Having a 'meander' on the Kc site re cross-breeds I was a bit suprised to find they seem to be not against cross-breeds. I see you can register any cross on the activity register (which is great because they can compete in classes organised by the Kc other than showing) or the 'companion dog' register for cross or pedigree, and they have special dog shows for crosses 'Scrufts' and they activly ask to know about your cross-breed. Apart from the 'activity' based things, I was a bit suprised to find they would have anything to do with dogs other than those eligable to be registered by their 'pure bred' status. How does this help people who don't really know what they are buying when the Kc is happy to register (for a fee) any dog regardless of parentage? I suppose it has been happening for years, but I was suprised that an organisation that is for pedigree dogs would be involved in those that are not, excluding activity. Or, am I missing something?

I think like us they are trying to be ok with crossbreeds themselves, and not blocking them from all the fun activities you can have with your dogs whatever breed or cross they are. It's the deliberately breeding of crosses with silly names for vast sums of money that us pedigree people get annoyed about!

The activities register has been around for years, so those dogs from rescue centres can compete in agility and obedience etc   The activities register is just so a dog can compete at KC licensed events, I think it's a very good thing for those dogs who come from rescue centres   Some of them make excellenat agility, obedience, HWTM etc dogs.   Why not give them a chance?

t's the deliberately breeding of crosses with silly names for vast sums of money that us pedigree people get annoyed about!

That I understand. What suprised me is that, under their 'crossbreed' section there are no warnings of health tests required in the 'parents' of the crosses, no advice of any kind to potential purchasers regarding anything. It all sounds friendly and nice, and an invitation to register with their 'companion club' regardless of pedigree or not, I can't think of a better way to put this than to say they don't seem to mind about crossbreeds. Accept them even...and hold special classes for them including a large show at Discover Dogs at the end of the year. If someone was considering a crossbreed, and read the site, it could give an opinion of breeding and selling crossbreeds to be OK because the Kc cater for them too. I see the companion club was started in 2001, maybe when the doodles first became so popular? I did see a litter of doodles advertised a year or so ago advertised as being eligable for Kc reg on the crossbreed site. I guess that could have been the companion dog club, or maybe activity club one which I gather has been around for 50 yrs. It seems strange to me they would actively cater for crossbreeds when they are what I thought exclusivly for pedigree or activity dogs. Or am I missing the usefulness of it?

Icequeen, agree with all you say. I think my slant is more on the acceptability of the companion dog side of things, and how it could give standing to those that breed crossbreeds as these can be Kc reg, in a way, which may give an improved standing...if you can understand me

I am glad they support crossbreeds which many thousands of people rescue from centres all over the country and registering them and providing events for them means that owners are not made to feel like second class citizens.

The beauty of the KC system is thus ANY dog can compete in ANY discipline bar breed shows, field trials and gundog working tests.

It is great to see that not only pedigree dogs can become champions and that Ob Ch, Ag Ch, HWTM Ch, WT Ch etc can all come from dogs that would not rate a second glance in the showring!

They do not rely on their looks for their titles!

Fully agree with Thome. I'm not sure if it is still the same, but in Sweden it used to be a case of that any dog aiming for the title of ObCh would HAVE to be graded at least a 2 at a normal show, and hence that meant ONLY registered pedigrees could become Obedience Champions -which is a great shame as the working ability has nothing whatsoever to do with looks. (Pedigrees were affected as well. A friend of mine, who already had made up 3 Obedience Champions, took on an adult GSD bitch that was KC registered and had her papers but was but unwanted/a rescue. She had a bad bite, so could never get a grading above 3 at a show, and hence could never get her Ob Ch title.)

The Companion dogs club was formed at the same time that exhemption shows were "re-named" companion shows.  The idea I thought of this was to encourage people at this level at shows, and they also allowed societies to run such a show with a minimum of 50% profit going to charity, the other percentage (Less then 50%) could go to club funds.

I think those of us with pedigrees and within the conformation side are getting far too anti crossbreed, and yes this is being ruined by all these designer crosses, which I hate as much as the next person but if someone registers their crossbreed with the KC, gets involved in the showing side though companion shows they will be surrounded by breed people who will educate person with cross breed.

That it the way I'm seeing it, thinking of the KC's POV. (The other KC POV is money! )

> What suprised me is that, under their 'crossbreed' section there are no warnings of health tests required in the 'parents' of the crosses,

I've just looked under the buying a dog section and can't see any info on health testing in relation to any pedigree dogs.

Also checked the breed standards for labs and GSDs, common breeds with health problems that should be tested for. There is no information at all, the link on both breed pages to "health screening requirements and recommendations" brings up an error page.

It makes sense to me that they should include crossbreeds and why shouldn't I compete with my crossbreeds?

I certainly don't agree that crossbreeds have "hybrid vigour" but I also don't believe that pedigrees are healthier either. There are no guarantees that any dog will be healthy, although health screening definitely helps.

The website isn't particularly informative or detailed and it should highlight the possible health problems for all dogs and I think it should list everything each pedigree should be tested for.

Am I cynical to think that the reason crossbreeds are catered for comes down to £££. I doubt they bring in as much as pedigrees but I bet its a considerable amount in total.

I agree with respect to the activity register, which I did say at the start Sorry if I'v caused confusion

Its the companion dog and the Scrufts thing I wonder is giving backing to crossbreeds, and of course to have crossbreeds they need to be bred by someone.....If someone looked on the site whilst looking for a puppy and investigating crossbreeds and looking for advice, I see no reference or cautions there, and by accepting all dogs into this club then they are accepting crosses are bred with no problem. Could that encourage someone to buy one? Or, if not encourage, not discourage either. Personally, I see no difference between a crossbreed and a BYB/puppy farm Kc reg puppy, their parents may not be all they seem....their health may be no better than a cross yet the cross bought up in a loving family home may well be better socialised and have a better start!

The Companion dogs club was formed at the same time that exhemption shows were "re-named" companion shows.  The idea I thought of this was to encourage people at this level at shows, and they also allowed societies to run such a show with a minimum of 50% profit going to charity, the other percentage (Less then 50%) could go to club funds.

Thankyou...that makes it all clearer now!


I think those of us with pedigrees and within the conformation side are getting far too anti crossbreed, and yes this is being ruined by all these designer crosses, which I hate as much as the next person but if someone registers their crossbreed with the KC, gets involved in the showing side though companion shows they will be surrounded by breed people who will educate person with cross breed

Said I was missing something...and this is it

I think the way the KC sees it, your average crossbreeds comes from a rescue centre.

All dogs whether pedigree or cross should have the same chance to win and enter anything on the activities register, there are some super crosses that can do a job just aswell as a full pedigree and they should not be exempt, and they haven't been.  And I do like the idea of Scrufts Many like to get involved in having a go at showing, and the owners are just as proud as any pedigree owner.

I guess it does get confusing that we all make such a fuss about all the cross breeding going on, but that is because it is being done for money, in a big way and mixing breeds that should never purposely be matched together.

The whole point of having a KC registered dog is knowing that you have something special, something that has been hopefully bred to standard, something that when I was a child was looked upon as very special, the chance to enter and win Crufts with your dogs was why the dogs were more expensive and you knew why you were paying the price for the son or daugther of a champ.

Today, in a way a KC pedigree dogs status is being taken away, by people paying top dollar for a cross.............

I also believe this is why the KC do not do their best to try advertise good breeding and help others not to buy these odd crosses, because where there are competitions especially ones the KC promote and run, there is money, at the end of the day they are too a very large businees, they make a lot of money from the pedigree side and there is a large market from the cross side to make too.  They aint daft!

Personally, I see no difference between a crossbreed and a BYB/puppy farm Kc reg puppy, their parents may not be all they seem.

I think very many people will take exception to that.

Let us not forget that:

Very far from MOST let alone ALL pedigree dogs undergo all the health screening recommended for breeding stock even from "reputable" breeders!
Secondly there are very many deliberately bred X breeds which ARE put through all the relevant health screens and are bred to PERFORM not just to look pretty (Coltriever affix in Obedience and Melnola affix in WT to name but two) which are NOT marketed as "designer" dogs nor priced for the fancier.

There are responsible and irresponsible breeders of both pedigree and cross breeds, end of.

Not ALL breeders of deliberat cross breeding is being done for money, it is often done for performance either for sport or indeed for the GDBA and other assistance dog charities.

> That I understand. What suprised me is that, under their 'crossbreed' section there are no warnings of health tests required in the 'parents' of the crosses, no advice of any kind to potential purchasers regarding anything

I would imagine that there stance is that crossbreeds are largely accidents, so they wouldn't give such advice as they don't expect the dogs to be bred on from, they are often a persons introduction into dogs, and once in the fold so to speak I expect the Kennel club thinks they will see and become pedigree dog owners next time.

Amazing how two people can see something different yet both make sense

In the past we had one girl who had a crossbreed (From rescue) who got involved in showing, registerd her Crossbreed on Activities reggister (And choose a really nice name!) and she also showed pedigree dogs (Ours and another lady's) and now is educated and is hoping to get her own breed to show when older (Parents said no to a second dog and she has gone off showing and into earning money and boys!)

There are also another two girls now, one with an unregisterd non show type lab and the other with a crossbreed who have started handling and came though the YKC by doing agility to start with.  The one with the crossbreed has done well with a 2nd at crufts in the handling and the other did really well in the YKC grooming competition with her lab.  Both are now training with your setters and my mum has just enterd them into an open show.  This will be the first open show for both these girls and are being given the chance with show quality handling dogs.  Both sets of parents are being very supportive and are also learning as a family about showing, Hopefully one day both these girls will be able to have their own pedigree dogs to show at in conformation.  (Yes it also helps us out with extra handlers in the breed classes to support local open shows!)

Without being able to do an activity with their dogs and the YKC they might never have been this educated?

Personally, I see no difference between a crossbreed and a BYB/puppy farm Kc reg puppy, their parents may not be all they seem.

No offence intended. let me explain

On here, there is so much talk about crossbred puppies coming from untested parents, and lets face it some very odd and even dangerous for the mum crosses. Breeding for money, because there is no other reason for these crosses to be born. If an accident happens, the bitch is to be taken to the vet for a jab/spayed/whatever to stop the pregnancy.

A reptuable breeder on here is defined as doing the homework and the tests, showing the dog to prove worth for breeding or in the working field. Having a list of people waiting for the puppies to be born, and most often keeping one themselves. Knowing that SIRE is the sire, Mum is the mum on the Kc paperwork. All above board.

With puppy farms, who really knows what sired what, who the mum really is in relation to her papers, if she is sound or healthy, and from what is said the same can be said in the majority of the cases of BYB, no health checks, no proof of worth, no waiting list, no support and backup. Only concern is the £ signs.

So, with this in mind, I say again, what is the difference between a cross and a farmed Kc pedigree dog in terms of health, good rearing, life expectancy, nature. Except for the papers.


Secondly there are very many deliberately bred X breeds which ARE put through all the relevant health screens and are bred to PERFORM not just to look pretty (Coltriever affix in Obedience and Melnola affix in WT to name but two) which are NOT marketed as "designer" dogs nor priced for the fancier.


Not ALL breeders of deliberat cross breeding is being done for money, it is often done for performance either for sport or indeed for the GDBA and other assistance dog charities.

Apart from the Labradoodles, I didn't know this. My experience with crossbreeds are as pets, or seeing them do agility etc, or from what I have read on here which is not just against the money (which is understandable, breeding to fashion and £'s) but that it is unable to say what they will turn out like, health etc etc.

I said I may have missed something, so thanks for all who have replied, its good to have a rounded knowledge! Again, no offence was ever intended.

I kind of see where Calmstorm is coming from with this ....most cross breeds are the result of irresponsible breeding and ownership - you know the kind of thing ' we must let the kids experience the wonders of birth' and lets have a litter from Fifi she's SUCH a lovely girl' or even ' we need some holiday money lets have some pups' .

The KC should be about promoting good breeding practices and by including crossbreeds onto their registers they are tacitly 'approving' of them.....on the one hand they are brow beating pedigree breeders because they won't join their Accredited Breeders scheme  ( shame on us !!!) yet they showcase the results of appalling breeding practices every year with Scrufts ....with never a mention of how wrong it is to produce mongrels in the first place .... or maybe they don't think it's wrong at all ?

A fellow worker has just bought  a crossbred puppy - and she genuinely could not see what she was doing wrong ......there are double standards to all this,  my own feelings are that the KC should ONLY be about dogs born as a result of good responsible and ethical breeding practices .....which would exclude mongrels and crossbreeds.

Yvonne

> the KC should ONLY be about dogs born as a result of good responsible and ethical breeding practices .....which would exclude mongrels and crossbreeds.

And a vast majority of pedigree breeders too!

> my own feelings are that the KC should ONLY be about dogs born as a result of good responsible and ethical breeding practices .....which would exclude mongrels and crossbreeds.
>
>

And the majority of purebred litters (in the most numerous breeds for sure) it registers too

I currently have 4 dogs registered with the KC.  1 Border Collie on the breed register, the rest are all on the working register.  1 rescue WSD, 1 accidental litter, (not mine I hasten to add) and 1 Patterdale (not recognised by the KC).  The KC this year have put forward an agility team for the European Open competition in Germany instead of a team for the World Championship and one of the reasons for this is that non-pedigrees can be entered.  Many dogs on the obedience and agility circuit are specifically bred for their working ability rather than purely their looks.  WSD's as opposed to Border Collies are becoming more and more popular.  The ABC winner from Olympia and Crufts is a Kelpie, again a breed not recognised by the KC.  Nigel Staines and Dragonheart Dark Destroyer actually got made up to Agility Champion last month.  How can you deny his right to compete with his dog?  Many of the show breeds have been bred in such a way as to make them suitable for pet homes but totally unsuitable for working.  Surely the KC is there to promote responsible dog ownership regardless of the parentage of the dogs involved.  The KC also makes money from these working dogs.  Each weekend from spring through to autumn there are agility and obedience shows held up and down the country.  Each of these KC shows pays their licence, the clubs pay their dues to the KC and a lot of money is raised.  I too am totally against these designer cross breeds but I adore my Patterdale and hope that the breed is never recognised by the KC as it often leads to the demise of the characteristics that make the breed what it is.  Rant over I am now heading for cover.

>there are double standards to all this,  my own feelings are that the KC should ONLY be about dogs born as a result of good responsible and ethical breeding practices .....which would exclude mongrels and crossbreeds

So you would stop people with rescue dogs competing in Obedience etc ? why ? We are the envy of the dog sports world(except the Bloodhound WT & Gundog stakes), because all dogs have an equal chance to compete & win. I have had dogs of all sorts of backgrounds win under me, pedigree, rescue, designer crosses(not that I approve of them being bred) & mongrels(competed with one of the later myself0

What gives you the right to deny the owners of non pedigree dogs the right to enjoy doing competitions with their dogs, Crufts Obedience Championships have been won by cross breeds(a friend of mine owned one that won the Dog Championships)

The next thing would come only working breeds could do working trials, ruling out GSDs & BC's etc becuase they are Pastoral Breeds

What a very insular state of mind.

Don't get me wrong I believe all dogs should be health tested regardless of whether they are going to be bred from or not & they certainly they should not be bred from if they are not(I've just spent £776 on DNA tests on my BC's & they will have to be clinically tested for HD,Elbows & PRA)& that includes crossbreeds & mongrels

> would imagine that there stance is that crossbreeds are largely accidents, so they wouldn't give such advice as they don't expect the dogs to be bred on from,

thing is manybe they should change that stance, as many cross;s are not accidents anymore

> Don't get me wrong I believe all dogs should be health tested regardless of whether they are going to be bred from or not & they certainly they should not be bred from if they are not

maybe that could become a factor in kc registration? the need to prove the health of the parent dogs as well as the lines (or not for crosses).

the KC exists to promote all thigns dog, not just the pedigree side. i do see the OP's point though, surely they should be doing their best to discourage ill considered matings?

I think that not only do the KC see that the average crossbreed comes (or should) come from a rescue centre it also has to be remembered that the activities register is not for registering litters of puppies, but rather for individual dogs, usually ones which either go and compete in agility, obedience, HTM, YKC etc or those like my own cross breed who used to come along to some shows with me and my "show dogs" rather than be left at home all day.

And a vast majority of pedigree breeders too

Sadly this is probably true but should we not be trying to ensure that all pups come from the best breeders ? -  should we not be trying to hammer the message home that producing mongrels and crossbreeds deliberately is wrong ?....the Kennel Club if it truly wants to improve the world of dogs should be clear about this -

as a point of interest does the FCI or the AKC have their equivelant to the KC's Scruffts  ?

Working Sheepdogs do not I think come into this category - they very often come from ethical, responsible breeders who plan their litters with the greatest care -

Yvonne

Don't get me wrong I believe all dogs should be health tested regardless of whether they are going to be bred from or not & they certainly they should not be bred from if they are not(I've just spent £776 on DNA tests on my BC's & they will have to be clinically tested for HD,Elbows & PRA)& that includes crossbreeds & mongrels

....but without a traceable 'lineage' then your one off testing cannot give a true indication of inherited health problems YOUR bitch may test clear for cataracts for example but her parents may have had them ....and you would never know because you would have no pedigree to trace health results down the generations - this is true for all inherited traits including temperaments, size, etc not to mention the myriad of health problems that good breeders can try and avoid by selecting dogs that compliment their bitch's 'line'.

It is not some kind of snobbism that makes having a pedigree 'better' that those without - just that it is easier to breed ethically and quite honestly  it's a bit illogical to test dogs without a traceable pedigree with a view to breeding from them !.

Yvonne

Yvonne asked:as a point of interest does the FCI or the AKC have their equivelant to the KC's Scruffts  ?

FCI no. AKC don't think so. Indeed if you're a member of the Swedish KC (which you MUST be in order to be able to enter shows or register pups) and are found to have deliberately crossbred a litter you'll normally be banned from membership although they have relaxed their stance somewhat in recent years. In Sweden there is however a Crossbreed club that tries to be the KC for the crossbreeds (i.e. the will register pups, have shows etc), and the SKK and that always seems to be having public arguments.

I just checked the SKK rules, and it is still the same; a non SKK registered dog CANNOT get any titles like Ob Ch or Ag Ch or anything similar. They can take part in tests if they have been given a licence to do so (bit like the Working trials reg here), but they can never gain titles, the dog must be registered in the normal (pedigree) way for that to happen.

> Sadly this is probably true but should we not be trying to ensure that all pups come from the best breeders ? -  should we not be trying to hammer the message home that producing mongrels and crossbreeds deliberately is wrong ?....

Yes but I think we should also be discouraging people from breeding purebed dogs too. Rescues are full to bursting and contrary to what most people think lots of the dogs are proper breeds.

Until the rescue problem disappears I'll continue to have rescue dogs (even if the dogs are KC breed registered, papers aren't given out). Why shouldn't I compete in obedience, agility, flyball, etc with them?

> contrary to what most people think lots of the dogs are proper breeds

More often than not to anyone who knows dogs they are pretty poor examples of proper breeds, bred by the BYB or Puppy farmers.  A well bred one sticks out like a sore thumb, and any delving will likely uncover a breeder who was unaware of the dogs plight, though occasionally not

>yet they showcase the results of appalling breeding practices every year with Scrufts ....with never a mention of how wrong it is to produce mongrels in the first place

I wonder where all our pure-bred dogs come from, I mean how each breed was started - aren't they a mix of desirable traits from different breeds/types of dogs (therefore from cross-breeds/mongrels), this done repeadedly untill the end result = pure-breed??

I am not defending the poeple who breed silly cross breeds for money (breeding pedigree dogs for money is just as bad), but the poor dogs never had a say in who thier parents were, I think it's great there is room for the good old mut to take part in things

Yes but I think we should also be discouraging people from breeding purebed dogs too. Rescues are full to bursting and contrary to what most people think lots of the dogs are proper breeds.

....but rescue dogs are there because they were 'bred' by irresponsible or unethical breeders ....BYB and puppy farms rely on rescue centres to mop up the fall out of their breeding practices ....they would no more take a dog they have bred back thmemselves that fly to the moon !.....if people ONLY bought from good breeders then there would be very little need for shelters in the first place.

'Rescuing' a shelter dog may help that individual dog but it does absolutely nothing to prevent another poorly bred litter being born ...indeed shelters can act as unwitting enablers to help the cycle of puppy farming to continue.

In my opinion the message should be clear ( and certainly from our Kennel Club !) that the ONLY way to get a new dog is via an ethical reputable and responsible breeder ...anything else just ensures those that just dont care will continue producing an endless supply of badly bred pups.

Yvonne

> More often than not to anyone who knows dogs they are pretty poor examples of proper breeds, bred by the BYB or Puppy farmers.  A well bred one sticks out like a sore thumb, and any delving will likely uncover a breeder who was unaware of the dogs plight, though occasionally not

I think you would be surprised at how many good examples we get Brainless. We get the poor examples too like the "giant" yorkshire terrier and GSDs that are more like donkeys.

On occassion show people are desperate to rehome a particular dog and get extremely aggressive when they can't have papers or the dog is neutered. Its quite clear what they want it for.

> BYB and puppy farms rely on rescue centres to mop up the fall out of their breeding practices ....

I don't agree with this. BYB and puppy farms rely on the public to buy their dogs (and some of these are KC reg). The public rely on rescue to take on their mistakes (and usually the mistake is that any dog would be unsuitable - KC reg pups need training too).

Without rescues we'd simply have more dogs dumped on the streets. A few weeks later when the family who dumped their dog get sympathy from their friends they'll decide the dog was bad and they'll go out and get another. Having done no research they'll get it from another dodgy breeder, not train it and repeat the dumping process.

Meanwhile the BYB and puppy farms continue to churn out puppies because they don't care if the new owners dump the pups a few months down the line.

> In my opinion the message should be clear ( and certainly from our Kennel Club !) that the ONLY way to get a new dog is via an ethical reputable and responsible breeder ...anything else just ensures those that just dont care will continue producing an endless supply of badly bred pups.

Have I not been explaining clearly? KC breed registered puppies does NOT equal ethical, reputable or responsible breeders. You are extremely naive if you think that's the case because a huge majority of them are not.

Why shouldn't we be trying to stop the irresponsible from breeding purebreed dogs too?

> they showcase the results of appalling breeding practices every year with Scrufts

I don't know much about Scrufts but you could equally be talking about Crufts.

Many breeds deliberately bred to have flat faces and barely able to waddle more than a few feet without gasping. Grossly overweight labradors, GSDs that wobble about on their hind legs.

Luckily for me the KC is about money so I won't be forced into buying a freak-show dog. I'll keep having my rescues and competing with them.

Reading it back it sounds like I hate pedigrees and love crossbreeds. In an ideal world there would be no mongrels or crossbreeds and about 50% less purebred dogs being bred and those would be done with compulsory health tests.

> 'Rescuing' a shelter dog may help that individual dog but it does absolutely nothing to prevent another poorly bred litter being born ...indeed shelters can act as unwitting enablers to help the cycle of puppy farming to continue.

Dogs do not end up in shelter due to being 'poorly bred', if the owners of the 'poorly bred' dogs were so concerned to the quality of thier dogs breeding they would insure they got the dog from a reputable breeder in the first place.
Most of the dogs in shelters are there due to irresponsible owners who have no idea about training a dog/dog behaviour and as soon as thier dog does not live up to thier rose tinted view they get-rid, these type of people are not likely to return a dog to the breeder anyway, they are looking for a quick way out with limited guilt.

We recently had a thread on the boards about a woman taking her young dog to the vets to be PTS because it chewed things - this is a prime example of the type of people who fill shelters with unwanted dogs. Irresponsible owners are the reason we need shelters, unfortunately stopping all BYB/puppy farms will not stop dogs being treated as disposable.

A RESPONSIBLE person looking for a dog as a pet/companion etc really doesn't need a perfectly bred pedigree dog to love it, care for it and give it a home for life.

> In my opinion the message should be clear ( and certainly from our Kennel Club !) that the ONLY way to get a new dog is via an ethical reputable and responsible breeder ...anything else just ensures those that just dont care will continue producing an endless supply of badly bred pups. I do not agree with puppy farms or anybody that breeds for the money.

The message should be that dogs are for life and every dog desevers a good life. Buying a dog from a reputable breeder is no guarantee to health & conformation.

I think we have all said that only responsibly bred pedigree dogs should b e bred, that would mean an awful lot fewer dogs,a nd very few rescue dogs in shelters as those in need of rehousing would be re-homed by their breeders, or in some cases by breed rescues (even breeders become old and ill or die).

It is far to easy to get a dog.  The kind of owner a good breeder would refuse just gets one from someone who doesn't care that it is patently obvious the dog will end up in rescue, as they don't get held accountable, so I agree that Rescues do enable the bad breeders.

Why should the kind people who get rescue dogs not have a blank page instead, a well reared well bred pups with the minimum chance of problems.

As for KC Freaks, I think again that will be the very minority of breeds who have such features, and of those the well bred ones will not have the breathing difficulties etc, but the pet bred Bulldogs, Pugs, Pekes, Shi Tzus etc are bred by breeders who are not selecting against the worst effects of the un-natural conformation of the breed.

As for overweight dogs, that is a huge problem in the Pet Population, more than in the show dogs.

All my dogs are kept svelte into old age.

I contacted the owner of one of my first litter who are now 13, she kindly sent me a photo, the bitch is as wide as she is tall.  No wonder when I spoke to her when she thought she was two years younger, that she said she was a bit stiff and slow these days!

> Why should the kind people who get rescue dogs not have a blank page instead, a well reared well bred pups with the minimum chance of problems.

I have a rescue dog (he's a mutt, not a pure-breed), I got him as an adult as I didn't want a puppy at the time, I was expecting my first baby and did not want all the exta work involved with a puppy that you don't get with an adult dog.

What makes me mad is how some of the rescue run. 5 years ago was the time I started looking into getting another dog, I was after a Lab, I though I would rather get a puppy this time, but again from a shelter, I phoned the RSPCA and they refused to let me even look at the lab puppies they had (and they had several litters!!!) because I allready had a male dog (castrated), they said I could never cope with 2 male dogs when 1 was a lab!!! My circumstances at the time - I work from home, husband works full time, have had dogs all my life (the current dog being a rescue), would insure the pup, have a 3 bed-house with a garden (i live along the Cotswold Way, so plenty of lovely walks about) and was looking to give a puppy from a shelter a home, in preference to picking a pedigree form a breeder

> only responsibly bred pedigree dogs should b e bred, that would mean an awful lot fewer dogs

I had missed that point!!! The less dogs there are the less dogs can be dumped. I have had mutts all my life (my Mastiff is the first pure-bred I've had) and tend to get a bit defensive of them

It is far to easy to buy a dog - even from a reputable breeder though, the nicest person that meets all the relevent criteria and answers questions in the right way can still turn put to be an irresponsible plank Dog lincences could help so many problems.

> Why should the kind people who get rescue dogs not have a blank page instead, a well reared well bred pups with the minimum chance of problems.

Whilst I totally agree with this statement, there are people who can give a dog a wonderful life that can't afford the initial outlay of anything from £500 to £1,000 for a puppy. Or they may not want to pay that much for a family pet. This dosen't mean they will be any the less good owners than those that can or are prepared to do so. They may not actually want a puppy, but something older, or may feel due to their own age an older dog would be more suitable. If I had young children I would opt for the blank page from an well recommended breeder, thats just my opinions and feelings. I would worry about the 'what if' when the rescue dog had its feet under the table, so to speak.


It is far to easy to buy a dog - even from a reputable breeder though, the nicest person that meets all the relevent criteria and answers questions in the right way can still turn put to be an irresponsible plank

I would say that must occasionally be true, and I do wonder if, when the buyer has gone round a few breeders and been 'well vetted' they begin to know what answers to give.

I cannot understand anyone thinking or assuming that the purchase of a cross bred or mongrel is "wrong"?!

It is not the purchaser who BRED the dog, either deliberately or accidently.

There are poor breeders of both cross breeds AND pedigrees; until ALL breeders of ANY breed are REQUIRED to health screen all their breeding stock the situation will stay at the status quo, we have irresponsible puppy farms churning out pedigree dogs just as we have RESPONSIBLE breeders of X breeds who conduct the relevant health screening.

The two are NOT the same!

There is always going to be dogs in need of re-homing though because of death change of circumstances etc.  The point being is that responsible breeders should be taking these backs and this is where the adult rescues could come from, and also breed rescues.  The advantage to these though is that they should have the best chances of being bred to be healthy and typical compared to the BYB and Puppy farm ones that are the usual rescue fodder.

It is the breeders biggest nightmare homing dogs (takes away from the pleasure from breeding), as sometimes the homes don't work out, but the responsible breeder is there to pick up the pieces not expect someone else to.

As for Licensing, all that would do is add to the costs of responsible owners.  Finding out the ownership of dogs is rarely the problem in any dog issues.  Those of us with KC registered Pedigree dogs already have them registered with our details at the kennel club, ditto those who tattoo or microchip.

I would agree with a License to own a dog, but who would be the examiners?  It would need bred experts, as being fit to own one breed may not make you fit to own another, and it has nothing to do with size of dog.

Accommodation can also not be used as a criteria.  There are some wonderful owners with big dogs in tiny flats, and some awful owners with large houses and land.

As already said some rescues have what seem unreasonable restrictions, like not allowing a particular size dog with young children or who feel x number of dogs a no no.

A friend of mine found out that a dog sired by her male (The breeders had gone abroad) was in a Blue Cross home.  She contacted them gave them breed specific advice and went down in the hopes of at least fostering him.  Their response they didn't allow dogs to go to multi dog households.  The poor lad was not doing well in kennels, would not eat etc.  She was gutted, and all she could do was give her details for them to pass on to a new owner.

> I cannot understand anyone thinking or assuming that the purchase of a cross bred or mongrel is "wrong"?!
>
> It is not the purchaser who BRED the dog, either deliberately or accidental

Because the purchase of cross bred dogs (excepting the tiny proportion of purpose bred ones for specific working purposes) encourages the production of more, which in the majority of cases are bred irresponsibly, as sadly are a large proportion of the pedigree ones too.

All breeders (anyone whose bitch has a litter is the breeder) should be legally responsible along with the owner (except in exceptional circumstances) for the pups.  How often do we hear the excuse of well I can't be expected to take responsibility, it was an accidental or one off litter.  You allow your bitch to have pups, your responsible, there is always termination of a pregnancy or even PTS at birth if you don't want/can't be responsible for pups bred.  It is too easy to divest oneself of the responsibilty of a dog.  Maybe rescue shelters should bill the owner and breeder of any dog they have to rehome.

There are laws and fines for abandoning a vehicle for goodness sake.

PTS at birth

I wonder what vets would think of this though? Would it be viewed the same as the recent post we had here where the dog was saved and rehomed? Would they want to be part of killing a litter from a healthy mum and healthy pups? Just because the owner of the bitch didnt want to rear them or find good homes? Or would they think the owner was behaving responsibly and be more than willing to kill the pups?

brainless, are you saying no-one should be getting a dog from rescue?  Now I am a pedigree person, the only dogs I've owned have been well researched, well bred pups we have kept for life.  HOWEVER my boyfriend is a different story, his always had rescue dogs who they got from a rescue centre.  His parents have always had just pets/pub dogs, nothing more.  They retired to Thailand where they did lots fo work with rescues/temple dogs where there are very few decent breeders as we would classify them.  Now they have brought over two of their crossbreeds from thailand back to the UK now they have moved back.  My mother feels this was unessercary and has openly said so as "why bring more crossbreeds into the UK" but she did then add "but I suppose a family pet is a family pet and you are only doing right by these dogs"  Now there are so many different opinions but untill I  made my first visit to quarentine kennels I was never aware of how many people bring to the UK with them when they move here, their much loved crossbreed pet!

No I am saying that rescues really need not exist or certainly not have the levels of intake.  The people re-homing by and large should ,b e the breeders themselves, and the only ones rescue would have would be the few where this can't happen for a good reason.

If owners and breeders were forced to be far more responsible for the dogs they own or breed there would be a lot fewer bred.

We all know that responsible breeders these days breed rarely, largely because they can only care for and rear well and give after sales for just so many, being aware that there is a rescue problem they keep their breeding to a minimal or low level, but that puppy farmers churn out pups.

As for euthanizing a newborn litter, I am sure it isn't pleasant but the reality is that it is a responsible thing to do when the breeder cannot take full responsibility for the pups or guarantee homes.  Certainly I have known people, have no trouble having their vet agree to this, though the Vet did know this in advance, and two pups were reared and carefully homed within the family from a litter of 9 pups from a rescue undernourished birth of under a year old, who had been allowed to get in whelp at the dogs home she came from where she had spent most of her life.

I also know a breeder of a difficult to home large breed who has her litters culled to the number of specialist bookings for the litters they breed every few years to keep lines going.

> the responsible breeder is there to pick up the pieces not expect someone else to.

With licensing implimented in order to permantly track dog-breeder & dog-owner, the dogs could be put back with the breeders. If it was law that breeders had to take dogs back it may well cut down on BYB/puppy farms???

> I would agree with a License to own a dog, but who would be the examiners?  It would need bred experts, as being fit to own one breed may not make you fit to own another, and it has nothing to do with size of dog.

It doesn't need to be run like that though, we all have a TV license with no need to pass any tests first. I know dogs are completely different to TV. but a lincese requiring permantant ID means that owners can be held responsible for the dog. A person who gives up a dog to a shelter repeatedly (or decides to have a dog PTS beacuse it chews things) can then be stopped from keeping dogs, getting 1 more bad-owner out of the loop. Likewise for people who have dogs that terrorise the neighbourhood/other dogs, or are constanly straying etc..

I think though we have plenty of laws regarding dogs, but they are not implemented.

For example it is actualy against the law to abandon and animal, but who is taken to taks?  Licnesed breeders are required to permanently identify their dogs and pups and keep records, but who checks and do they?

> I also know a breeder of a difficult to home large breed who has her litters culled to the number of specialist bookings for the litters they breed every few years to keep lines going.

OMG, that is irresponsible breeding right there - breeding more dogs than one has a home for and then killing the 'surplus' If the dogs she bred meant as much to her as keeping the line going, how could she possibly kill the puppies, I though the purpose of responsible breeding was betterment of the breed along with striving for the perfect specimen. Keeping your line going with a limited re-homing potential seems a pretty pointless thing to do - why keep breeding puppies when you have to cull them because nobody wants them?

> OMG, that is irresponsible breeding right there - breeding more dogs than one has a home for and then killing the 'surplus'

No it isn't it is the height of responsibility though a hard thing to do.  This is a breed that is not for the average owner and has large litters.

The breeder breeds only about every five years (a bitch has to be bred from by about this age) and only when she has assembled a waiting list of suitable homes and wants to keep one herself.

It is their choice to bring pups into the world and limit the number to those that can be assured homes, even then they have had to take the occasional dog back.

It is also a rare breed, and if not for the hard choices made could easily cease to exist.

>I though the purpose of responsible breeding was betterment of the breed along with striving for the perfect specimen. Keeping your line going with a limited re-homing potential seems a pretty pointless thing to do - why keep breeding puppies when you have to cull them because nobody wants them?

The point is that this is the breed the breeder loves, as do others, but there is a limited number of fanciers, so output (to put it crassly) has to be kept to the demand.  It would be great if the bitch could be told to stop whelping after five pups, and that they are all the sexes booked.

We all know that fashions come and go, the breed may attract more interest in years to come, wouldn't it be sad if they were allowed to die out?  Many breeds have been lost, and others are endangered purely because they are not fashionable any more.

How many Dandie Dinmont Terriers, Skyes etc for example have you seen about?  Charming breeds and could easily fit into the same homes as currently more fashionable/popular breeds

> No it isn't it is the height of responsibility though a hard thing to do

How can deliberately breeding more pups than you can home be the hight of responsibility?? Killing puppies that are surplus to requirements is a discracefull attitutde, she cares so much about keeping the breed alive that she has her pups killed!!! If her line is worth preserving then her dogs are worth keeping as show dogs, otherwise there is little point to her breeding in the first place. Drumming up some PR into the breed will do more for it's reputation than killing the puppies.

> Wouldn't it be sad if they were allowed to die out?

When the love for a breed means the individual dogs lifes within that breed are disposable, and an entire litter can not be homed within a 5 year waiting peroid than maybee that breed should be allowed to die out.

Breeds of dog were developed for mans own purpose, loosing a breed of dog is not the same as a species becoming extinct.

People seem to like the idea of getting rid of mongrel dogs (which are easy to home), but on the other hand there is this breeder who is called responsible, for breeding pups that have no home. It's a sad world. I believe that every living being has the right to life and if somebody wants to deliberately breed a litter of puppies, they should be responsible enough to ensure those dogs have a happy life, not get killed at birth.