Page 25 of 29 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 290

Thread: 'Oodles' 'Schnoos' 'Aliers' and 'Poos'

  1. #241
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rural NSW
    Posts
    5,967

    Default

    My post did not say that though. It was exactly meant as it was written as that is what I feel on that question of DDs. I feel they indeed are doing it to cater for demand and make money.

    It had nothing to do with the other issues discussed here but for the record I also feel that there are both good and bad purebreed breeders, x breeders, back yard oops breeders BYBs and it would be great if there was some body to cover and try to regulate it all but that would be in a perfect world.. I am not a pure breed purist by any stretch of the imagination.
    Last edited by Di_dee1; 12-30-2011 at 06:35 PM. Reason: edited for clarity.

    Any posts made under the name of Di_dee1 one can be used by anyone as I do not give a rats.

  2. #242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by margoo View Post
    I didn't see this BBC docu when it was on TV. I just now started watching it on youtube but so far couldn't get past the little King Charles Spaniel screaming in pain... perhaps another day when I'm feeling less fragile...
    This is the exact reason why actual registered breeders are around. They are being regulated and they do NOT breed from lines with a history of syringomyelia in Australia. There are very few cases of it in the CKCS breed here and those cases are very mild. Miley's mother dropped dead suddenly at 7 years old, so Miley was instantly removed from the breeding program, desexed and given away. She had a litter of pups before her mother died and the entire litter was also desexed and sold as pets only. The breeder lost an entire line because of one dog, but she had to do it for the breed and she knew it.

  3. #243

    Default

    Puggerpup, the ckcs that won at crufts had syringomyelia and had sired 26 litters - after diagnosis. But that is in the UK and why i mentioned i thought it was worse over there.

    Did that defect or others like hd exist way back when, or in wolves i wonder? Or have they been bred in, and now they aRe trying to be bred out again?

    Sorry, that may be a question for another topic as ive strayed from the original point.

  4. #244

    Default

    That documentary is around 10 years old

  5. #245

    Default

    It was aired in 2008 and took two years to make. But hopefully it made a difference over there.

  6. #246
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    2,388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apuppyforme View Post
    Puggerpup, the ckcs that won at crufts had syringomyelia and had sired 26 litters - after diagnosis. But that is in the UK and why i mentioned i thought it was worse over there.

    Did that defect or others like hd exist way back when, or in wolves i wonder? Or have they been bred in, and now they aRe trying to be bred out again?

    Sorry, that may be a question for another topic as ive strayed from the original point.
    Its bred in, but not purposefully. Its a side effect of getting them to look the way they do with those tiny little heads and gorgeous big eyes.

    Ok admitedly that is perhaps not the exact answer, but it is typically in the CKCS due to a malformed bone in the skull...which I assume came about by breeding them with those tiny wee heads.

    However, my opinion is that this would never be done "on purpose", and probably was completely unknown side effect of getting them to look that way.

    I could be way off base that that is what it is due to, but that is my understanding of it.

    I also agree with pugger though, its not so common here...

  7. #247

    Default

    Of course it wasn't done on purpose, but now that it has been done the breeders are reversing it.

  8. #248
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    2,388

    Default

    Well yea thats what I meant....i DID TYPE MORE BUT i AM HAVING A CURSOR issue (sorry caps) at the mo here it jumps round my post and deletes stuff and adds stuff so I just went with posting what I had lol

  9. #249

    Default

    I figured it was bred in accidentally. I guess that answers my question about unbettering the breed.

    Anyway, ill leave u guys to it now, all this talk had me dreaming about forum posts and health problems last night.

    Enjoy your debate, and ill post pics of my pup when i get him.

  10. #250
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Rural Western Australia
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by puggerup View Post
    Of course it wasn't done on purpose, but now that it has been done the breeders are reversing it.
    I think this is a great deal of the problem. I suspect a lot of breeders dont really understand genetics,and are often driven by something that may not be in the interests of the long term health of a dog or breed.

    I know breeders of purebreds who really invest a lot of time and money in knowing their breed and their breeds genetics inside out. They can give you all the information of health testing down the generations, they usually sell on a spay neuter contract and some of them even go as far as asking you to do a hip/elbow score on your pup for information on their lines.

    There are breeders of purebreds who do nothing, no testing and have poor understanding.

    Why does the ANKC have to enforce certain tests in certain breeds? The breeders of any worth are all ready doing it, but there are many that are not and lots of complaints from puppy owners left to carry the burdon. At least there is a regulatory body that is sometimes forced to act if things are going south. Unfortunately with crossbreeders there are no such checks in place

    I also know a lot of breeding goes on in the suburbs without any due care at all, of both phentypically pure looking dogs and various crosses.

    People will often do an ad hoc so called designer cross because they think it will make them a bit of money. Or they may simply want to breed their pet for a number of what I would call pretty invalid arguments. Some think crossbreds are bound to be healthier because of so called hybrid vigour.

    If we had better regulation, people taking the trouble to learn about breeding, genetics, health testing, conformation, temperament etc I think it will be the only way to sort it out. I am not going to hold my breath though. A dog doesnt need to be the very top specimen to breed, of course this is an ideal for people working towards a certain standard. With my working BC I couldnt care less about the conformation standard for the showbred BC. I want a structurally sound dog with good inherited ability to work, not the looks to win a show.

    I think that if crossbreeders can achieve a structurally sound dog, free from genetic problems as much as can be done, screen their potential owners, take the dogs back within reason if things go wrong for the owner (my dogs will go back to their breeders if something happens to me), take an interest in how the puupies turn out to give them more information about their breeding, work out spay neuter contracts etc I cant really see a problem.

    This has been mentioned in the above posts.

    So how does one achieve this? If there are dodgy breeders among pure bred breeders, there will be equally dodgy breeders among crossbreds with currently no checks in place for crossbreeders.

    I often think if dogs were left on the planet in the absence of humans they would all eventually become the ubiquitous brown dog. Tough, smart, strong. Many feral dogs are just like this.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •