Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 102

Thread: Show dog questions.

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Bundaberg QLD


    Yeah not the straightest or smartest question that one LOL...... take it anyway you want. I guess somthing like cancer or a hearing problem etc..etc..disease, illness, disability, whatever really...I wouldnt expect a dog with mange or 3 legs to show . Just threw it out there....i'm a total newb when it comes to dog shows.

    Quote Originally Posted by reyzor View Post
    Education is important, but big biceps are more importanter ...

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Sunshine coast Qld


    Hyacinth - post from Qld mastiff thread/
    Large organisations that fail to kick out members who don't stick to the code of ethics.

    Australian Medical Association
    and whatever it is the Lawyers belong to.

    Probably applies to most organisations of professionals. It really does take a lot of courage and legal resources to boot a dodgy member. And they will only tell you afterwards you dealt with a dodgy one.

    Of course some of these organisations have no expectation that their members will follow any code of ethics. I think I bought my house from a member of one of these...

    I imagine government officials would be in that catagory as well.

    But the problem here is, the recipients of this long standing neglect of their responsibilities to the well being of dogs, are living, breathing, feeling animals who are totally dependant on us to protect them.

    I have to say I would advocate for Australian dog showing to cease until the ANKC revises their breed standards and begins the proccess of regular mandatory breed specific health testing for genetic diseases and conditions, which will have to be produced and the dog free from these inherited conditions before eligibility for showing. Those animals found to be carrying serious genetic conditions will have registration papers marked, and the dog required by law to be neutered, or breeder de registered. Another is a blanket limit on how many dogs you can own and register support by the ANKC and enforced by council and caring citizens like "crested love" with binoculars on neighbours.

    This would have 3 positive outcomes, one) -unethical breeders will have less incentive to use unethical breeding practices as there will be no reward nor prize.
    2)Breeds will become healthier over time, dogs will become healthier and unsuspecting buyers will, in the future have more chance of dealing with ethical breeders and recieve a healthier purebreed.

    3) Breeders that have always used suitable breeding practices and who have always had their animals health, and best interests at heart, will have a level playing field in the show ring.
    After all, dont ALL ethical breeders test for the breed specific conditions now anyway, before they breed? So why not make it mandatory?

    While we all sit here hoping for small changes, 100 years of dog show clubs has seen little accountability for the decline in health of certain breeds with zero consequences for offenders leading to more unethical standards.

    Its not good enough to say, "its all to hard", I dont believe that, these are animals and deserve to be protected.
    The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
    Mohandas Gandhi

  3. #13


    Woah Nellie! That's a but much isn't t?

    Would that opinion be based upon knowledge of the percentage of purebred dogs participating in shows that have health concerns?

    Yes, I may be biased as I breed and show. Yes, health is number 1 for me. And yes, I know plenty of breeders and exhibitors, and can honestly say that health is number 1 to the vast majority, in fact I can't think of any that disregard it.

    Yet I have also spent time employed in animal welfare. So I can add to the above that I have seen a great many congenital and suspected congenital health issues in crossbred, certainly non showbred dogs. In my experience the percentage would be higher.

    So, even without that experience, but going of f the fact that no actual numbers or percentages of purebred dogs wth health issues are known, how would the prohibition of dog showing benefit anyone or anydog at all?

    Generalised and hysterical statements are potentially damaging to the entire dog owning community.

    And Sean, nice thread otherwise. Yes neuters are in the ring in highers numbers every month now. And yes, from an external point of view, but taking nto account that judges aren't vets and are not running diagnostics, dogs in the ring need to appear sound and healthy. I have seen dogs (particularly sighthounds) in the ring with minor things obvious like a scratch, or even a couple of stitches in a small cut etc, but this being a sign that the dog gets to run around as normal is not considered a negative.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Sunshine coast Qld


    So Natty in your opinion, there are not enough major congenital health / welfare issues within purebreds to warrant any change ?And crossbreeds in your opinion and from your experience have a higher rate of genetic conditions than pure breds?

    Why is insurance premiums so much higher for purebreds than xbreds?

    The RSPCA also publicly disagrees, as do all vet associations..

    Pedigree Dogs Exposed - FAQs | RSPCA Australia | For all creatures, great & small.

    I think I have said before, I dont show, but know people who, so my info 0n showing is almost non existant. But i would have thought any moves to change the current system that rewards appearance, rather than excellent breeding practices resulting in healthier puppies together with the title winning breed standard appearance would be welcomed by the many ethical breeders .
    Do you believe the breed standards and the judges individual definations are appropriate, or in the best interests of some breeds?
    The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
    Mohandas Gandhi

  5. #15


    I typed a vast reply and lost it. Can't be bothered honestly.

    What are you doing about these vast problems you are happy to blurt on about? Other than flouting the ANKC code of ethics yourself that is.

    Just bitching about it on public forums, in an opinionated and uninformed manner? Working with your breed club to improve health in your breed?

    Very easy to point fingers from the outside and rely on the opinions of others.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Sunshine coast Qld


    Well that is the beauty of being able to put forward concerns and hear other peoples opinions.

    It is also to easy sit back and ignore the fact that some breeds are in serious trouble.
    Would be great if you have the time look into the vet sites (purebred v xbred health) and let me know what you think.
    The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
    Mohandas Gandhi

  7. #17


    When it comes to crossbreeds having more issues than purebreeds, this is usually untrue. Where this is true is when the crossbreed is a result of two breeds that both have a lot of issues and a lot of those issues are the same. For example, you take a mastiff and cross it with a great dane. I would not expect those puppies to be healthier than the parents - you also need to take into account that the people doing this cross probably haven't used the best parents in the first place, and are unlikely to have undertaken any testing.

    If this is not the case though, if you have a cross of 2 breeds that have a few problems but not many (say a whippet cross beagle) or even a full bitsa, I would expect that to be a healthier dog. The fact is the books were closed for a lot of breeds before testing was even available. They are now so closely related that they would be considered endangered species if they were separate species - but that's the price we pay for having the puppies come out near identical to the parents. I do see healthy purebreds, but my argument would be that yes we should be breed for type and particular looks - have our 'breeds', but I don't believe they need to be 100% pure. If you see a cross bred dog that fits the standard, I don't understand why they can't be used. Yes it helps if people have a good idea of what they're bringing home for hopefully the next 10+ years, but for example in my case, I brought home a dog who wasn't quite pure, and yet he's been exactly what I expected. The parents and other family members were large dogs, with high drive and very loyal and intelligent. That's what I got. But he's unique in some ways and there is more variation between the puppies than what you would find in a pure litter (some throw more to the rottie, others are finer and more agile etc) however they all seem to share the traits she was actually breeding for - the loyalty, protectiveness, intelligence and super strong bond with family. Thing is, people can be very different from each other, so do we all need clones of the same dogs? I love dobermans but I probably love them for different reasons than a lot of other people who love them do. This much is obvious to me when I go to visit breeders. I'm not sure. It's like within the dog world, pedigrees take on a life of their own - and that just doesn't happen anywhere else to my knowledge - cross-breeding seems to be encouraged and valued everywhere else, whether it's our crops, cows, chickens, horses etc.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Geelong, Vic


    the theory of a cross breed being healthier then a purebred is due to the fact that you are crossing two different gene pools together, recessive conditions that are only in each of those two gene pools will not be expressed in the F1 cross BUT you do create carriers of the condition. Just because you cannot see a gene expressed doesnt mean it doesnt exist in that new crossbreed gene pool.

    Working for vets over the years there are just as many if not more crossbreeds with health problems then pedigree dogs. The well bred pedigrees I have are doing well, the poorly bred ones and x breeds did not make it. Bad breeding is bad breeding be it cross or pedigree, the problem with cross breeds is that people buy in they dont have to do any testing - as long as the dog is breeding and can walk its right to breed *sigh*

    Breed clubs in Australia have health schemes working towards healthier dogs ... if you look at the Rottweiler CLub they have done a LOT to retain the health and temperament of their breed.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Southern NSW


    I totally agree with Nekhbeth........Same goes for cattle actually that is why F1 is so popular there. It is also why certain groups only ever use two pure-breeds to produce the cross breed puppies they want, such at the Golden Retriever cross Border Collies in NZ and USA for Search and Rescue..they desex all puppies.

    There are many Pure Breed clubs now trying to produce healthier is up to the breed clubs to do this and up to the people who purchase these puppies to make sure they are buying from healthy and health checked dogs. We as the general public need to be responsible. You cannot expect bodies like ANKC to mandate over this..We need to govern ourselves and not be governed and turned into a nanny state.

    If you go to most average show, you will see that most dogs are healthy....there have been some issues with some breeds, but there are also people working at changing that. We the purchasers need to be more aware of what we are buying and from whom.
    If no one bought from bad Breeders and puppy farms they would not be there.....hence the people looking for the cheaper dogs need to realise that if you buy a, for example , Newfie for $1000 instead of the $ are often likely to have problems. And if you do buy the newfie for $2500 and have a problem, you are more likely to get support. I know of two people who are breed bashing right now.....They bought their registered pure bred for very little money, no health checks. no genetic checks and now the worst HD and elbow dysplasia on both dogs. They blame the Breed, not themselves or how they purchased these dogs from Byb's.

    All the health check, genetic testing and such costs a lot of money.....Just doing the x-rays, cardiac, DNA and other blood tests can set you back lots. Also to get each puppy cardiac tested before they leave, it all adds up

    Anyway back to topic.......

    I love neuter classes, it means you can still show. But it is more for the Kennel the dog came from, to show the offspring of a certain line, just like gelding do in the horse-world

    I have actually shown a dog with a huge cut, stitched that morning and shaved, but no pain and not lame (skin-flap). I asked if I was allowed in and they told me yes if we were not on pain-killers. So the dog was sound.
    I has been smart and asked the vet for a short note to say what happened, just skin hooked on nail and sewn up.......We actually did BIG (Best in Group) that day We had travelled so far and i knew there was no issue for the dog.
    Pets are forever

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2010


    I am not sure about this purebred vs crossbred health thing to be honest. Its not black and white, you cant just say one is healthier than the other really because its all to do with make up of parent breeds and disorders in that breed etc....

    While I have not owned any purebreds myself, I grew up with purebreds and alot of my friends have purebreds.

    My opinion healthwise, would be that is it much of a muchness, but certain disorders are going to show more dominantly in purebreds purely because the genetic disorder occurs in that breed, and if both parents are of that breed that could have that disorder as opposed to x-ing one dog to another breed which doesnt have that disorder.

    But thats all it is IMO. The rate of the disorder in one breed means that it is more likely to occur in the pure rather than the cross. Not sure if thats making sense.

    As an example, I am going to use some of the dogs I have known. (P) will indicate purebred. These are or were all real dogs with real issues. But it is just a small cross section of known dogs to provide an example.
    Border collie (p) - no issues
    Stafford (p) - skin issues
    Staffy/lab x - allergies in later life which affected the skin
    staffy/boxer x - bladder stones
    Lab x (true identity not known) - potential hip dysplasia or arthritis at almost 7 (not known yet - hence "potential")
    Boxer - (p)heart defect (died young)
    Cocker spaniel (p) - ear issues (quite severe)
    Beagle/huntaway x - no issues
    bullterrier/lab x - no issues
    huntaway/rotty x - no issues
    German shepherd (p) - hip dysplasia
    cocker spaniel (p) - no issues (still only 6 months old so far)

    I have listed 6 pures, 4 of which had some sort of issue. I have listed 6 cross breeds with, 3 of which had some sort of issue (though 1 is not "proven yet" and 1 is technically probably not considered genetic - I am not sure so I have included it).

    If we look at the crossbreed issues, most of these issues can be traced back to one of the parental purebreds.

    Now, while my data shows a higher ratio of issues in purebreds, the crosses are all F1 (except for the unknown lab x who may not even be a lab - though I would be 98% sure that is the majority of his makeup). I am probably of the belief that crossbreeds probably are a little healthier but only marginally so, and probably only if crossed with a breed that doesnt carry the same issues as the other parental breed (of course we would need to take into consideration that potentially they could inherit all issues from both parent breeds but this is just a basic sample).

    Just remember this is a sample, I could go much further and include every single dog I know/have known to get a much larger data set. And someone else could post every dog they know and their issues. But the fact is issue wise, they are pretty similar but a x-breed just has a slightly lower chance of picking up the disorder due to the introduction of a different breed without those specific issues. If we consider its two breeds that have the same health issues (e.g lab and gsd and hip dysplasia) then the odds IMO remain the same as if the first dog had been paired with one of the same breed (e.g. lab to lab and hip dysplasia).

    The reason perhaps people may see a lot of crosses with issues I think is because in certain areas (and dare we say socio-economic groups) these dogs are allowed to wander and breed indiscriminantly meaning you get a lot of complete bitzas with ALOT of different genetic disorders in the genetic make up, making it more likely one will show when that complete bitzas breeds with another dog (be it mutt or pure) who also carries one of the many potential disorders the bitza has inherited from various different breeds in its make up.. Similar to breeding pure to pure.

    I wanted to go into more detail but I forgot what I was going to say.

    Everyones experience here is going to be different of course. But I think pures only show issues because these things occur in that breed so when breeding breed to same breed the chance is higher of getting that disorder (similar to breed white person to white person and you will almost certainly get a white baby, but breed white to black and baby could be white, black or brown).

    Not sure if what I was trying to get across got across, but I am glad a lot of breeders are using health checks to insure things are passed on in the line so as long as breeders stick with this then eventually the rate of issues in purebreds should become much much lower (unless of course breed standards change and become too ridiculous - as some already can be considered - and further increase chances of incidences).

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

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