still go to the pet breeder?


I personally would love to see ALL Chi breeders having their breeding dogs tested for Patella Luxation. I would definately favour someone who took the time to do this. I've seen the result of patella surgery and though thankfully Jago got a great result....it was a big scar and he hated his 4 week cage rest. He also needed to stay at the surgery overnight which was a worry.

By the by in a way, but Jago was the result of an "acccidental mating" the breeder did show and still does I believe. I would never buy from them again I hasten to add. I informed the breeder Jago hat PL, they said that he must have hurt it jumping. Even when I told them that the vet who is a specialist had said in his professional opinion it was congenital, they were in denial. They continued to breed from both his parents...

Having lost a much loved Chi at only ten years old, not quite that  to mitral valve problems (heart) I'd like to see Chihuahua breeders give some attention to the incidence of this within the breed too. 

I personally think that all breeds should be bred with health and temperament as much of a priority...if not more so than "type." Though of course none of us want see the Chihuahua looking like a Greyhound!
Barbara x


----------



## chibellaxo (Jul 6, 2008)

MORELIACHIS said:


> So you didn't answer my part about how much the parents cost me....is that because I am right? I didn't just go get them for free, I paid my money like I would expect people to do if they wanted a puppy from me!
> Previously you PM'd me to say my dogs were perfect and lovely looking, as well as replying to posts about my dogs with compliments. Well I am afraid ii is a fact that the nice well bred dogs are expensive!


nope because honestly i was paying more attention to the other breeder than to you.i dont think you should pass the money down that you paid to acquire your dogs to the buyers because if you really were doing it to futher the breed and soley for love, you would have taken that initial cost as a loss..and made sure you break even from then on. besides, i already know your record because another member just warned me about you. so, i didnt think whatyou say really mattered. oh and by the way, i say a lot of things on here to be nice. obvioulsy, i dont think your dogs are perfect..theyre just cute. the only "show" dogs ( not sure if they show though) who i really think are perfect ( IMHO) are zero, chad and some of denise's. i really need to chill out with the compliments, huh?


----------



## Yoshismom (Jul 6, 2005)

Okay guys we have all had our say and before this gets anymore out of hand I am closing it. Thanks everyone for your opinions


----------

