Who Should Be Held Accountable?

[maggiesmom_2007]

I like some think the breeders should be held accountable. My reasoning on this is as follows. As breeders we are supposed to be breeding for the betterment of the breed we have chosen, so it is really up to us to pay attention and do the proper research in order to cut down on the genetic problems. If enough breeders breed for less problems and get back to bettering the breed then possibly the parent clubs would change the breed standards and the kennel clubs would follow suit. This is just my two cents

[Cheller_]

Originally Posted by TLC

I would like to see the specific Breed Clubs step away from AKC. Honestly, it seems (from your wonderful and informative posts) that the AKC is a HUGE problem, and I honestly don't see them making ANY changes to better ANY breed. I am sick just thinking of Hunt and AKC "buddy-buddy"

IMO the AKC should be held accountable. As that is where all the millers are registering to, because and AKC dog is more valuable and holds more prestige for the Petshops and Brokers and BYB. It is really amazing to think how much change would come if it all started up top at the AKC

I agree. When company becomes too big and loses sight on the morals on which they started from they can not continually keep an eye on the quality. They are trading in their ethics for $$$. The Breed clubs should step away from the AKC.

AKC is part of this false sense of security that people receive when they buy a dog from a pet store. I don't believe that the light switch is going to switch on for people as a mass when it comes to the dangers of buying from a irresponsible source ( breeder, pet store, w/e), for example thats why we have laws against illicit drug use.

[livingdustmops]

I wish more people would jump into the conversation but just to clarify my stand...I believe all 3 are part of the problem.

AKC = Judges and the show world..not really interested in the health of the dogs but just the litters and registrations.

Breed Clubs = more interested in how the dogs look then in healthy dogs and setting the standards only for looks.

Breeders = who know what is going on with the health of the dogs and not demanding change..just going along with it.

[TLC]

Originally Posted by livingdustmops

I wish more people would jump into the conversation but just to clarify my stand...I believe all 3 are part of the problem.

AKC = Judges and the show world..not really interested in the health of the dogs but just the litters and registrations.

Breed Clubs = more interested in how the dogs look then in healthy dogs and setting the standards only for looks.

Breeders = who know what is going on with the health of the dogs and not demanding change..just going along with it.

Ok, yup that's correct

And will something really be changed, NOPE, because everyone feels they have a right to do what they please...

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by livingdustmops

I wish more people would jump into the conversation but just to clarify my stand...I believe all 3 are part of the problem.

AKC = Judges and the show world..not really interested in the health of the dogs but just the litters and registrations.

Breed Clubs = more interested in how the dogs look then in healthy dogs and setting the standards only for looks.

Breeders = who know what is going on with the health of the dogs and not demanding change..just going along with it.

I can't really answer; I believe with every complex problem, there is more than one group that's to blame. I don't know a lot about the show world, but I would think many involved do have a true love for dogs. I'm not sure that I believe that judges and the show world are not interested in health, but I would guess that they could do more than what they are doing now. Breed clubs are vastly different, and I know some that are very interested in the dog's health, and spend lots of money out of their own pockets for research.. YTCA Foundation In fact, I believe that those breeders involved in breed clubs are the primary ones interested in the dogs health, after all they are developing a "line, and health risks will show in their line. A good mother club will also change standard very slowly, and never just to please the pet buying public. Certain breed clubs have changed the standard to incorporate certain trends, and this has proved disastrous for the breed. Some breed clubs take their "protective" of the breed role much more seriously than others, but in my opinion, should never be criticized for being cautious.

Breeders who breed for profit are a major part of the problem, because the "bottom line" is their primary goal. That's why lemon laws are great, because they help motivate some breeders to breed healthy dogs. I also believe that pet buyers are part of the problem and buy a puppy, like they would a piece a furniture, or maybe with even less research. The rest of us, I believe, should always encourage pet buyer to only support responsible breeders. So we're all part of the problem.

[DvlshAngel985]

This was brought up in the other thread, but I think it does a good job of posing the question, who is responsible?

YouTube - syringomyelia in dogs

The breeders that follow standards for the cavalier breed for certain characteristics in order for them to show. But, when the breed standard is hurting the breed itself, who is responsible? Breeders for choosing to follow standard, or the breed clubs who set the standards? I know the cavalier is an extreme case of this, but LP's, LS, and the other problems that plague our favorite breed do have a genetic background.

I know reputable breeders breed for health, temperament, and appearance and they sincerely try to better the breed, but when faced with something as extreme as syringomyelia, which in my opinion is caused by people wanting a smaller cute head for the cavalier, why do the breeders not say "ENOUGH! We're killing this breed!." I think byb's and puppy mills that breed for the micro minnie teacups are a plague to our beloved breed, it's the yorkie's equivalent to a small skull.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by DvlshAngel985

This was brought up in the other thread, but I think it does a good job of posing the question, who is responsible?
YouTube - syringomyelia in dogs

The breeders that follow standards for the cavalier breed for certain characteristics in order for them to show. But, when the breed standard is hurting the breed itself, who is responsible? Breeders for choosing to follow standard, or the breed clubs who set the standards? I know the cavalier is an extreme case of this, but LP's, LS, and the other problems that plague our favorite breed do have a genetic background.

I know reputable breeders breed for health, temperament, and appearance and they sincerely try to better the breed, but when faced with something as extreme as syringomyelia, which in my opinion is caused by people wanting a smaller cute head for the cavalier, why do the breeders not say "ENOUGH! We're killing this breed!." I think byb's and puppy mills that breed for the micro minnie teacups are a plague to our beloved breed, it's the yorkie's equivalent to a small skull.

I think there are at least 5 breeds that have had very poor mother clubs, and have been breeding for "cuteness" or some other trait, without checking the long-term safety of the trait. The problem with this, is that all purebreds get a bad name. As far as I know, the physical standard of the yorkie doesn't have any impact on health, in fact, structure is a large part of standard, and is very much a part of the dog's overall health. I'm concerned with pet buyers who want smaller and smaller dogs, and also those who love "apple" heads, and tiny tiny noses, and variations in color. I don't think we should breed for these things until we have learned more about how these things impact the health of the dog. That's why I always encourage pet buyers to support those breeders who breed to standard.

[QuickSilver]

Does the YTCA have annual reports? I've seen it said there that the club has contributed a lot to research on LP, etc. Are there figures for that?

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Does the YTCA have annual reports? I've seen it said there that the club has contributed a lot to research on LP, etc. Are there figures for that?

Yes, They have annual and quarterly reports that are available to members.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Does the YTCA have annual reports? I've seen it said there that the club has contributed a lot to research on LP, etc. Are there figures for that?

I think the YTCA website is undergoing some updates, I'm not able to find the newest statement, this was in favorites, but it's not coming up right now. http://yorkiefoundation.org/SupportedGrants.pdf I can tell you that it told how much they spend on different studies, and the overall costs of certain things.

[Nancy1999]

Here's some more information, but the pdf file posted above told more. Health Grants. From what I understand they are still updating the site.

[gemy]

Originally Posted by DvlshAngel985

This was brought up in the other thread, but I think it does a good job of posing the question, who is responsible?
YouTube - syringomyelia in dogs

The breeders that follow standards for the cavalier breed for certain characteristics in order for them to show. But, when the breed standard is hurting the breed itself, who is responsible? Breeders for choosing to follow standard, or the breed clubs who set the standards? I know the cavalier is an extreme case of this, but LP's, LS, and the other problems that plague our favorite breed do have a genetic background.

I know reputable breeders breed for health, temperament, and appearance and they sincerely try to better the breed, but when faced with something as extreme as syringomyelia, which in my opinion is caused by people wanting a smaller cute head for the cavalier, why do the breeders not say "ENOUGH! We're killing this breed!." I think byb's and puppy mills that breed for the micro minnie teacups are a plague to our beloved breed, it's the yorkie's equivalent to a small skull.

Okay going to try again. Had written out a long post at lunch hour lost it, and just now getting back to this to try again.

I guess it might be about two years ago that the BBC expose "purebred dogs exposed", created quite a fervor in not only the dog show world, but it leapt across to regular pet owners. As a direct result of this expose, The Kennel Club which as I think most posters here know (but for those that don't) this is one of the oldest registries in the World and is located in England, struck a committee to review All Standards across the board. Within nine months they had done so, communicated with the Breed Clubs, and revised a whole lot of standards to include health criteria. So while there was much controversy, over how the BBC put together this expose, the concerns were too real, to ignore. I'm still awaiting the shoe to drop in North America. Time will tell if it does.

Thinking needs to change at a fundamental level. And as Nancy has indicated across at least three groups and maybe even more.

Question 1) Why does the USDA license large volumne breeders of dogs? TAke a look at how these dogs are "raised". Even if given the best of vet care, the cleanest of runs and cages, where is the basic sense that the market for these dogs is in HOMES. How can they socialize dogs to homes if they are kept in large kennels, far away for the sights, sounds, and smells of home. Children, people, vacuum cleaner noises, the list goes on and on. How can Mom & Dad who may have been raised in this same environment lead their pups by example? (they have no example to share).
I am the only one that think this is ludicrous?

Okay I posted on another thread about some real time changes that could be make before one can earn a permanent championship.
Let me give you another ludicrous example from the dog show world.

My most experience showing is in the Working Group with a large breed dog, in fact the majority of the working group is comprised of large breed dogs.
Do you realize they compete in the same size ring as the toy breeds?
With this size ring, I can noway show Magic to the pace he is capable of. Now imagine add in another 11 dogs to the ring and that ring size shrinks even more. Ever watched a Working Group in the ring? You barely have room to stand and you are expected to show your dog to his/her best advantage?
Does that stand the test of "common sense"

Now only twice in all the shows I've been in, and those shows were under FCI Judges, did they do what I think should have been done. Three times around the ring we went on the go around. Why is this important? It is a bare minimum for the judge to get a sense of the conditioning of this breed, to see movement problems that may only evidence themselves under a bit of stress.
You get a sense of the heart of the dog.
The other opportunity the judge has is when they palpate the dog. They should be checking for muscle bulk and tone, structual alignment, bite, coat, and temperament.
You realize that basically judges work schedule allows for about two minutes per dog, that is not a lot of time to evaluate a dog. Why is this so? To maximize the amount of dogs, and minimize the number of judges that is required to judge during a show.

So should this be changed? If so, to what, and how does this get changed? If we added more judging time and larger rings would the cost increase be so much that it would drastically effect the number of dogs able to show?

I'm going to close now as I don't want to lose this post either

[gemy]

Now let me tell you a little bit about some judging seminars I have done. Judging seminars are usually presented to the judges by the breed clubs involved. They are alot of fun to do.

I have had judges ask me if there is an easier way to check bite. Yes I say, ask the handler to show you. lol

But mainly what the judges want to know from us the experts is ... what do you exhibitors/breeders look for when watching your breed go around the ring. What do you talk to each other about? Give us that information.

It is not so easy to do. Easier with judges with lots of experience. They should already know how to see, paddling, cross-overs, pacing, lack of reach/drive. Coat movement on a heavily coated breed is hard to subtract out - it can make a topline look like it is rolling too much.

So many of these judges who take the seminar have already judged our breed. Where then did they get the specific breed training from? Not too sure they all went to Europe or the States to get the training first.

As an exhibitor I would like to see more transparency on judging credentials, training, etc. I don't want to just see a history of how often and how many of this bred they judged. But want education in the judging of the bred do they have. I would like to see how many times and for what reasons a judge may have DQ'd a dog.

[DvlshAngel985]

Originally Posted by gemy

Okay going to try again. Had written out a long post at lunch hour lost it, and just now getting back to this to try again.

I guess it might be about two years ago that the BBC expose "purebred dogs exposed", created quite a fervor in not only the dog show world, but it leapt across to regular pet owners. As a direct result of this expose, The Kennel Club which as I think most posters here know (but for those that don't) this is one of the oldest registries in the World and is located in England, struck a committee to review All Standards across the board. Within nine months they had done so, communicated with the Breed Clubs, and revised a whole lot of standards to include health criteria. So while there was much controversy, over how the BBC put together this expose, the concerns were too real, to ignore. I'm still awaiting the shoe to drop in North America. Time will tell if it does.

Thinking needs to change at a fundamental level. And as Nancy has indicated across at least three groups and maybe even more.

Question 1) Why does the USDA license large volumne breeders of dogs? TAke a look at how these dogs are "raised". Even if given the best of vet care, the cleanest of runs and cages, where is the basic sense that the market for these dogs is in HOMES. How can they socialize dogs to homes if they are kept in large kennels, far away for the sights, sounds, and smells of home. Children, people, vacuum cleaner noises, the list goes on and on. How can Mom & Dad who may have been raised in this same environment lead their pups by example? (they have no example to share).
I am the only one that think this is ludicrous?

Okay I posted on another thread about some real time changes that could be make before one can earn a permanent championship.
Let me give you another ludicrous example from the dog show world.

My most experience showing is in the Working Group with a large breed dog, in fact the majority of the working group is comprised of large breed dogs.
Do you realize they compete in the same size ring as the toy breeds?
With this size ring, I can noway show Magic to the pace he is capable of. Now imagine add in another 11 dogs to the ring and that ring size shrinks even more. Ever watched a Working Group in the ring? You barely have room to stand and you are expected to show your dog to his/her best advantage?
Does that stand the test of "common sense"

Now only twice in all the shows I've been in, and those shows were under FCI Judges, did they do what I think should have been done. Three times around the ring we went on the go around. Why is this important? It is a bare minimum for the judge to get a sense of the conditioning of this breed, to see movement problems that may only evidence themselves under a bit of stress.
You get a sense of the heart of the dog.
The other opportunity the judge has is when they palpate the dog. They should be checking for muscle bulk and tone, structual alignment, bite, coat, and temperament.
You realize that basically judges work schedule allows for about two minutes per dog, that is not a lot of time to evaluate a dog. Why is this so? To maximize the amount of dogs, and minimize the number of judges that is required to judge during a show.

So should this be changed? If so, to what, and how does this get changed? If we added more judging time and larger rings would the cost increase be so much that it would drastically effect the number of dogs able to show?

I'm going to close now as I don't want to lose this post either

Good good post! I knew that clip was from an old report, but I thought it made a good point to bounce off and start a discussion.