Pedigree Dog Segment On The 7pm Project

[shortstep]

As I understand it, the idea is to have a total change from a closed stud book system to an open stud book system. This would allow for constant flow of new blood into all the breed stud books. It is not about addressing a certain problem, or a breeder having a certain plan approved by the breed club.

So can you clarify that what you have said above is true, you'd like to see an open studbook for all breeds, even those with no health issues? A yes will suffice.

Now read this, it is The Kennel Club, their words not mine, their policy not mine.

Enhancing genetic diversity

The move, approved by the Kennel Club General Committee last year, will if used, enhance genetic diversity by widening breed gene pools and allowing new bloodlines to be introduced within breeds.

Ok got it, their words not mine.

If you do not like their words then send them an email and tell them about it. Try the tone you are taking with me I am sure they will be impressed.

Edited July 6, 2011 by shortstep

[shortstep]

In a breed with thousands of individuals of fairly diverse genes in a range of countries, why anyone would want to bring a new dog into the stud book is questionable. Without identified goals and careful research, its a nightmare waiting to happen.

Ask The Kennel Club not me.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Forget what their policy is in the UK, do you believe that we should be having an open studbook for all breeds here in Australia? You keep posting about the UK system, so you must be trying to tell us something. Do you think the ANKC should have open stud books for all breeds?

[poodlefan]

Forget that too. I'll take my tone elsewhere.

Edited July 6, 2011 by poodlefan

[poodlefan]

Ah forget it.

Edited July 6, 2011 by poodlefan

[Bullbreedlover]

While the British Bulldog standard still has this in it, they deserve to be called to account.

http://www.ankc.org.au/Breed_Details.aspx?bid=183

The skull should be very large - the larger the better - and in circumference should measure (round in front of the ears) at least the height of the dog at the shoulders. Viewed from the front it should appear very high from the corner of the lower jaw to the apex of the skull, and also very broad and square. The cheeks should be well rounded and extended sideways beyond the eyes. Viewed at the side, the head should appear very high, and very short from its back to the point of the nose.

In the faults section - it says something about faults (ie not being as described by the standard) being weighed up against the health of the dog, but really - I think that dogs that are required to be born by C-section because of their genetic shape - should be excluded from the main (breeding) register. And ones that can't breathe easily when exercised - because of the genetic shape - too.

Mrs RB

How long have you been involved in The British Bulldog breed. What qualifications have you got which enables you to come to the conclusions that you have?

Bullbreedlover

Why should I seemingly waste my time educating you.

Because you're the one who suggested that I don't know what I'm talking about - because I'm not a bulldog breeder or a genetic scientist.

The person who pointed the specific problem with the bulldog breed standard (which may or may not be being followed by bulldog breeders) has these qualifications:

BVSc, PhD, MRCVS, MACVS (Animal Welfare), Cert CABC, Grad Cert Higher Ed.

RCVS Recognised Specialist in Veterinary Behavioural Medicine

He also helped set up the genetic database at University of Sydney to track gene lines in the hope of getting healthier puppies because the genetics of the parents could be matched better.

I don't think you're qualified to say what it takes to know what I'm talking about.

Mrs RB

My original question to you is above.

And you have answered to the effect that you have no involvement in the breed.

My involvement with the Bulldog breed only spans 30 years to be exact. I have also been judging for 12 years now. And our Bulldog kennels have been hugely successful in the showring. Many other breeders of course do have a more vast amount of knowledge although we have only selectively bred our Bulldogs to try to improve the breed as much as possible, but have not bred extensively. Certainly alot less then alot of breeders out there.

"I know exactly what you are talking about actually." The problems with the Bulldog breed have existed since the breed itself began. There are many many dedicated beeders around the world that are trying to breed and in fact have bred healthier Bulldogs. These healthy dogs have existed for many years now suprisingly. When the Bulldog standard was changed in the UK, Australian BB breeders voted against ANKC changing the standard here and to retain the original standard. And rightly so. This knowledge of course is only based on what I have read while being a Breed Club representative of the National council.

My knowledge of the breed is quite huge but as I said before what I take exception to is people spouting off and quoting part of the standard for one particular breed as if it was the only one in the world with problems.

But of course I am not a genetic scientist either.

Whether or not you think I am qualified within my breed or have what it takes to know what you are talking about is your opinion.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Bullbreedlover

[Steve]

What I am afraid of, is that after these Open stud books are put into place like it or not, that no one will use them. (Peer pressure and attacks as we have seen on this thread will put off many who might have liked too, which I think is not only sad but also shameful). Then with no progress made towards change, what will be said next is, 'we gave them the tools for change and they refused to change their ways, so now we close down the whole system'.

That is the least of my concerns I trust breeders to make the best decisions for their breeding programs and if the dog in question is legitimately good for their breeding programs they will use them .I wouldnt use a dog I knew nothing of except that it looked like the breed unless there were extremely mitigating reasions as to why I should. That has nothing to do with peer pressure or attacks but because I use the pedigree system to track health and temperament etc and include that information as part of my selection for a mating.

Im afraid that the ability to use close breeding in an appropriate situation will be taken away . So therefore rather than increasing the freedom to make the right decisions as appears to be the general intent of a push for opening stud books that we will be limited to having to do as we are told based on a generic decision rather than what is best in our own back yards and our own breeds.

The MDBA registry has the option of a breeder being able to bring in another dog and opening the stud book but not just because the dog looks like its a good example of the breed. I think the fact that they are opening stud books only based on conformation it simply backs up what is being said of them - that they only care about the way the dog looks and that is first and foremost what they select for. It shows little respect for the stud system and why it came about or should be used in my opinion.

[Steve]

Forget what their policy is in the UK, do you believe that we should be having an open studbook for all breeds here in Australia? You keep posting about the UK system, so you must be trying to tell us something. Do you think the ANKC should have open stud books for all breeds?

The fact that we have reciprocal deals with the UK kennel club means that sooner or later the dogs allowed in with an open stud book will appear on at least some of ours but reality is that I dont think the ANKC will hold out and tell animal rights and people who are pushing for open stud books to bugger off .Its only a matter of time that they open up - The fact that they have already banned close matings is taking us closer and fuels the base line media crap that we are where we are because of in breeding.

I would like to see them fight back and promote the fact that the stud books have always been able to be opened and still can be without needing to change anything.

The whole idea that one of those beagle cross cavs which look every bit a purebred beagle is allowed in and we then start to see SM and MVD in a breed that doesnt have it? Not on my shift.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Steve

[Steve]

One of these dogs is a purebred beagle the other is a beagle cross cav - right now every now and then I have a cherry eye to contend with but let these fellows in on an open stud book and in 10 years I will be fighting MVD and SM.

Nup.

[toy dog]

Forget what their policy is in the UK, do you believe that we should be having an open studbook for all breeds here in Australia? You keep posting about the UK system, so you must be trying to tell us something. Do you think the ANKC should have open stud books for all breeds?

The fact that we have reciprocal deals with the UK kennel club means that sooner or later the dogs allowed in with an open stud book will appear on at least some of ours but reality is that I dont think the ANKC will hold out and tell animal rights and people who are pushing for open stud books to bugger off .Its only a matter of time that they open up - The fact that they have already banned close matings is taking us closer and fuels the base line media crap that we are where we are because of in breeding.

I would like to see them fight back and promote the fact that the stud books have always been able to be opened and still can be without needing to change anything.

The whole idea that one of those beagle cross cavs which look every bit a purebred beagle is allowed in and we then start to see SM and MVD in a breed that doesnt have it? Not on my shift.

sorry i know i've asked this before and i've viewed the other thread addressing this, can anyone give me a link to the new ruling on inbreeding possibly? i've tried to google looked at some controlling bodies, can't seem to find anything.

[toy dog]

One of these dogs is a purebred beagle the other is a beagle cross cav - right now every now and then I have a cherry eye to contend with but let these fellows in on an open stud book and in 10 years I will be fighting MVD and SM.

Nup.

my bosses daughter has a "cav cross poodle' its meant to be she showed me a picture but its got the head of a beagle no doubt about it, also has cav markings but poodle coat a little bit wavy not full on though. he is also 15 kgs..alot bigger than a cav. how much does a beagle usually weigh steve? im sure that he is the size of a beagle. although just viewed pictures. i didn't ask how much they paid not game enough, i assume probably about a thousand.

boss tried to tell me ages ago that she went to a reg breeder of cavs and i was very exited to find that out only to be totally disappointed that it was a cross bought at a petshop. And this lady is a school teacher you'd think she'd know a bit more about what to do and how to go about buying a puppy. but no.

sorry a bit offtopic.

[Steve]

One of these dogs is a purebred beagle the other is a beagle cross cav - right now every now and then I have a cherry eye to contend with but let these fellows in on an open stud book and in 10 years I will be fighting MVD and SM.

Nup.

my bosses daughter has a "cav cross poodle' its meant to be she showed me a picture but its got the head of a beagle no doubt about it, also has cav markings but poodle coat a little bit wavy not full on though. he is also 15 kgs..alot bigger than a cav. how much does a beagle usually weigh steve? im sure that he is the size of a beagle. although just viewed pictures. i didn't ask how much they paid not game enough, i assume probably about a thousand.

boss tried to tell me ages ago that she went to a reg breeder of cavs and i was very exited to find that out only to be totally disappointed that it was a cross bought at a petshop. And this lady is a school teacher you'd think she'd know a bit more about what to do and how to go about buying a puppy. but no.

sorry a bit offtopic.

Thats really the whole point could have a bit of anything in it.

[sandgrubber]

There are plenty of slim Labs in this country - in working and sport homes. If you want a slimmer style of gundog without a double coat, there are plenty of breeds on offer. Slim Labs owned by people who don't feed them like feed lot cattle don't suffer in summer.

It might also do wonders for purebred dog genetic diversity if people weren't indoctrinated with the mantra that every purebred dog that's not destined for the show ring should be desexed by the age of six months.

Yes there are many slim Labs. Most of them are under 5 years old. It's crass and inaccurate to say the ones who put on weight are fed like feed lot cattle. Most of them are fed like family members. That's the problem. Why is flab so common in Labs? Genetics. You have to be disciplined to keep a Lab slim as a household pet, especially when there are kids around. Discipline is not a widespread human trait these days. Loads of kids ending out underexercised and overweight . . . as go the kids, so go the dogs. I think it likely that, had fat-Lab families ended out with a poodle, they would have ended out with a slim dog

And I'm sorry . . . all gundogs are not alike. A GSP or pointer or Weimerarner is no substitute for a Lab. Very different temperament. There is a reason these breeds aren't used as guide dogs and Labs are.

I do not believe dog breeds should be fossilized. All the wonderful breeds we have evolved through selection for different circumstances from different mixes of local dog populations. A lot has changed since the late 19th century. Why should dog breeds not continue to change with time and place?

The Lab has only been registered for a hundred years or so. Before registration, lots of bloodlines were mixed . . . the St. John's dog was a great foundation for breeding . . . and a bit of blubber would have suited a dog doing water work in a cold climate. The UK isn't all that warm and the double coat was fine for northern europe. Breeders somehow bred out the white paws and blaze of the St John's dog, and added a bit of this and that to end out with something that worked for the tastes of the landed gentry of the day. Spaniels and setters were abundant in the UK and ran with the Canadian land-race imports. Often the identity of the sire was unclear. Someone who was into competitive retrieving might add a little greyhound to increase speed and ability to jump fences. The result was a great, diverse breed, easily trained, low aggression, soft mouth . . . etc. So why stop the evolution of the breed? Why not permit outcrossing and back crossing to modify it for local conditions?

[Crisovar]

So you would modify the Lab to suit lazy owners. That I do not understand.

I have lived in Qld since 1965 and have shot over our own lab and alongside countless others, they all did their job and did not appear to be suffering in any way from the climate. Granted they were all fit and healthy, but the double coats have never seemed to me to be an issue. Maybe you could expand on your reasoning for wanting to see changes.

[shortstep]

So you would modify the Lab to suit lazy owners.

I don't know what you guys on on about. Breeds are constantly being modified, as long as you can still make out the breed, what is the problem?

Here is an example of modified breed I saw this morning.LOL

http://www.ibelieveinadv.com/2009/06/lifebuoy-handwash-dog/

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2011/07/pug-loaf.html

Edited July 6, 2011 by shortstep

[Steve]

I do not believe dog breeds should be fossilized. All the wonderful breeds we have evolved through selection for different circumstances from different mixes of local dog populations. A lot has changed since the late 19th century. Why should dog breeds not continue to change with time and place?

The Lab has only been registered for a hundred years or so. Before registration, lots of bloodlines were mixed . . . the St. John's dog was a great foundation for breeding . . . and a bit of blubber would have suited a dog doing water work in a cold climate. The UK isn't all that warm and the double coat was fine for northern europe. Breeders somehow bred out the white paws and blaze of the St John's dog, and added a bit of this and that to end out with something that worked for the tastes of the landed gentry of the day. Spaniels and setters were abundant in the UK and ran with the Canadian land-race imports. Often the identity of the sire was unclear. Someone who was into competitive retrieving might add a little greyhound to increase speed and ability to jump fences. The result was a great, diverse breed, easily trained, low aggression, soft mouth . . . etc. So why stop the evolution of the breed? Why not permit outcrossing and back crossing to modify it for local conditions?

This however is 2011 and we have more access to knowledge, genes etc at our finger tips and science which we have never had before. I dont care what a breeder is aiming to get as long as its a definite goal and a defined plan on how that will be achieved and why - if its dogs less prone to being fat - no worries but you are not going to do that without a clue about how you will go about it or what the dogs you will use have in their ancestry.First you have to prove that they are fatter ,that they will benefit if they are bred to be less fat and that they are not perceived to be fatter because more are desexed or the nutritional bases have changed or because only some lines are more prone to being fatter etc. If you want to select for that and it is your belief that this will benefit the dogs you breed then what a wonderful project to undertake and all is well - but you still need goals and plans on how to acheive them, specifics of what you will select for and what you will be needing to compromise on to get there - because this isnt 100 years ago.

[Steve]

So you would modify the Lab to suit lazy owners.

I don't know what you guys on on about. Breeds are constantly being modified, as long as you can still make out the breed, what is the problem?

All jokes aside dog breeds are always constantly being modified - but to date few have been modified for anything which will deliberately bring something better to the quality of life for the dog and that is what we need to change.

[OSoSwift]

If dogs are not fed they starve if they are fed too much they get fat. Blaming the way the Lab is bred for getting fat is just ridiculous. They will not be fat if fed correctly ( and exercised) for the individual dog. Blaming DNA is a cop out.

[Steve]

If dogs are not fed they starve if they are fed too much they get fat. Blaming the way the Lab is bred for getting fat is just ridiculous. They will not be fat if fed correctly ( and exercised) for the individual dog. Blaming DNA is a cop out.

Are you sure?

[shortstep]

If dogs are not fed they starve if they are fed too much they get fat. Blaming the way the Lab is bred for getting fat is just ridiculous. They will not be fat if fed correctly ( and exercised) for the individual dog. Blaming DNA is a cop out.

Are you sure?

There is a Fat gene in humans and I am sure I have it! LOL

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article1647517.ece

and in mice

http://www.hhmi.org/genesweshare/d130.html