Donedeal and the likes

Discodog

lrushe wrote: »

So maybe I'd change my answer to people power & education even going into schools & starting with young kids because you can put all the laws you want in place but there will always be someone there to get round them, you have to get the majority to want to do the right thing.

Already being done. I know that EGAR visits schools & there are other schemes but I don't know what the take up is like. It should be on the curriculum but it won't be until the majority insist on it.

http://www.dogstrust.ie/education/

Zapperzy

DBB wrote: »

Ooooh! Where could I get me one of those?!

Well I'v heard of mini rottweilers so I would expect to see them on donedeal soon!

are you serious

Zapperzy wrote: »

Well I'v heard of mini rottweilers so I would expect to see them on donedeal soon!

Ive got a "mini" Rottweiler... She is 4 months old... in another month or 2 I dont think she will be mini any more

GT_TDI_150

Discodog wrote: »

Rescue dogs are the innocent victims & every one that is rehomed means one less dead dog. Lots of rescues have pedigree dogs - one well known charity has loads at the moment & they all come health checked, behaviour tested, vacc'd & neutered.

what one is that

Cherry Blossom

Discodog wrote: »

Rescue dogs are the innocent victims & every one that is rehomed means one less dead dog. Lots of rescues have pedigree dogs - one well known charity has loads at the moment & they all come health checked, behaviour tested, vacc'd & neutered.

I'd thank you to stop throwing up the statement that rescue dogs are "health checked" every time the topic of genetic health testing comes up. Quite frankly it's deliberately misleading people for the purposes of forcing rescues on them. It's exactly the same tactic that used by puppy farmers and back yard breeders to peddle their wares and its nothing short of disgusting :mad:

"Health Checked" at most means a vet has seen a pup, it was alive at the time they saw it and not obviously likely to drop dead sometime in the next week. It does not mean the pup is healthy! It doesn't even guarantee that it isn't riddled with worms and fleas - only that if was the vet would have advised this be treated.

Hellrazer

Discodog wrote: »

You can't because you could not prove that the vet was negligent especially as another vet would have to testify against them.

Thats a ridiculous law aswell--Ive seen it in my job aswell-a member of the same profession having to testify against someone and they very rarely if ever go against one of their own.

Well as an animal lover you wouldn't mind waiting 2 years especially if it was for the good.

Nope--not if it was a particular breed that I realy wanted.Im actually researching my next dog now but I wont have room/time for it for a couple of years.

Not with 6000 dogs being killed every year - there is never going to be a shortage of mongrels.

Youre not getting me.Say everyone stops buying pedigrees which was what your original post said--any type of dog would become desirable including mongrels and then these would start to fetch high prices.People would just breed anything they had at hand and I feel the situation would be worse.

We have had such law for 100 years & it has not been effective in Ireland. We will never see huge fines or prison & we only have 5 ISPCA Inspectors for the whole country. Our new Dog Breeding Bill & the expected Animal Welfare Bill will not make any difference because they won't be enforced. We will never have proper enforced law until the majority support it & insist on it as they do in the UK. It is a cultural problem that will take generations to improve.

Agreed-this new bill wont make the slightest bit of difference.But its not a cultural problem.Its a legislative one.High fines/prison for those that mistreat animals will solve the problem over night and not within generations.

Rescue dogs are the innocent victims & every one that is rehomed means one less dead dog. Lots of rescues have pedigree dogs - one well known charity has loads at the moment & they all come health checked, behaviour tested, vacc'd & neutered.

I know resusce are doing the best that they can.Ive just had no luck with rescues.I am considering a rescue mongrel for my next dog but it will have to be a puppy and will have to have some idea of what its going to turn out like.I would love to try an older dog but honestly I dont know that dogs history and I really couldnt take a chance with young kids in the house.

Cherry Blossom

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

I get the people that willy-nilly match dogs might be breeding animals more prone to illnesses but could breeders not cause other health problems by trying to breed away from certain things?

The idea is to eliminate a specific gene or combination of genes from the gene-pool by not breeding from dogs that have displayed signs of a specific health problem or tested positive for either having that trait or the gene that causes it. With conditions that arise from, or are contributed to by the actual conformation of the dog itself its not as straight forward so ideally in this regard you would be breeding with a view to trying to minimise the risk

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

And id the confined gene pool not cause for concern when talking about pure breeds?

Yes it is, and this is the whole point. A responsible person will be continually breeding 'new blood' into their lines to add a certain amount of diversity while remaining 'true' to the breed standard that defines the breed. There will be a certain amount of breeding within the same lines also as they may demonstrate strong qualities the breeder wishes to keep (which may be certain aspects of conformation appearance or indeed for the absence of a particular health problem). Now this is where it all gets extremely complicated and I get lost . There is a calculated inbreeding co-efficient, (it's a complex mathematical calculation) which gives a very good indication of what is a 'safe' amount of shared genetic material ie. dogs from the same family lines and there are limits and a point at which it can turn around and become detrimental.

Figuring all this out goes far beyond the mental capacity of most people (including me!) and is exactly the reason why breeding pedigree dogs (or any species) should not be taken lightly.

Discodog

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

I'd thank you to stop throwing up the statement that rescue dogs are "health checked" every time the topic of genetic health testing comes up. Quite frankly it's deliberately misleading people for the purposes of forcing rescues on them. It's exactly the same tactic that used by puppy farmers and back yard breeders to peddle their wares and its nothing short of disgusting :mad:

"Health Checked" at most means a vet has seen a pup, it was alive at the time they saw it and not obviously likely to drop dead sometime in the next week. It does not mean the pup is healthy! It doesn't even guarantee that it isn't riddled with worms and fleas - only that if was the vet would have advised this be treated.

Could you please quote all these examples of where I have mentioned health checked or genetic testing & by the way the topic of the thread is not Genetic testing ? You are the one making sweeping statements & whether you would "thank me" or not I will state what I know to be the truth. I am not trying to force a rescue on anyone but I am trying to prevent thousands of dogs being killed unnecessarily. You may find that disgusting but I do not.

You know very well that there are rescues in Ireland that thoroughly health check their dogs & at at least one does a detailed behavioural check. We have seen countless threads, when rescues were allowed to post, where they had spent fortunes treating dogs before rehoming.

No one is going to genetically test an adult dog that has been neutered because it would be totally pointless. It would be a virtual impossibility to check a litter of puppies when one or both parents are missing. At least a rescue will still be there if problems occur & the good ones will always offer back up.

May I suggest that in the interests of balanced & harmonious discussion that you avoid unnecessary "angry faces" & bold type. I will leave others to decide if I am using the "disgusting" tactics of the puppy farmers.

Discodog

Hellrazer wrote: »

Agreed-this new bill wont make the slightest bit of difference.But its not a cultural problem.Its a legislative one.High fines/prison for those that mistreat animals will solve the problem over night and not within generations.

I have spent many hours trying to work out why Ireland is one of the very worse in Europe regarding animal welfare. People blame the lack of law but the UK has only introduced a welfare law recently. During all the time, that I worked in rescue, we only had the same 1911 Act as in Ireland. We never had any problems securing prosecutions.

But the key difference is the attitude of the majority of people. The RSPCA is a huge organisation with massive public support & financial backing. Whenever there are any public cases, like the Amersham horses, thousands of people offer help & support. That doesn't happen here. The UK is far from perfect but the difference is that the majority support animal welfare in the ballot box & from their own pockets. You can only have effective law & punishment if the majority support it. One other reason why there is a problem with prosecuting here is that it is very difficult to get a Vet to testify that an animal has suffered.

By the way I have three dogs here that all came directly off the street. They were all in poor condition & unsocialised. All three are now superb with kids - even though I don't have any. If you are still considering a rescue dog then why not try putting your past experiences behind you & getting to know a rescue that can provided the right dog for your needs & that offers ongoing backup. You can't judge every dog or rescue based on past experiences.

Discodog

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

what one is that

I will PM you as we are not allowed to mention specific rescues here.

Cherry Blossom

Discodog wrote: »

I am not trying to force a rescue on anyone but I am trying to prevent thousands of dogs being killed unnecessarily. You may find that disgusting but I do not.

Please quote where I have said that :rolleyes:

Discodog wrote: »

You know very well that there are rescues in Ireland that thoroughly health check their dogs & at at least one does a detailed behavioural check. We have seen countless threads, when rescues were allowed to post, where they had spent fortunes treating dogs before rehoming.

No one is going to genetically test an adult dog that has been neutered because it would be totally pointless. It would be a virtual impossibility to check a litter of puppies when one or both parents are missing. At least a rescue will still be there if problems occur & the good ones will always offer back up.

Had this clarification been included in your first post, any ambiguity on the matter would have been avoided. As you know there is already a lot of confusion on the definition of the term 'health check'. As you also know people will read whatever suits them into ambiguous posts, as you have pointed out the topic of the thread is not genetic health testing, it isn't rescues either - it's buying a dog from done deal where vast majority of ads declare animals are 'health checked', so you have inadvertently stipulated that this is enough to those people who choose to see that.

Discodog wrote: »

May I suggest that in the interests of balanced & harmonious discussion that you avoid unnecessary "angry faces" & bold type. I will leave others to decide if I am using the "disgusting" tactics of the puppy farmers.

The angry face portrays emotion - should I type two paragraphs to thoroughly describe it instead of one angry face? The bold type is for emphasis, it's commonly used for this purpose in the english language, and there is no highlight function.

Hellrazer

Discodog wrote: »

By the way I have three dogs here that all came directly off the street. They were all in poor condition & unsocialised. All three are now superb with kids - even though I don't have any.

But theres the difference--you dont have any-meaning that those dogs are not around kids 12-14 hours a day.My kids all grew up with the dog we currently have and know its boundaries.Even my 3 year old knows those boundaries but thats because she was thought that way from the start.An older dog whose boundaries that I dont even know never mind the kids may not be as suitable as a puppy.

If you are still considering a rescue dog then why not try putting your past experiences behind you & getting to know a rescue that can provided the right dog for your needs & that offers ongoing backup. You can't judge every dog or rescue based on past experiences.

Im completely willing to give it a go and when the time comes it will be considered as I would really prefer to rescue but past experience not once but three times has made me wary of it.When that time arrives belive me I`ll be here asking for recommendations (by pm of course)

Wibbs

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

The idea is to eliminate a specific gene or combination of genes from the gene-pool by not breeding from dogs that have displayed signs of a specific health problem or tested positive for either having that trait or the gene that causes it. With conditions that arise from, or are contributed to by the actual conformation of the dog itself its not as straight forward so ideally in this regard you would be breeding with a view to trying to minimise the risk

Just my take mind you, but in many cases the standard of the breed itself is the problem. Minimise is all very well, but when the standard is a defect itself how can it move forward? Classic example would be the show standard GSD with it's unnatural gait and some terrible hip problems. Others would be brain and breathing issues in other breeds. Until standards are changed for a more healthy look are these problems not going to continue, regardless of where the dogs are coming from?

Discodog wrote:

I have spent many hours trying to work out why Ireland is one of the very worse in Europe regarding animal welfare.

I dunno D, but I think it might be down to people here seeing animals more as livestock, less as pets as a cultural kinda thing, so they become more a thing than an animal and some of that still holds down to today? Add in the "celtic tiger" period where people too often looked at pedigree dogs as a status symbol, again less as an individual animal. I've actually heard with my own ears people discuss their dog as a list of exclusivity and how much they paid out. It was a symbol and pricetag rather than a dog.

Cherry Blossom

Wibbs wrote: »

Just my take mind you, but in many cases the standard of the breed itself is the problem. Minimise is all very well, but when the standard is a defect itself how can it move forward? Classic example would be the show standard GSD with it's unnatural gait and some terrible hip problems. Others would be brain and breathing issues in other breeds. Until standards are changed for a more healthy look are these problems not going to continue, regardless of where the dogs are coming from?

Completely agree - here is a thread where the breed standard for the GSD has been dissected. There are some breeds (the GSD isn't one of them) that I personally believe should not exist, never should have in the first place and should be discontinued - for want of a better word.

Bullseye1

That would make for an interesting thread. "Breeds which shouldnt exist anymore". Tough one to moderate however

Cherry Blossom

Bullseye1 wrote: »

That would make for an interesting thread. "Breeds which shouldnt exist anymore". Tough one to moderate however

Precisely why I don't ever intend to name them on this forum

Bullseye1

LOL.

Hellrazer

Bullseye1 wrote: »

That would make for an interesting thread. "Breeds which shouldnt exist anymore". Tough one to moderate however

Personally I'd love to see that thread.Cmon aj and sp-we'll mod it with an iron fist

Cherry Blossom

Hellrazer wrote: »

Personally I'd love to see that thread.Cmon aj and sp-we'll mod it with an iron fist

Any excuse for the opportunity to ban people - mods these days :rolleyes:

Hellrazer

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Any excuse for the opportunity to ban people - mods these days :rolleyes:

Im sure the users of the forum could discuss such a topic in a civilised and grown up manner :D

Seriously though if someone wants to start the thread we will keep an eye on it.

Wibbs

For me anyway it wouldn't be about which breeds shouldn't exist today, but more about going back to the less exaggerated examples of the breed in the past. Where the animals were healthy and had some variability and were less "designed" into ever more narrow and harmful shapes.

EG the original British Bulldog looked like this;


Not the poor buggers you see today like this;

70% have hip dysplasia and other bone issues, nearly two thirds need to be delivered by caesarean section because their heads are too big and they suffer from skin conditions to beat the band. They can get heatstroke very easily and suffer from heart problems and their excessively short snouts cause breathing problems. This to me is beyond daft, it's damn near criminal.

The "show" GSD with it's oversloped back is another obvious one and another dog with hip issues and athritis later in life. The originator/consolidator of the breed Von Stephanitz would have a fit if he saw the average show dog of today. He bred them to be the best fit for purpose working dogs. Collected the best examples of sheep dogs throughout Germany and Europe for best temperament and physical health. To the physical health end he even added in European wolf to the very early mix, which gets some GSD fanciers knickers in a twist a century later. http://www.asuperiorgsd.com/wolf-dog.html The original dog while having a more sloped back compared to a wolf say, was a squarer, physically more capable animal, not some porsche backed showdog.

There are a lot of "fashionable" breeds like this today and for all the talk of backyard breeders/donedeal and the like and how bad they are(and they are for the most part) this explosion of dangerously inbred, physically and behaviourally compromised dogs is entirely down to the whims of the quality breeders out there. The ones that KC's throughout the world slap blue ribbons on and recommend as the best of the best. Oh the public are to blame too, but if the breeders weren't producing these designer dogs we simply wouldn't be seeing these problems today.

Discodog

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

"Health Checked" at most means a vet has seen a pup, it was alive at the time they saw it and not obviously likely to drop dead sometime in the next week. It does not mean the pup is healthy! It doesn't even guarantee that it isn't riddled with worms and fleas - only that if was the vet would have advised this be treated.

So are you suggesting that the rescue people here (if there are any) treat a health check as trivial & that their dogs are flea & worm riddled ?. My local rescue takes her Vet's advice seriously - I have seen the bills. But also the other person running the rescue is a highly respected trainer & behaviourist. She spends time with every dog before it is considered for rehoming. Anyone will be able to appreciate the difference in a health check done by a Vet on behalf of a puppy farmer ie for money & a check done by or on behalf of a rescue.

Wibbs wrote: »

Just my take mind you, but in many cases the standard of the breed itself is the problem.

Totally agree. The breed standards laid down by the clubs take no account of health. I seem to recall that the Pekinese that won Crufts in 2003 had to be sat on an icepack during the photographs as it was in such distress.

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno D, but I think it might be down to people here seeing animals more as livestock, less as pets as a cultural kinda thing, so they become more a thing than an animal and some of that still holds down to today?

I think that this is one reason, maybe religion is another as Animal Welfare has tended to be worse in Catholic countries. I have two elderly neighbours that were both born here, raised here & attended the same schools etc. One treats their dog well & the other treats theirs appallingly. Yet the one who treats their dog well would never say anything to the other one.

Hellrazer wrote: »

Personally I'd love to see that thread.Cmon aj and sp-we'll mod it with an iron fist

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Any excuse for the opportunity to ban people - mods these days :rolleyes:

Oh the hilarity ! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

portgirl123

OMG. just looking on done deal. in the last 18 hrs 135 ads have gone up in the dog section. the majority of them are litters of at least 4 pups each ad. where the hell do all these pups go.
no wonder why the done deal ppl wont get rid of the pet/dog section. €3 a ad? why should they. they must be minted, seriously though didnt realise so many dog ads went up a day. no wonder they say ireland the puppy farm capital of europe

Cherry Blossom

Discodog wrote: »

So are you suggesting that the rescue people here (if there are any) treat a health check as trivial & that their dogs are flea & worm riddled ?.

Please quote where I've said that also :rolleyes:

This trolling in order provoke some sort of reaction is becoming extremely boring at this stage. I have no idea why you are harping on and on about the general ethics and practices of reputable rescues, but I do have to point out that there are also money grabbers masquerading as rescues in addition those masquerading as reputable breeders. These also treat there animals appallingly, I can think of 2 immediately off the top of my head, one of them has another line of business selling pedigree and designer pups.

Once again the topic of this thread is advert sites!

Bullseye1

It looks like the American Bulldog looks more like the original British Bulldog.

Discodog

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Please quote where I've said that also :rolleyes:

Well you tell me to stay on topic & then ask me off topic questions ! And as we are discussing alternatives to buying on done deal it is perfectly on topic to be discussing rescues as they are an option.

Here:

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

I'd thank you to stop throwing up the statement that rescue dogs are "health checked" every time the topic of genetic health testing comes up. Quite frankly it's deliberately misleading people for the purposes of forcing rescues on them. It's exactly the same tactic that used by puppy farmers and back yard breeders to peddle their wares and its nothing short of disgusting

"Health Checked" at most means a vet has seen a pup, it was alive at the time they saw it and not obviously likely to drop dead sometime in the next week. It does not mean the pup is healthy! It doesn't even guarantee that it isn't riddled with worms and fleas - only that if was the vet would have advised this be treated.

Discodog

portgirl123 wrote: »

OMG. just looking on done deal. in the last 18 hrs 135 ads have gone up in the dog section. the majority of them are litters of at least 4 pups each ad. where the hell do all these pups go.
no wonder why the done deal ppl wont get rid of the pet/dog section. €3 a ad? why should they. they must be minted, seriously though didnt realise so many dog ads went up a day. no wonder they say ireland the puppy farm capital of europe

These "breeders" will want to get rid of their stock before Christmas - no one's going to want a January pup. They will of planned well in advance to make the most of the market.

Wibbs

Discodog wrote: »

Totally agree. The breed standards laid down by the clubs take no account of health. I seem to recall that the Pekinese that won Crufts in 2003 had to be sat on an icepack during the photographs as it was in such distress.

You are kidding me. Jesus. Fully supported by official kennel club rules and "quality" breeders. Yes back yarders on Donedeal and such like are bad or at least unreliable, but the breeders can't with all good conscience be holier than thou about their own house.

I think that this is one reason, maybe religion is another as Animal Welfare has tended to be worse in Catholic countries.

That could be part of it too.

Discodog

Wibbs wrote: »

You are kidding me. Jesus.

I can remember seeing it but here's a link - great link title

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1046614/BBC-drop-Crufts-unhealthy-freak-breeds.html

andreac

Discodog, i have to disagree with you regarding the clubs. Most of the breed clubs set up have their own set of rules and guidelines separate from the IKC in relation to breeding and are a lot stricter with their members regarding the rules etc.

Most of them have strict rules that you have to health test your dogs to be allowed into the club and they insist of health checking and testing dogs before they are allowed to be bred and encourage all people coming into the breed to do so.