Poodle Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,314 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
My mom got back from England on the week-end and brought me back some British dog magazines. One article caught my attention. Ever since that documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed by the BBC aired, the British Kennel Club has been under fire to make changes to ensure that breeders consider more than just conformation when making breeding plans. A number of key recommendations have been made that the Kennel Club has to decide whether to implement or not.

Some of the suggested ideas:

- limiting the number of times a sire can be used to reduce overuse of studs and inbreeding
- awarding Championship status only to those dogs that have been health screened and are free from genetic diseases
- implementing a Puppy Sale Contract similar to that currently in place in Sweden (makes breeders financially responsible for any health problems occurring in the first 3 years of the dog's life)
- linking Kennel Club registration with a high standard of breeding for health and welfare

So, turning this directly to poodles. Do you think a change in how things are done like this would be a good thing or bad thing for the future of the breed?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,972 Posts
Some of the suggested ideas:

- limiting the number of times a sire can be used to reduce overuse of studs and inbreeding
I don't agree w/ this, it should be up to the breeders
- awarding Championship status only to those dogs that have been health screened and are free from genetic diseases
I think this is great. Conformation is about a dogs suitability for breeding and health testing is part of that IMO. Breed specific temperment test would nice too. This of course should be up to the individual parent clubs.
- implementing a Puppy Sale Contract similar to that currently in place in Sweden (makes breeders financially responsible for any health problems occurring in the first 3 years of the dog's life)
This is intruiging but could be abused.
- linking Kennel Club registration with a high standard of breeding for health and welfare
I like the health part, but welfare is subjective. Who decides this? The AR groups that produced the documentary or agriculture officials? People want breeder legislation in the states. They don't understand that puppymills and brokers are already regulated by the US dept of Ag and their standards are crap.

I think the Kennel Club, overall, is catering to fanatical AR activists and the naive public that buys their garbage. This would be the AR people who think pets are the equivilant of slaves and the general public that buys designer dogs and teacup puppies. Changes are needed on both sides of the Atlantic, but you have to be leary of who's going to oversee it and who is pushing for it. I think a reward system is much better than regulation and punishment. I think much of this is making life harder for good breeders why the bad ones will just keep doing what they want, most of them don't show any way. In the US many use junk registries, so AKC regulations don't apply to them. Why not just start a media campaign to educate people on health testing. Why not recognize breeders who test? Perhaps even a higher tier of registration. A "platinum" certificate for puppies out of tested parents maybe?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,155 Posts
testing. Why not recognize breeders who test? Perhaps even a higher tier of registration. A "platinum" certificate for puppies out of tested parents maybe?[/COLOR]
OH - I would love to see this !!!!! Breeders who do ALL tests and give 3 year warranty to have a special recognition !!!!!!!! They sooooooo deserve it !!!!!

Also - I like the idea of limiting Stud use - That would prevent some breeders to "make some side money" by giving a stud service for bitches that are of inferior quality and would also make them plan any breeding VERY carefully- not only for their own program , but also anybodies else ! One would think twice before offering a Stud . "Popular Stud" syndrome contributed to so many health problems in all breeds that limiting a Stud would have benefits there too !

I agree with Harley that working on public awareness should be a priority though . Unless buyers understand why all of the above is important - BYBs will flourish and good breeders will sometimes slack here and there also ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,307 Posts
I dont agree with the 3 year thing, it should be for the life of the dog for one. Two You can do all the health testing on the planet and have the very best of intentions and surprises happen. Its not yor fault, it's not the owners fault either but there is some risk in purchasing a puppy. I don't think it should be 100% the breeder who takes the hit on an unforseen issue. Now if you're NOT doing the testing thats a different story.
Our health garentee is for the life of the puppy against the health issues common to our breed which we of course test for. If pup should come up with PRA for instance at any time in his/her life we offer to take puppy back and replace it or you can keep the puppy and we have ideas in place for that refund wise. Depends on the situation. Knock on wood careful research and testing has served us well thus far and we've never had a health issue.


The only thing on that list I do agree with is the health testing before you achieve your CH title, that might not be so bad since dog shows are intended to be an evaluation of breeding dogs.
On the other hand what about the owners who just want to show for fun and have no intention of breeding. I think it is unfair to require them to spend large amounts of money on health testing that makes no real difference to them or that they may not care about.

IMO IF such a rule were to be enacted, it might be better to require the health testing of the parents in order to register those puppies. Thats something that would be nice to see a registry make a rule about.

I think though that these types of rules can open the door to all sorts of unpleasent places for dog owners in general. If they are limited to rules enacted by a registry then ok. When you start talking laws though is when it gets hairy. What I may agree or disagree with may step on somebody else's toes and vice versa. What happens when you start putting things like breeding restrictions into law as well intentioned as it may be snowballs and turns into ownership restrictions like manditory spay nueter and breed specific legislation and thats a no no. So long as I'm meeting my dogs' needs and providing good care, it's my right as a dog owner to decide those types of things not animal rights groups which are usually the ones behind things like this.

Public awareness and education is soooo hard but gosh what a wonderful world we'd live in if people KNEW about health testing before they bought that puppy inthe window. It's just plain sad that so many do not and lord knows a pet store worker or BYB isn't going to mention it (if they even know themselves). I thought it was great when I registered Saleen and got her paperwork in the mail I also got a couple of little info type printouts from the breed club about poodles. Wish every breed was like that, Tibbies are not :(

we could kick this around and debate all night :) on it... (haha I can't sleep anyone else ??) It's such an interesting and stimulating topic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
I don't know a thing about the showing or breeding end of things but only one thing came to mind when reading it. I imagine if a registry put so many rules in place, at added expence of course, isn't it likely that the number of non registered pups would rise? If registered poodles started to cost much more than they used to won't the general, usually uncaring ir uneducated, public forgo the registered pup and go for the much cheaper byb or mill pup instead? I also imagine some breeders would register their pups less to stop them from having to follow the tighter rules? (It's my dog, damn it, and Ill decide how many times to breed it or if I want to health test it, for example) Just a thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,314 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
- implementing a Puppy Sale Contract similar to that currently in place in Sweden (makes breeders financially responsible for any health problems occurring in the first 3 years of the dog's life)
So I read more on this particular point last night in another article. It seems like what they are suggesting be implemented is more like the puppy "lemon law" that is currently around in some states. Basically, they are suggesting that a standard puppy sale contract be created that must be used by all puppy sellers (whether kennel club members or not).

This contract consists of sales terms with an appendix listing all breed specific illnesses. The terms of the contract state that if the puppy falls ill with one of the illnesses noted as being specific to that breed, the buyer has the right to pursue the seller in court to pay for all medical expenses related to that illness. They could also ask the seller to cover their legal costs.

Now there was one protection noted for breeders. If they had done the applicable health testing on the parents, and the pup still came down with the illness, they don't have to pay medical costs.

The feeling of the person who wrote the article was that this type of contract would discourage mills and byb because it wouldn't be worth their time to sell puppies. I found this idea very interesting. Apparently it's had a very positive impact in Sweden. Of course, a big part of the success of such a scheme would be public education, as noted by Harley. Pup buyers would need to know that they should only buy from breeders who offer this standard contract.

This link gives more info: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6900266.ece
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,956 Posts
On the other hand what about the owners who just want to show for fun and have no intention of breeding. I think it is unfair to require them to spend large amounts of money on health testing that makes no real difference to them or that they may not care about.
See, this would be an interesting topic to me - owners who might be interested in showing for fun and recognition of a great dog, but who really have no interest in breeding said dog... This (besides the coat care of a show poodle) is the main reason that I will never show in conformation - I want my house pets to be spayed/neutered and they don't allow spayed/neutered dogs to compete in conformation...

If they would ever implement rules about only tested dogs could reach CH status, and the owner isn't interested in breeding - maybe they could allow either tested or spayed/neutered dogs that ranking - that way, inherited diseases could be diminished or even eradicated... (in my own little world) :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,972 Posts
Wonder you raise some really good points.

Merc, you're absolutely right. I don't know about the UK, but there are several alternative registries here in the US and the main reason the are so successful is b/c many breeders don't want to deal w/ the small number of rules the AKC has in place already. (Mandatory DNA testing for popular studs was a big issue for some breeders.)

Plum, the more I think about it the more I think spay/neuter dogs should be allowed to show. I see titles as more of a testament to the parents of that dog. Just b/c a dog does well in the ring, doens't mean it will produce nice dogs. It's pedigree and the dog it's bred to plays a role in that. On the other hand if a dog produces a large percentage of CHs then you know you're more likely to get a better dog (as far as confomation goes.) Males can be neutered and still reproduce through AI. I also wonder how do they really know whether a dog is spay/neutered? There are prosthetics for males and it's not like they flip a female over and search for a spay scar. Just thinking out loud.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,496 Posts
and some girls have a caesarian and are still entire too; so have the scar... lol!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
My thoughts are that I totally agree with it all.
Many of the common genetic issues now adays can be traced back to one sire e.g. the brain disorder in CKCS is traced back to just on dog, that sired many many MANY puppies. If health testing had been carried out (and I know it probably wasnt 'invented') but if the subsequent children suffered form this disease, surely something should have been done.
But no.
As long as the dogs looks okay, all was well.

Helath/welfare would be monitered by the RSPCA.
This would obviously mean alot of financial input...

and... the contract in sweden has been a massive success... there are many articles going into details about this, and I'd recommend reading as many a spossible to get as much knowledge before deciding what you think.

Which magazine was this? Theres an article on the same subject in 'Dogs Today'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
Sweden is on the forefront of animal welfare, I know a lady who lives there and to become a breed champion they must be a field champion (for the breeds required) they are beautifully temperament and structurally sound dogs.

- limiting the number of times a sire can be used to reduce overuse of studs and inbreeding

I completely agree, if he is such a wonderful sire surely some of his offspring came out just a wonderful and those are the ones who should be bred next.

- awarding Championship status only to those dogs that have been health screened and are free from genetic diseases

I would have to say I agree to a point. It would cut down on the amount of people who show as handlers, showing puppies and those who are beginners.

- implementing a Puppy Sale Contract similar to that currently in place in Sweden (makes breeders financially responsible for any health problems occurring in the first 3 years of the dog's life)

This I am on the fence. In one way I think breeders should be responsible for what they produce but I would think it would only cover hereditary illness.

- linking Kennel Club registration with a high standard of breeding for health and welfare

People should be proud to have a registered dog! I know when I was young the thought of having a purebred registered dog was the ultimate! In America there are to many schmucks who make up "registries" e.g. ACA, ConKC, APRI, ADBA

So over all I agree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,314 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Which magazine was this? Theres an article on the same subject in 'Dogs Today'
That's the one! I read two issues, I think January and February? The first post I made came from the first issue, the second came from the second.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
I am all for it but then I don't breed. I think 1, 2 and 3 are so importnat and the third would ensure a breeder is aware of any genetic issues in their line that delay in appearing, surley that helps them to strengthen their line some more. I think most breeders have their lines best interests in mind in terms of health and disposition but I know of a couple winning big time and charging like wounded bulls for their pups and stud fees even though on the qt they have discovered epilepsy in their line of stunning, amazing looking champions. If heatlh was criteria they would not have so many of their pups with Idiopathic epilepsy down the line I suspect. Just a thought.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top