Should pedigree dog breeding be banned?

ScumLord

I have a problem with the entire pedigree dog breeding industry ti's cruel and wrong. If you where to translate it into human terms it simply wouldn't be tolerated because no one would ever think it was right to force dwarfs or albinos to reproduce solely amongst themselves simply because you like the look of them.

Many of these animals are picking up horrible mutations and deformities, some traits like the Rhodesian Ridgebacks ridge are actually a sign something is seriously wrong with the dog yet Rhodesian pups that don't feature the deformity are routinely put down at birth.

Many of the breeds of dog where breed for a specific purpose and the fact they where working dogs promoted the breeding of healthy animals but now they're simply breed for looks and the health is becoming less and less of concern. Many working breeds are now so deformed they are useless at the tasks they where breed for.

Miniature dogs are the worst example of this IMO, these are animals that simply couldn't survive on their own and many suffer from Syringomyelia where the skull is too small for their brain, in humans it's described as one of the most painful aliments known to man.

Outside of working dogs there should be maybe one or two breeds, mainly a large and medium sized dog. After everything the species has done for us they deserve to have the over all health of the species considered.

*I would have put this in the pets forum but it doesn't strike me as a place for debate and would be completely one sided.

EDIT: Probably should have thought of putting a pole on this.

PanchoVilla

Yes. Inbreeding leads to all sorts of medical complications and causes animals to suffer needlessly. Besides, mutts are just so much cooler than purebreds.

galwayrush

Let the dogs shag whatever bitch they fancy...

TheZohanS

I have a pedigree dog, he's a healthy little bastard and great craic. He's the only dog I could have for where I live and the hours that I keep.

You shouldn't ban all pedigree dog breeding, tighter legislation could solve most problems.

bleg

Mattie McGrath will be after you!

PanchoVilla

TheZohan wrote: »

I have a pedigree dog, he's a healthy little bastard and great craic. He's the only dog I could have for where I live and the hours that I keep.

You shouldn't ban all pedigree dog breeding, tighter legislation could solve most problems.

What breed is it? Lots of purebreds have conditions that are hard to spot unless you know they might be there.

Edit: And tighter legislation in Ireland would mean some legislation.

ScumLord

TheZohan wrote: »

I have a pedigree dog, he's a healthy little bastard and great craic. He's the only dog I could have for where I live and the hours that I keep.

You shouldn't ban all pedigree dog breeding, tighter legislation could solve most problems.

The problem with dogs in general is they're very bad at communicating pain, they just soldier on without complaint.

mojesius

When I was a kid, we had a pure bred cocker spaniel. When he was around 5, he really slowed down on walks. We took him to the vet and he had to be put on heart murmur tablets, he had awful eye problems his entire life and died when he was just 7. We got him from a small breeder, his parents were there, one litter,IKC reg blah blah etc. Similar situation with a King Charles a few years later.

My 14 year old rescue cross still sprints around the park every day, is constantly on the alert and the only thing ailment she has suffered is a rotten tooth.

In short, I completely agree.

TheZohanS

PanchoVilla wrote: »

What breed is it? Lots of purebreds have conditions that are hard to spot unless you know they might be there.

What difference does it make as to what breed he is? (not being smart)

Lots of humans have conditions also. Should we stop people with genetic conditions having kids too?

PanchoVilla

TheZohan wrote: »

What difference does it make as to what breed he is? (not being smart)

Lots of humans have conditions also. Should we stop people with genetic conditions having kids too?

Like I said, some breeds have conditions that are hard to spot. Others have conditions that don't show up until later in life, like German shepherds and their hips. You might think the dog is fine when it's actually not. We should stop mating dogs with adverse genetic conditions, yes.

ScumLord

mojesius wrote: »

When I was a kid, we had a pure bred cocker spaniel. When he was around 5, he really slowed down on walks. We took him to the vet and he had to be put on heart murmur tablets, he had awful eye problems his entire life and died when he was just 7. We got him from a small breeder, his parents were there, one litter,IKC reg blah blah etc. Similar situation with a King Charles a few years later.

My 14 year old rescue cross still sprints around the park every day, is constantly on the alert and the only thing ailment she has suffered is a rotten tooth.

In short, I completely agree.

I had a mongrel that was as hard as nails, got hit by a car and still lived to the age of 16. My friend paid €900 for a top class Doberman which had hip problems within a year.

TheZohan wrote: »

Lots of humans have conditions also. Should we stop people with genetic conditions having kids too?

No but we wouldn't force them to only reproduce with people with the same disability. Which is the main difference.

I don't want to accuse the people who get pedigrees of anything, this is something that came as a shock to me as it really never crossed my mind that pedigree breeding was so bad.

TheZohanS

ScumLord wrote: »

The problem with dogs in general is they're very bad at communicating pain, they just soldier on without complaint.

Very true, that's why only responsible owners should be allowed have dogs. I bring my fella to the vet for regular check ups.

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Like I said, some breeds have conditions that are hard to spot. Others have conditions that don't show up until later in life, like German shepherds and their hips. You might think the dog is fine when it's actually not. We should stop mating dogs with adverse genetic conditions, yes.

It is true that many breeds have conditions, if you're thinking of adopting a pedigree dog you should always do your research. I picked up my dog in the UK as it's a rare breed in Ireland and there was much less chance of inbreeding. Also I have the full history of his parents, grand parents etc. going back generations.

ScumLord wrote: »

I had a mongrel that was as hard as nails, got hit by a car and still lived to the age of 16. My friend paid €900 for a top class Doberman which had hip problems within a year.

No but we wouldn't force them to only reproduce with people with the same disability. Which is the main difference.

I don't want to accuse the people who get pedigrees of anything, this is something that came as a shock to me as it really never crossed my mind that pedigree breeding was so bad.

Again if you do your research on the breed, check out the parents of your dog and buy from a respectable dealer you will eliminate a lot of the problems.

antomagoo

ScumLord wrote: »

Many of the breeds of dog where breed for a specific purpose and the fact they where working dogs promoted the breeding of healthy animals but now they're simply breed for looks and the health is becoming less and less of concern. Many working breeds are now so deformed they are useless at the tasks they where breed for.

Miniature dogs are the worst example of this IMO, these are animals that simply couldn't survive on their own and many suffer from Syringomyelia where the skull is too small for their brain, in humans it's described as one of the most painful aliments known to man.

I agree to some extent with you. I think the likes of Cruffts and various worldwide kennel clubs that set breed standards have an awful lot to answer for. As dogs were being bred purely for how they looked with scant regard given to health issues from inbreeding to achieve the required standard/

But a lot of responsible breeders of specific breeds have actually started to address the issue of health problems as a result of inbreeding and have moved away from the traditional methods of breeding, the most popular of which was getting the male to mate with his grandaughter AFAIK.

But I think it would be a shame to get rid of a lot of breeds IMO.

ScumLord wrote: »

*I would have put this in the pets forum but it doesn't strike me as a place for debate and would be completely one sided.

Its just the place for debate, probably very heated debate

PeterIanStaker

Mutts are the best. They're smarter, healthier and more robust.

German Shepherds get hip problems, West Highlands go deaf, and the OP already mentioned the Rhodhesian ridgeback. Enough said nearly.

ScumLord

TheZohan wrote: »

Again if you do your research on the breed, check out the parents of your dog and buy from a respectable dealer you will eliminate a lot of the problems.

That really does nothing to stop the bad breeders from trying to cash in. I am dead set against any niche breed though, it doesn't matter how much research you do to ensure the parents of your dog weren't mother and son, it won't tell you how many of the pups were put down because there was something wrong with them health or looks wise.

What would a respectable breeder do with dogs it can't sell because they don't make the grade? If they are like any other domestic animal breeder those animals are destroyed.

Black Swan

Geeeeeeee, humans have been selectively breeding for thousands of years, why not their pets?

df1985

labs are another breed suffering from bad hips and joints these days. Ive a healthy lab thankfully, but I know loads of people who have got labs since that have bad hips.

southsiderosie

I don't think it should be banned outright; some people, for example, have allergies and getting certain breeds allows them to have a dog. And some people just like certain breeds of dogs; I have an 85 year old great-uncle that until 5 years ago always had a Great Dane.

I do hate that so many people pick certain breeds because it's trendy, not because they know or care anything about the characteristics of the dogs. Paris Hilton popularizing Teacup Chihuahuas, for example. It's especially bad if the breed in question are large, active dogs; people who saw "101 Dalmatians" and then ran out and got their own were in for a rude awakening - they are a LOT of work.

My main issue is, I wish more people who wanted to get a dog would consider adopting one from a shelter. There are so many good dogs that get put down every year, and one of the main reasons people get rid of them is "oh, the dog was too much work". Ugh.

AgileMyth

ScumLord wrote: »

I had a mongrel that was as hard as nails, got hit by a car and still lived to the age of 16. My friend paid €900 for a top class Doberman which had hip problems within a year.

We have a pure bred german shepherd that was shot about five years back. Shes about ten now and still healthy. Your dog, like mine, was just extremely lucky. Nothing to do with breeding.

mojesius

df1985 wrote: »

labs are another breed suffering from bad hips and joints these days. Ive a healthy lab thankfully, but I know loads of people who have got labs since that have bad hips.

Labs are really great dogs but as you suggested, unfortunately, it's hit and miss with their health. If I had a bigger garden, I'd love to rescue something along the lines of a lab cross.

I can't justify buying a dog when there are thousands needing a home for free.

ScumLord

AgileMyth wrote: »

We have a pure bred german shepherd that was shot about five years back. Shes about ten now and still healthy. Your dog, like mine, was just extremely lucky. Nothing to do with breeding.

Well it does play into it, a mongrel will automatically have a better chance of good health simply down to the fact it's parents weren't interbreed. It's a fact of genetics the closer the parents are genetically the more likely you are to encounter problems, that goes for the vast majority of animals on the planet.

southsiderosie wrote: »

And some people just like certain breeds of dogs;

But people like odd looking dogs, again it's the same as forcing a person that looks somehow unusual to only breed with people that have the same unusual looks. It's wrong and leads to complications.

Discodog

ScumLord wrote: »

*I would have put this in the pets forum but it doesn't strike me as a place for debate and would be completely one sided.

Are your ears burning - we are referring to this thread on API

Just out of interest & feel free to PM the answer, but if it was debated on API which side do you think would dominate ?

sligopark

southsiderosie wrote: »

My main issue is, I wish more people who wanted to get a dog would consider adopting one from a shelter. There are so many good dogs that get put down every year, and one of the main reasons people get rid of them is "oh, the dog was too much work". Ugh.

+1

PanchoVilla

Just thought I'd pop this link for Leitrim Animal Welfare shelter for anyone in the northwest thinking of getting a dog in the near future. They update the site regularly and have some really lovely dogs. You can view pics and descriptions when you click the "homes needed" link. A friend of mine actually picked up "Duke" about a week ago. He's a beast!! If I had a big place with a nice field I'd take them all, but alas I live in a hole in the middle of town.

http://www.leitrimanimals.com/

southsiderosie

ScumLord wrote: »

But people like odd looking dogs, again it's the same as forcing a person that looks somehow unusual to only breed with people that have the same unusual looks. It's wrong and leads to complications.

It's not just that dogs are odd; people often get specific breeds because they are better with children or small apartments. To use my uncle's example, he lived in an isolated house on several acres in the woods, had 3 kids, and liked to go on long walks: a Great Dane suited his family's lifestyle.

I agree that inbreeding is a problem, for people and for dogs. Certainly isolated human populations are prone to strange genetic disorders. But I think a lot of the problems with breeding stem from dogs that are really popular; German Shepards got really bad for a while in the US, as did Golden Retrievers and Black Labs. Demand seems to drive a lot of breeding problems, more than the actual process itself.

ScumLord

Discodog wrote: »

Are your ears burning - we are referring to this thread on API

Just out of interest & feel free to PM the answer, but if it was debated on API which side do you think would dominate ?

The pedigree people would win out. One of the only times I got infracted was in that forum and I was told someone reported the post and once a post is reported it's an automatic ban/infraction so I'm not to keen on posting in there.

budcans47

last year there was a program on in breeding in dogs, and one top breeder with Pugs would not not do a DNA on hers. for the program , they show Pugs years ago did not have skin coming down over there eyes... now some of the have to stitches to keep to keep it up from there eyes,,, all from in breeding...

pickarooney

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Geeeeeeee, humans have been selectively breeding for thousands of years, why not their pets?

Sure, let the pets select who they breed with.

TheZohanS

pickarooney wrote: »

Sure, let the pets select who they breed with.

Don't, my dog has tried to hump every girl I've ever had over.

PanchoVilla

pickarooney wrote: »

Sure, let the pets select who they breed with.

I'm not too sure how well that would work out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBWtI2HZZSE

Discodog

We kill about 6500 dogs per year in our Pounds. Scotland, which has a similar human & dog population, kills about 800. We also kill about 10,000 Greyhounds.

If someone is set on a pedigree dog, even a Pup, there is every chance of finding one at a rescue rather than encouraging a breeder to produce more for profit.

People get incredible hung up over getting the right breed. I found an abandoned 6 month old Labrador Collie Cross whilst walking my other dogs. He would of been a Christmas pup who probably got to boisterous or the novelty just wore off. Several local rescues could of taken him but someone decided to dump him & let him fend for himself. He is now with me & will have a wonderful home.

What makes this worse is that he is housetrained, well behaved, doesn't chew, is brilliant with kids & is the perfect family dog. So please do not assume that a rescue dog is some kind of reject. I also have a Greyhound that was dumped, terrified, into the middle of Galway. I had never considered one as a pet but I am so glad I did as she is wonderful.

Discodog

ScumLord wrote: »

The pedigree people would win out. One of the only times I got infracted was in that forum and I was told someone reported the post and once a post is reported it's an automatic ban/infraction so I'm not to keen on posting in there.

Yes been there I doubt if Seamus will be banning anyone without a good reason.

Things are changing & for the better. Please give your input here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056050934

Lily10

Discodog wrote: »

We kill about 6500 dogs per year in our Pounds. Scotland, which has a similar human & dog population, kills about 800. We also kill about 10,000 Greyhounds.QUOTE]

Exactly, we have a lot to answer for with the amount of killing we do at pounds. And it's only going to get worse. Every day there's more and more people bragging about their cute little pure breds. I've been in the pet forum a couple of times and it's sickening. All the talk about what breeder to use and what breed to get, no mention of the strays running around starving or the dogs killed every day at the pound. I once read that Ireland has the highest kill rate in the whole of western europe, I hope that is not true....

shinikins

Lily10 wrote: »

Exactly, we have a lot to answer for with the amount of killing we do at pounds. And it's only going to get worse. Every day there's more and more people bragging about their cute little pure breds. I've been in the pet forum a couple of times and it's sickening. All the talk about what breeder to use and what breed to get, no mention of the strays running around starving or the dogs killed every day at the pound. I once read that Ireland has the highest kill rate in the whole of western europe, I hope that is not true....

Unfortunately it is true, Ireland has the highest rate in Western Europe, and also one of the highest rates of animal cruelty.

Lily you seem to have missed a lot of good threads in API, it's not all about breeders, i would be a big advocate of rehoming strays, there are more than a few animal rescue centres post there, and most of the chat there is about how best to treat your pets.

In regards to banning pedigree breeding, thats never going to happen-there is simply too much demand for pedigree dogs from the general public. For instance, in the estate my parents live in there are 32 Bichon Frise. You might think that's not a huge number until you consider the fact that there are only 56 house in the estate. The best thing that could happen is strict regulation of pedigree breeding to ensure that more pups are not born with genetic abnormalities and health problems.

Little Acorn

What causes the genetic problems? Is it only if dogs from the same family are bred together?
Take for example a Labrador: Both it's parents were also Labradors [but not related].
This Labrador then goes on to mate with another Labrador that it has no family connection to [whose parents were also both Labradors not related].

Would the puppies of these 2 Labradors then have problems with their genetics, considering that the parents and grandparents were in no way related?

Fighting Irish

Would you be ok with breeding any other types of creatures? Snails? Ants? Rats?

Mc Love

Pure bred for the win - our last dog lived for 18 years!!!

shinikins

Little Acorn wrote: »

What causes the genetic problems? Is it only if dogs from the same family are bred together?
Take for example a Labrador: Both it's parents were also Labradors [but not related].
This Labrador then goes on to mate with another Labrador that it has no family connection to [whose parents were also both Labradors not related].

Would the puppies of these 2 Labradors then have problems with their genetics, considering that the parents and grandparents were in no way related?

Obviously, if the pup's parents and grandparents were not related there would be less chance of health problems. Think of it in human terms, if your maternal grandparents were cousins(Smiths, lets say) and your paternal grandparents were also cousins(Murphy's) then their children had kids, the chances of the Smith-Murphy offspring having health issues is greater. Now if the Smith-Murphy's had kids with yet more cousins, the health risks are greater again. Thats why humans are not allowed to marry closely related relatives.

Little Acorn

shinikins wrote: »

Obviously, if the pup's parents and grandparents were not related there would be less chance of health problems. Think of it in human terms, if your maternal grandparents were cousins(Smiths, lets say) and your paternal grandparents were also cousins(Murphy's) then their children had kids, the chances of the Smith-Murphy offspring having health issues is greater. Now if the Smith-Murphy's had kids with yet more cousins, the health risks are greater again. Thats why humans are not allowed to marry closely related relatives.

Thanks, I was just confused about how it all worked, I didn't know if it was all of a certain breed of a dog were born with higher risk of problems, or if it was only if they mated with dogs that were relatives.

I heard before that in humans, race could possibly determine a higher risk of certain diseases like diabetes for example, and thought that maybe it was something similar with the dogs, that certain breeds were just predisposed to certain ailments regardless of how they were bred.

So, now I know it is mainly just the breeding with relatives that causes health problems in dogs.
My boyfriend has a Rottweiller [very friendly], so was just wondering if there was a risk of health problems. His parents/grandparents were not related though, so hopefully should be grand. He's not had any problems anyways.
Thanks again.:)

Lily10

shinikins wrote: »

Unfortunately it is true, Ireland has the highest rate in Western Europe, and also one of the highest rates of animal cruelty.

Lily you seem to have missed a lot of good threads in API, it's not all about breeders, i would be a big advocate of rehoming strays, there are more than a few animal rescue centres post there, and most of the chat there is about how best to treat your pets.

In regards to banning pedigree breeding, thats never going to happen-there is simply too much demand for pedigree dogs from the general public. For instance, in the estate my parents live in there are 32 Bichon Frise. You might think that's not a huge number until you consider the fact that there are only 56 house in the estate. The best thing that could happen is strict regulation of pedigree breeding to ensure that more pups are not born with genetic abnormalities and health problems.

Your right, I should take another look in API. There was one day in particular that it was so disheartening.. but I know all the threads can't be like that.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Meh dogs are simply visible. All the animals you eat, wear or medically benefit from are bred and used in the same way. Just they're bread for thick skin/tastiness etc

If you actually enforced this it could lead to mass abandonment of hundreds of dogs.

Mits

I have a Doberman.

I picked it because selective breeding gives a good indication of what you will end up with. For example temperament, size, intelligence and looks.

Responsible breeders can limit the effects of gene pool damage. In the case of Doberman you are not supposed to breed dogs with an high hip score due to the possibility of Hip Dysplasia. My first doberman suffered with this but when I got me current dog I made sure the parents were okay.

Lily10

Little Acorn wrote: »

Thanks, I was just confused about how it all worked, I didn't know if it was all of a certain breed of a dog were born with higher risk of problems, or if it was only if they mated with dogs that were relatives.

I heard before that in humans, race could possibly determine a higher risk of certain diseases like diabetes for example, and thought that maybe it was something similar with the dogs, that certain breeds were just predisposed to certain ailments regardless of how they were bred.

So, now I know it is mainly just the breeding with relatives that causes health problems in dogs.
My boyfriend has a Rottweiller [very friendly], so was just wondering if there was a risk of health problems. His parents/grandparents were not related though, so hopefully should be grand. He's not had any problems anyways.
Thanks again.:)

I think the risk is lessened but it's still there. Ireland has such a small gene pool when it comes to pure breeds. Even here is the U.S, the "responsible" breeders will travel the length of the country to breed their dogs in a so called fresh gene pool. These dogs can still have problems. I always look at it this way, dogs are the descendents of wolves, so for a breed to all look the same, they all have to be extremely inbred. Not that I have a problem with purebreds, I have three myself. All rescues of course!

Cú Giobach

From the day dogs started becoming accessories and their physical condition became less important than their looks, humans have completely f*cked up the species.
I believe many of the breeds should be left to "die" out, instead of constantly breeding animals that have as many problems as a lot of dog breeds have.
It is just plain wrong to breed, say a dog that can hardly breathe just because some idiot likes the look of a dog with a flat face.
I could go on and on but what good would it do here. :rolleyes:
And yes, we (the people of Ireland) should be utterly ashamed of our treatment of animals.
Rant over.

shinikins

Little Acorn wrote: »

Thanks, I was just confused about how it all worked, I didn't know if it was all of a certain breed of a dog were born with higher risk of problems, or if it was only if they mated with dogs that were relatives.

I heard before that in humans, race could possibly determine a higher risk of certain diseases like diabetes for example, and thought that maybe it was something similar with the dogs, that certain breeds were just predisposed to certain ailments regardless of how they were bred.

So, now I know it is mainly just the breeding with relatives that causes health problems in dogs.
My boyfriend has a Rottweiller [very friendly], so was just wondering if there was a risk of health problems. His parents/grandparents were not related though, so hopefully should be grand. He's not had any problems anyways.
Thanks again.:)

The risks of any pedigree dog having health issues are alway going to be there, for most its simply a matter of time til they become apparent, i have an IKC registered Cocker at home, she's 13 now, and while most of her life she was in great health, she's developed dry eye over the last year, and has to have her eyes bathed every day and drops applied to prevent further damage. Because cockers have been bred to have longer ears she's at risk of serious ear infections. She's also at risk of developing hip problems. King Charles spaniels suffer with hip dysplasia, Rottweilers with arthritis, Great Danes and Irish Wolfhounds with heart problems, Pugs, with breathing issues(obviously), the list goes on. If you pick any pedigree dog they will have some sort of medical issues cropping up at any stage of their lives.

The benefits of mongrels are the fact that they have such a wide gene pool that these issues are almost nil.
From wikipedia

The theory of hybrid vigor suggests that as a group, dogs of varied ancestry will be healthier than their purebred counterparts. In purebred dogs, intentionally breeding dogs of very similar appearance over several generations produces animals that carry many of the same alleles, some of which are detrimental. This is especially true if the dogs are closely related. This inbreeding among purebreds has exposed various genetic health problems not readily apparent in less uniform populations. Mixed-breed dogs are more genetically diverse due to the more haphazard nature of their parents' mating. "Haphazard" is not the same as "random" to a geneticist. The offspring of such matings are less likely to express certain genetic disorders because there is a decreased chance that both parents carry the same detrimental recessive alleles. However, some deleterious recessives are common across many seemingly unrelated breeds, and therefore merely mixing breeds is no guarantee of genetic health.

Lily10 hit the nail on the head in saying

Ireland has such a small gene pool when it comes to pure breeds.

Sheeps

ScumLord wrote: »

I have a problem with the entire pedigree dog breeding industry ti's cruel and wrong. If you where to translate it into human terms it simply wouldn't be tolerated because no one would ever think it was right to force dwarfs or albinos to reproduce solely amongst themselves simply because you like the look of them.

Many of these animals are picking up horrible mutations and deformities, some traits like the Rhodesian Ridgebacks ridge are actually a sign something is seriously wrong with the dog yet Rhodesian pups that don't feature the deformity are routinely put down at birth.

Many of the breeds of dog where breed for a specific purpose and the fact they where working dogs promoted the breeding of healthy animals but now they're simply breed for looks and the health is becoming less and less of concern. Many working breeds are now so deformed they are useless at the tasks they where breed for.

Miniature dogs are the worst example of this IMO, these are animals that simply couldn't survive on their own and many suffer from Syringomyelia where the skull is too small for their brain, in humans it's described as one of the most painful aliments known to man.

Outside of working dogs there should be maybe one or two breeds, mainly a large and medium sized dog. After everything the species has done for us they deserve to have the over all health of the species considered.

*I would have put this in the pets forum but it doesn't strike me as a place for debate and would be completely one sided.

EDIT: Probably should have thought of putting a pole on this.

I don't particularly give a shit.

Overheal

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Geeeeeeee, humans have been selectively breeding for thousands of years, why not their pets?

I don't think its the breeding thats the problem, rather the practice of Eugenics, which we actually did try on ourselves at a few points in time, but its been widely looked down upon in the Post-Third-Reich era. Oregon had a law allowing for forced-streilization of the "mentally ill" as early back as 1983. One of the guys who first pushed for Eugenics, because he concluded deafness could be hereditary, also happened to invent the Telephone.

Yakult

Sheeps wrote: »

I don't particularly give a shit.

Is it cos' you're a sheep and no one gives a shit about you'r kind?

arybvtcw0eolkf

ScumLord wrote: »

The pedigree people would win out. One of the only times I got infracted was in that forum and I was told someone reported the post and once a post is reported it's an automatic ban/infraction so I'm not to keen on posting in there.

You should go back over. Seamus is a moderator there now and has the forum moving along nicely, its a much more pleasant place to post now with a lot less bullying and bad moderating.

Now, 'should pedigree dog breeding be banned' - IMO No.

But I chose my dogs well, I've a Pitbull and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The deciding factors when I was researching the breeds were any health related issue's (there's none outstanding) and their temperament with people, esp children and both breeds have an almost unrivalled (I can't be bothered spell checking!) reputation as being good with children.

Like other's have said, I wish some people would put more thought into the type of dog their about to get, and look at shelters/pounds first. You'll find some beautiful dogs in them and have the satisfaction that you've rescued and given life (in many cases) and a home to a real under dog.

aN.Droid

I don't know if this has been posted as I have not read the entire thread but Rhodesian Ridgebacks are no longer culled at birth if they don't have ridges, this was removed from the kennel club a while back.

Not against pedigree dogs but am against the aggressive way it is being done. which is speeding up genetic mutations and ruining dogs.

Mutts live way better and healthier lives its a fact.

getz

Limericks wrote: »

I don't know if this has been posted as I have not read the entire thread but Rhodesian Ridgebacks are no longer culled at birth if they don't have ridges, this was removed from the kennel club a while back.

Not against pedigree dogs but am against the aggressive way it is being done. which is speeding up genetic mutations and ruining dogs.

Mutts live way better and healthier lives its a fact.

there are more mutts dumped on the road and in rescue kennels than any of the pedigree breeds, most dogs now live 30% longer than they did 30 years ago,without the show breeders most non-working pedigree dogs breeds would be extinct, i have had staffies and i have been in the show ring with them for 30 years ,its one of the lovely breeds that are still about only because of the kennel clubs, if a person pays out for a pedigree dog it will cost them a lot of money, so the chances are that they are going to look after it ,