Nancy sigh this is so very true. General Vets know basically nothing about breeding. After all we have all these spay and neuter programs so why would they get educated through their medical universities on how and what to look for in a breeding male or female? We are left with the very rare repro vets and or general vets that actually do breed.

Ihave written before about my lost gal Zoey. Who was not a great or even good representative of the breed. And all the 3 different vets I went to over different issues, couldn't "understand" why I wouldn't breed her. I elaborated her three major structural faults, but hey no dice. Then I said her temperament is not what it should be for the breed. Finally they left me alone per say. Sad. But in one way good, as temperament at least appears to have a deep penetration in the ignorant (meaning lack of knowledge vets).

Actually I do know I would never have bred her for those many structural deficits. Apart from her temperament deficits.

You know, based on last years report on my beautiful male, I have destroyed his sperm I froze. I do not just expouse good breeding practices, I do them! I cried when I did this. Quite simply I did not want to be tempted in the future if I got that great female for him.......

This is apropos of nothing our OP posted, but as folks are reading this thread, mayhap they can see the heart-ache of breeding. Above you heard my story on two of my breeding dogs. BTW we lost Zoey to cancer last May.

Here is another. A lovely female of our Breed, had her second litter at four years old. All heath tested, CERF;s, thryoid. heart, HD, ED, hypeuricosuria, hearing et al.

She had problems with her second litter - it was necessary to spay her. The vet said it was a good thing you did, as her uterus was as thin as paper. If you had bred her again, she could have haemorraghed to death. The vet wanted to do further tests on blood on the uterus et al. My friend said no. NOt necessary. So was this Good Fortune or not?

Tis a Chinese proverb ... Bad Luck Good Luck who knows?

Go forward 18 or so months later. She has caught her toenail on a jump. She was competing for UD title. But it kept bleeding at home. Visit to vet. Nothing wrong - keep doing what you are doing. Three days later, bleeding is ongoing - my friend thinks her abdomen is swollen. Vet says lets do some bloodwork. Let me cauterized the nail. Three days later - still bleeding. My friend is panicked , get me US or Xray - do it NOW. VEt says something is wrong .... I will try for above..... they live in the country. Dog dies at the vet office that Night!

So is it good luck or bad luck? Should my friend have analyzed the uterus at the time of the spay? Would it have told her what went wrong? Was this some weird manifestation of Van willenbrads disease?

I as you know have agitated for my dog - through the vagarities of the veterinary system. In fact OVC actually now has a whole remedial center that I think is in part due to my agitating the President of the University with their less than ideal care of myself and my dog.

Yes I know the importance of research and have proven that. I am a teacher for research and development on genetics

Must have missed that post

But do some of the dog clubs standards actually better the breed? I watched this documentary and found it to be very troubling. It seems with some breeds the standards caused genetic issues to be reinforced. King Cavalier Spaniel head size causing seizures, Pugs bulging eyes and curled tails, German Shepard's slopped back causing hip problems, Rhodesian Ridge back's Ridge skin disorder, Bulldogs large head causing breathing and natural birth problems. I feel genetic testing should become a more important factor in breed standards if we truly want to better the breed.
Pedigree Dogs Exposed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"The United Kingdom pedigree-dog industry has faced criticism because certain aspects of dog conformation stipulated in the UK Kennel Club breed standards have a detrimental impact on dog welfare. A review of conformation-related disorders was carried out in the top 50 UK Kennel Club registered breeds using systematic searches of existing information. A novel index to score severity of disorders along a single scale was also developed and used to conduct statistical analyses to determine the factors affecting reported breed predisposition to defects. According to the literature searched, each of the top 50 breeds was found to have at least one aspect of its conformation predisposing it to a disorder; and 84 disorders were either directly or indirectly associated with conformation. The Miniature poodle, Bulldog, Pug and Basset hound had most associations with conformation-related disorders. Further research on prevalence and severity is required to assess the impact of different disorders on the welfare of affected breeds."
Source Asher L, Diesel G, Summers JF, McGreevy PD, Collins LM.
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, Potters Bar, Herts AL9 7TA, UK.

There is no genetic test for some diseases/afflictions. Knowing your lines is also important.

I agree that the standard for some breeds actually harms the breed. That's a different issue, though. What you described are dogs being bred to a standard that creates an unsound dog. I don't see the breed standard for the Yorkshire Terrier being one that promotes health issues. Though every breed has its own health concerns, I see nothing about the YT standard itself that inherently causes health problems in the dog.

Really? Who says those are the right standards? The same ppl who provided wrong ones? I think so.
I also provided educated proof in research that it does.

Yes I agree with your points. My concern though is there are champion show breeders whose dogs may physically fit the standard but are genetically unhealthy. These dogs become the desired breeding stock. There should be greater genetic oversight and breeder accountability in their genetic testing for these "Champions" required by the AKC and Breed clubs. I really admire those breeders who know their lines and take responsibility for genetic testing as they truly have the breeds best interest at heart.
Champion Purebreds Kicked Out of Crufts Dog Show For Poor Health
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/sp...anted=all&_r=0

My heart goes out to Archonis. Yes he is not breeding to better the breed. He is breeding her to have a link to his wife who he lost under tragic circumstances.

Not sure if you're addressing my post but it seems so.

The YTCA is the parent club for the Yorkshire Terrier in the US. Each breed has its own parent club. There is no 'the same people'.

I haven't read every post in the thread (most but not all), but I haven't seen where anything has been shown that the breed standard for the YT leads to unsound dogs. Maybe refer me to a post if I missed it.

The instances Buster Brown mentioned were of dogs whose standard takes singular features to an extreme. On the whole, the YT is a breed whose standard calls for a balanced dog. There really is no 'extreme' feature about a YT.

Now, a point was made of breeders breeding dogs simply because they win while turning a blind eye to some known issue. That is a matter of personal ethics, not of the breed standard.

Personally, there are some breeds I would just not want to be involved with due to what has been done to them. There are quite a few breeds where there are two distinct types of breeders...those breeding for show and those breeding 'working' strains. I don't see any need to have Yorkies bred for show by some and working lines by others. The YT, in its modern 'show' guise, is fully capable of doing the work it was bred to to and look good doing it!

Thank you buster

In the past, that's why I wouldn't get a purebred dog, I only got dogs from shelters, not rescues, pounds, because I didn't want a purebred dog. I have since learned that there are many breed clubs who take the job very seriously of protecting and preserving the breed, and there are many great breeders who actually study breeding and go to classes to make sure that they have the knowledge necessary to protect their dogs while whelping. Furthermore, the YTCA has been one of the leading breed clubs to encourage breeders to do CHIC testing. CHIC stands for Canine Health Information Center and it’s goals include being able to work with parent clubs in the identification of health issues for which a central information system should be established. Find more about CHIC testing here: http://www.caninehealthinfo.org/chicinfo.html


While I understand Archonis wanting to keep connected to his deceased wife, I think putting his dog in harm’s way by breeding it is not the way to do it. I've talked to many really good breeders and you'd be surprised how scared they are each time there is a breeding, the more experienced they are, the more they realize all the things that can go wrong.

Thanks for the CHIC link. It good to know that the YTCA is at the forefront. Just wondering for a pet owner would having these test done help with preventative care?
It would be devastating if Archonis lost Molly in attempting to keep a connection to his wife. I agree with your point about the risks for Molly. I was looking at his connection to his wife vs breed standards more than the potential complications in whelping.

It sounds like this was an epidemological study? That video came out oh what 4 to 5 yrs ago now. There is another thread on here I linked and typed about this video.

And I concur with you about Breed clubs getting much more serious about health testings, prior to earning Master Breeder awards, or Top Dog awards, and even earning Championships. All CH's can be provisional until the dog full matures and all the health tests can be done.

But we are a very large step away from this .......

I will point out that no-one studies mixes. Doing an epidemicological study on the extent of HD, ED, immune system problems, heart, thyroid, LS.
Studies that only look at "purebred" often don't delineate out the progeny from health tested parents. And they don't check for purebred accuracy.

Also as there are precious few actual real studies on mixes, the public gets the mistaken impression that mixes are healthier than pure breeds. The answer is who knows? I don't. THere are not enough studies done with a large enough or meaningful enough sample to come to any reasonable conclusion.

But I can tell you in a busy city, when I am driving or walking my dogs around, I see enough sickle hocks, limping front or rear - enough to suspect dysplasia. Rocking backs, and poorly muscled dogs. And I see this every day, more than once per day.

Let me go to a dog park, and my observations increase exponentially. The bulk of these dogs are obvious mixes.

It is also at the time of "purebred Dogs Expoused" the English expose, there were some valid concerns expressed about one-sided reporting.

No reputable breeder should endorse breeding un-healthy dogs. And no breed club either.

While this expose portrayed some breeds with extreme presentation of one or another aspect of anatomy, there are over 300 breeds being registered in clubs today.

I do agree with Woogie Man that on the face of it there is nothing in the YOrkie Std that encourages extreme breeding practices.

I think these are mainly for a breeder to do on her breeding dogs. You can find out the scores as a pet buyer. Not every breeder is doing it yet, but it's something I think we should encourage all breeders to do. You can still show dogs with poor numbers and I hope in the future that would change. I think the show world should become the major proponent in pushing for healthy dogs.

Gail, at least with liver shunts, mixes were used in a large study, along with quite a few pure breeds. In that case, the incidence with the mixes was extremely low compared to any breed.

(I'm basing this off memory. LS gets talked about so much with the YT and that stands out in my mind from my research. IIRC it was a UT study.)

Interesting to learn these things. Thanks all.