ok... I have watched the full min documentary. I have cried ... I am just sick SICK right now. This is beyond horrible what has been done to the poor dogs.

I do think it is the fault of the "show" ring and some breeders. Just seeing how much many breeds have changed in the past 50 years to the pain of the animal. Why?

I made a promise to myself... I will never get another dog UNLESS the parents were tested for all genetic faults.

I have a friend that has a cavalier that has the brain issued shown in the documentary... the family is so hurt. The breeder is STILL breeding the stud ..so how many more pups are born with this painful horrible condition. This is like watching your child die... and it could be prevented,

I have also known breeders that have "show" shepherds that can't even walk... but win awards. Sick Sick Sick

I do not think "mutts" are the solution... if you have breeders who don't test you can still have the conditions...maybe more even. And the person on here who is for the merel gene... sick sick sick!!!!!

Just as bad as puppy mills and unethical breeders.... there has to be a way to change this...

Sorry... I just am so upset. I hate to see a sweet animal in pain..

I have always felt lucky to have you as a yt friend.... now I understand even more what you are saying.

How sad that the biggest motivation for some so-called "Breeders" is money, bottom line. The suffering the dogs go through, throughout their lifetime, is a sin.

How in the world do they get the dog to move around the ring? Gait is one of the things that is closely scrutinized...if this dog can not even walk, how in the world is this dog still winning awards? Are these AKC sancationed shows this crippled dog is participating in????????

ok... I was a bit upset and may have used figurative speech. I was referring to the "hop" that seams to be desirable in show GS. I was comparing to "working" GS.

To be clear... what I am upset is breeding to a "look" that is unhealthy or breeding when it is KNOWN the parents carry a gene that will cause a condition that will lead to pain and or death. I am very supportive of ethicial breeders that test and do what is best for the pups

It's certainly not the breeders who breed for the betterment. Betterment includes many things, but it doesn't include more variety and more extreme examples of the breed. There are definitely problems with some breeds and these problems can relate to the written standard, but this is not the case with the Yorkshire terrier, they have no problems associated with the written standard, achieving the standard, doesn't mean sacrificing health. There are about 5 breeds that are in trouble, and their mother club has not been successful in protecting them, either for lack of knowledge, or they just got caught up in "what the public wanted." That's why I've been against breeding more variety into the lines, for example, the parti trait, until it has been thoroughly studied. The general public also doesn't understand that a carbon copy is the ideal, they want "different". Bigger, smaller, different colors, they want their pet to be unique, and there nothing wrong with that, but please go to the shelter to find unique dogs, don't support breeders who breed for differences.

The BBC Special which aired what was it 4 years ago or so? It is rather old news, how-ever as a result of this special, the Kennel Club in Britain, undertook a full Standard review of every breed standard. A massive job. Working together with the National Breed Clubs, almost every single standard was revised.

In my opinion they did not go far enough, but at least a good step in the right direction.

I would like to point out, there was much criticism of that special, because of its very slanted nature. Having said that, there were obvious points of faults, and yes on the show breeders. There are bad breeders out there unfortunately.

The problem how-ever is rife and a huge concern from the commercial breeders, the puppymills, and the 40million dogs that supposedly come from family and friends pets being bred. Source APPA last year survey. None of those folks do any genetic or pre breeding screening, with perhaps the commercial breeders screen for brucellosis.

The GSD is often times referred to in these types of threads. I admit I haven't watched the herding group too often, or seen the breed in the ring that much, but I will if I have time look up some recent shows on line that shows that breed being judged.

The few I have seen in recent years hands down, are much better configured than say 10 years ago.

And if folks are going to get a mixed breed puppy for sure it is buyer beware. There are not nearly enough studies for any-one to say confidentally that mixes as a group or individual mixes are healthier.

And as yet another reminder there are relatively few genetic tests available for every breed. There are how-ever many pre breeding screening tests we do do!

And as a purchaser if you wish to "insist" on genetic testing, know which ones are there for the breed you wish to purchase, and a general idea of the incident rate within that breed.

Know what are the screening tests the whole array of them, know what the www.ytca.org recommends, and ask why your breeder has not Chic'd their dog. Not many breeders have for YT's.

I need to see if this is actually posted on the AKC or the CKC website, but I have heard neither club will approve "new colors" within a standard breed.

This is why testing in so very important before breeding. It is possible to get a dog that closely fits the standard without compromising the health if the proper testing is done. With that being said Alot of what is seen in the video you posted is because some breeders want a specific look or trait and they breed for just that specific thing and in doing so can and does cause other issues to come to light. I get tired of hearing cope outs that this is what the public wants, just utter nonsense, the public wants what it sees. So if they see a different color or look they will want it. If more people would stop indiscriminately breeding what they assume the public wants and start breeding for health and more towards whatever standard their breed has then maybe just maybe we wouldn't have so many dogs in shelters or rescues and we could make better progress in eliminating alot more genetic diseases without compromising the health of our dogs.

I can remember Mary saying that there were some breed clubs that had approved new colors and they were the first ones advising that the YTCA not do it.

Purebreds that include zillions of casually bred pups in their ranks, inbred for generations or bred willy-nilly with no knowledge of either the male's or female's heritage do lead to health problems and YorkieTalk is here to preach and protest daily against those kinds of breeders. For as long as this site has been here members have been literally howling against the dangers of buying from those breeders or millers in order to stop supporting the creation of dogs that carry many hereditary diseases and structural defaults that cause so much pain and misery in their puppies. Probably those casually bred dogs are as bad or no better than some mixed-breed dogs where the lines couldn't possibly be known in most cases.

One of the main reasons YorkieTalk exists today is to try to encourage, endorse, promote cajole, beg and thoughtfully educate all on the idea that doing business with reputable, respected breeders of longstanding renown in the breed, will get them an excellent chance at a healthy, standard-sized dog of excellent temperament and conformation.

Buying some mixed-breed dog off a website where only the claims of the seller are unsubstantiated and pie-in-the-sky is likely even chancier or as chancy as buying from a greeder, BYB'er or puppmiller. Wonder why the shelters are full of mixed breed dogs over purebred if the latter don't develop many problems?

Yep:thumbup:

:yeahthat:

I've mentioned it in other threads, but I was at the Detroit Dog Show last year and was so excited to go & watch the yorkies in the ring. There was a gorgeous dog, that I was sure was going to win, but what won? A yorkie with a short snout, round head & bug eyes...it looked like it had been mixed with a chihuahua in the face. I was disgusted that a yorkie looking like that was awarded a ribbon. Of course when it came to the all breed at the end of the day, that thing wasn't even pulled out to run around the ring.

GSDs in the States don't even look like the same dog in Europe. I confess at first, I didn't realize they were the exact same dog, as growing up in England they were called Alsatians. I can't believe how slanty backed some of them are here. I also initially didn't know they were deliberately being bred that way, I thought it was a deformity due to hip issues.

I too have known of GSDs that have been show dogs for the first 2-3 years of life and are crippled and barely able to walk at 5 yrs of age. So sad that they are deliberately being bred to hurt them.

I watched the BBC show when it aired a few years ago, and the BBC pulled out of sponsorship of the dog show. I couldn't watch it again. I still remember those poor king Charles cavalier spaniels and their extremely tiny skulls. Sickening!

Some show people also breed more for looks only if they think it will get them a champion that they can claim on their resume and then sell its champion-sired puppies for a lot of money to an approved someone who is likely going to breed that "champion-sired" dog and perpetuate their name in the dog fancy. Just because they show dogs doesn't make them reputable, credible or respected unless they are breeding to improve the breed and all that that implies. I include those that show but breed for looks only in the same group as BYB'ers, greeders, puppymillers.