View Full Version : Pedigree Dog inbreeding.
Well it finaly looks as though the crunch has come for all those breeders that may well be interbreeding their pedigree dogs. Now i am suprised when reading this that the Kennel club accept mother-son, brother-sister combination in breeding., as this is so unatural for any dog, wild or petted.
In a dog pack only one female will breed and there is never any inbreeding, so why do we do this to the dogs, Not only that but as the story says all this inbreeding is costing owners millions each year in vets bills. Maybe the kennel club should change there rules on this to stop this happening. Only the dogs suffer..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7569064.stm
teenybash
19-Aug-08, 13:52
For years, so called breeders have got away with the total irresponsibility of inbreeding......not doing their pockets any harm and artificially inflating their ego........pity they don't put the dogs first that are brought into this world to be faced with dreadful problems...... The Kennel club has a lot to answer for. [disgust]
I noticed the programme is on tonight, not sure if I'll watch though. Some of it sounds quite upsetting.
as a former breeder of cocker spaniels...only bred 1 litter per year...had a 2 year waiting list for my puppies,the kennel club and indeed any breed club [in my experience] are USELESS.
nothing will ever change the kennel club rules or anything else...they love to be in the news..but do nothing[majority of the time] when they are informed of unethical/cruel practise in breeding.
i will not watch the programme as i would find it extremely upsetting.i know and probably a lot more of u know too,exactly what breeders get away with in every breed in the uk.
Well then it is about time that they change their ruling on this indiscriminate breeding. Otherwise there are always gonna be people who do nothing for the pups or parents and just want to line their pockets with more cash..
Far to many pups are being born that have either problems physically or mentally or they cant be got rid of and the cycle starts again, but again the animals are the ones who suffer.
porshiepoo
19-Aug-08, 18:35
I think inbreeding is more an emotional issue than anything else. I get what you're saying about wild dogs not inbreeding but I wonder how much of that is down to the pack hierarchy instinct as opposed to some anti-inbreeding 'knowledge' that the dogs may have?
It is widely accepted that occasional inbreeding can 'set type' and be beneficial, but only if you then go out to other lines afterwards. Inbreeding increases the risk of inherited breed specific problems but also increases the chances of the desirable traits being passed on.
How close is actually acceptable is probably a matter of personal opinion but the damage is done when back street breeders or pet owners have 2 closely related dogs and decide to have litters time and time again without waiting to see the outcome of the puppy when it reaches adulthood.
I bought a Dane bitch once that was from a Brother/Sister mating (long story, hated the guy but couldn't leave the pup there) and I know that the majority of that litter had problems. Paris bought the brother to my girlie and he died of wobblers within a few weeks, my girlie died of cancer and there were various other problems with the other pups.
One of the real problems is the breeders reluctance to be open and honest about problems that have appeared in their lines. I know it's not realistic to expect every breeder to be so open and honest but if their stock have been tested for breed problems before being used and have shown clear then the blame wouldn't necessarily lie at their door. (I'm not so much talking about them inbreeding there though)
The KC should insist on puppies only eligible for registration once the parents are registered as having had the relevant breed tests. That will never happen though.
As for my opinion on Inbreeding - it has its place, but only occasionally and only if other lines are used thereafter. Personally I wouldn't want to risk it though!
teenybash
19-Aug-08, 18:59
The Kennel Club has no place in the lives of true breeders and there is never a reason good enough in using 'inbreeding' in any shape or form.
I have known 'True Breeders' who firstly would and have nothing to do with the Kennel Club and who can go back ten and twelve plus generations of blood stock in their dogs and you will never find blood to blood/ gene to gene. Finer examples of dogs you will never find, full of strength, vitality, abounding with health and vigour.
I personally have picked up the 'pieces' of ' that little bit of inbreeding' when it all has gone wrong. I have broken my heart many times over as I have watched, helplessly as the genetic time bombs have taken their toll and the beautiful souls contained in the perfect looking have had their lives destroyed and cut short.
It is shunned within the human race to interbreed with gene to gene because the pitfalls are widely known and yet there are those who inflict it on the animals they supposedly love...............no, true love of the animal does not come into it, only the love of the bit of paper with fancy sounding names, courtesy of The Kennel Club. [disgust]
buggyracer
19-Aug-08, 20:40
when it goes correct its linebreeding, when it goes wrong its inbreeding :lol:
seriously though, as long as it isnt too close, its not a bad thing, and as long as outcorsses or new blood is added throughout the linbe there is rarely a problem, if you have a type of look or type of working style you want to preserve , then linebreeding is the only answer!
I think inbreeding is more an emotional issue than anything else. I get what you're saying about wild dogs not inbreeding but I wonder how much of that is down to the pack hierarchy instinct as opposed to some anti-inbreeding 'knowledge' that the dogs may have?
It is widely accepted that occasional inbreeding can 'set type' and be beneficial, but only if you then go out to other lines afterwards. Inbreeding increases the risk of inherited breed specific problems but also increases the chances of the desirable traits being passed on.
How close is actually acceptable is probably a matter of personal opinion but the damage is done when back street breeders or pet owners have 2 closely related dogs and decide to have litters time and time again without waiting to see the outcome of the puppy when it reaches adulthood.
I bought a Dane bitch once that was from a Brother/Sister mating (long story, hated the guy but couldn't leave the pup there) and I know that the majority of that litter had problems. Paris bought the brother to my girlie and he died of wobblers within a few weeks, my girlie died of cancer and there were various other problems with the other pups.
One of the real problems is the breeders reluctance to be open and honest about problems that have appeared in their lines. I know it's not realistic to expect every breeder to be so open and honest but if their stock have been tested for breed problems before being used and have shown clear then the blame wouldn't necessarily lie at their door. (I'm not so much talking about them inbreeding there though)
The KC should insist on puppies only eligible for registration once the parents are registered as having had the relevant breed tests. That will never happen though.
As for my opinion on Inbreeding - it has its place, but only occasionally and only if other lines are used thereafter. Personally I wouldn't want to risk it though!
But thats it, pack rules dont allow for inbreeding, it would do their pack no good. It is us humans that make the faults in the dog breeds, trying to inbreed for a clean line.
In the wild there are no such things like pedigrees. They all evolve from wolves and have bred with others to bring us our happy pet.and look what we have done to them. Leave them to do this naturaly and you will find a better line of dog.I dont see people being quick to inbreed for a perfect person, but then again.!
having watched it , in my humble opinion a lot of people, but expecially the cavalier club, and the chair of the Kennel club came accorss as complete spherical door handles !!!
porshiepoo
20-Aug-08, 12:58
But thats it, pack rules dont allow for inbreeding, it would do their pack no good. It is us humans that make the faults in the dog breeds, trying to inbreed for a clean line.
In the wild there are no such things like pedigrees. They all evolve from wolves and have bred with others to bring us our happy pet.and look what we have done to them. Leave them to do this naturaly and you will find a better line of dog.I dont see people being quick to inbreed for a perfect person, but then again.!
Ah yes, but the fact that pack rules doesn't allow inbreeding isn't due to some fundamental instinct not to breed mother to son etc. It's pure hierarchy. Should some buff young pup step up and square off to the alpha male and win, would he then refuse to breed with the alpha female who is his mother?
I'm not suggesting I know the answer, just pondering really.
Faults do exist within wild dog lines, as they do with all species, which could be caused by inbreeding but natural selection weedles these out.
If you put an entire dog in the garden with his mother who is in season and didn't interfere in anyway at all, would the dogs refuse to mate? Nope!
I completely agree with you that it is us as humans that are detrimental to the breeding of dogs. Such close matings should be discouraged and the KC should use their influence to help prevent it but even so, they will only be able to reach the genuine breeders or those that wish to register their litters. The back yard breeder won't give a monkeys anyway.
The other thing I cam across a couple of times was that breeders will register their litter with the KC with a different sire or dam if they want to hide anything. It's quite suprising how often that is done.
So I guess there's never going to be a certified way of knowing without a doubt that you bought the pup you think you have, therefore never knowing the true family history of the pup. Perhaps this example is few and far between but still happens often enough to be detrimental to the breed.
I just watched the programme on iplayer at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00d4ljk/b00d4l8y/
It is disturbing and certainly an eye opener - I found it informative, though I think a lot of breeders might not take much notice. In every set of pictures of a breed 60 or 100 years ago compared to pictures of how it looks today, I found all the dogs in the older pictures by far the most attractive - but maybe that's just me.
I guess the answer lies with us - the great British dog-loving, puppy-buying public, as to what exactly we spend our money on and what we find attractive. We're certainly spending a lot on vet bills because of the way some breeds have been tinkered with. But the money aspect aside, it's the dogs' pain and the pain of the owners who bought a pup in good faith only to see it in pain, that is so awful.
Ah yes, but the fact that pack rules doesn't allow inbreeding isn't due to some fundamental instinct not to breed mother to son etc. It's pure hierarchy. Should some buff young pup step up and square off to the alpha male and win, would he then refuse to breed with the alpha female who is his mother?
I'm not suggesting I know the answer, just pondering really.
Faults do exist within wild dog lines, as they do with all species, which could be caused by inbreeding but natural selection weedles these out.
If you put an entire dog in the garden with his mother who is in season and didn't interfere in anyway at all, would the dogs refuse to mate? Nope!
I completely agree with you that it is us as humans that are detrimental to the breeding of dogs. Such close matings should be discouraged and the KC should use their influence to help prevent it but even so, they will only be able to reach the genuine breeders or those that wish to register their litters. The back yard breeder won't give a monkeys anyway.
The other thing I cam across a couple of times was that breeders will register their litter with the KC with a different sire or dam if they want to hide anything. It's quite suprising how often that is done.
So I guess there's never going to be a certified way of knowing without a doubt that you bought the pup you think you have, therefore never knowing the true family history of the pup. Perhaps this example is few and far between but still happens often enough to be detrimental to the breed.
It is down to the hierachy of the animals. The alpha male will only breed with the Alpha female, although she herself will not allow insabordinate males to mate with her either.
She will also remove any young that are not fit as she would class it to keep the population to its max, for they need eachother to hunt, feed, relax and socialise.
There are cases in the past and will be in the future of wild dogs breeding with pet dogs, which are allowed to roam freely, which then breaks the strain of a flawless gene code.I to am not an expert but i have always been a dog lover and have read and watched as much information about dog behaviour, not as a pet but as a wild creature. Looking at it from the point of a dogs way makes it easier to understand them.
We as humans breed indiscrimately to make money.I know others do it for the pleasure of lining, breeding and whelping the pups, i to have watched the birth and love it, but to what suffering is beyond me. Crufts have anounced the fact that the breeds are suffering and i believe the Kennel club should now be taking responsibilty for their actions.
porshiepoo
22-Aug-08, 14:52
Christine said
It is down to the hierachy of the animals. The alpha male will only breed with the Alpha female,
Exactly! That's what I'm saying, so if the Alpha male happens to be the young pup that has taken over that position, would they refuse to mate?
I don't think so!
My whole point is that dogs will instinctively breed, whether that be in breeding or not. The fact that the hierarchy instinct helps to prevent too much of it does not prevent it happening all together. Wolves and dog (pet or wild) do not, as far as my research has ever led me to believe, posses any kind of instinct that tells them not to breed so close, rather natural selection eventually weedles out the inherited traits that are dysfunctional to the longevity/success of the breed or the pack.i.e a mother to son mating produces a good litter, a couple of the pups however show signs of or carry the genes of hip problems. The rest of the litter appear healthy and as adults they show all the positive traits of both parents.
The other two though breed as adults and pass on the negative traits to half of their offspring, producing pups that are not condusive to a healthy productive pack, who cannot benefit the pack in anyway. These dogs are usually booted out, they cannot form their own packs, have a hope of taking over a pack or even fend for themselves and so they either die or scrape along a short life never reproducing.
Those negative genes have then been weedled out of the initial gene pool leaving only the healthy pups to continue on, form their own packs and therefore mixing their lines with other packs.
It may appear that, as most wild dogs do not appear to show inherited defects, they obviously aren't inbreeding however that's not necessarily the case. Natural selection - although a slow process spanning generations - could be the explanation.
In fact, natural selection in wild species such as the dog or wolf which have numerous litters of numerous sizes would be more rapid than that of say an Elephant that has a slower and smaller numbered reproductive cycle.
I completely agree with you however that it is us as pet owners that have to answer to the state of many of our pedigree breeds today. Inbreeding once may not do any harm but if that litter appears healthy the breeder thinks it was a good thing, continues doing it and begins to limit the gene pool.
Tilter wrote
It is disturbing and certainly an eye opener - I found it informative, though I think a lot of breeders might not take much notice. In every set of pictures of a breed 60 or 100 years ago compared to pictures of how it looks today, I found all the dogs in the older pictures by far the most attractive - but maybe that's just me.
How very right you are. I have the same concern as do many show people I know.
The stupid thing is that the dogs we see showing today look nothing like the dogs of before yet the breed standard has not changed for these breeds and still they are judged and accepted in the show ring.
How can we even begin to rectify any damage done to breeds if the one thing (the breed standard) that the KC supposedly compare them to is not even upheld. Heck, I bet a lot of the judges today don't even know what the breed standard should be.
In every set of pictures of a breed 60 or 100 years ago compared to pictures of how it looks today, I found all the dogs in the older pictures by far the most attractive - but maybe that's just me.
No it wasn't just you. Me and other half said the same thing each time the old pictures were shown.
What a shame on the Cavalier King Charles spaniels who have to live with such pain. :eek:
It was an eye opening program and as someone else commented - spherical door handles came to mind a few times through out [disgust]
Hopefully the furore that will surely follow this programme after ordinary dog owners realise what has been going on, will make the Kennel Club sit up and take notice if they wish to continue as a respected society with enough members to keep it going.
I find it abhorrent that irresponsible breeding takes place for the gratification of some dog owners. In my eyes they are not true animal lovers, only pathetic creatures basking in the "glory" of the so called beauty of their pets. To deliberately breed an animal with no thought of its welfare just to meet a breed standard with abnormal and harmful characteristics is undeniably cruel.
Like baby shows and beauty pagents there are different ideas of beautiful and they are in the eye of the beholder or judge, not a ridiculous idea of perfect by so-called experts.
having watched it , in my humble opinion a lot of people, but expecially the cavalier club, and the chair of the Kennel club came accorss as complete spherical door handles !!!
Have to agree with you completely. What horrible people they were(probably all inbred too).
Here is what the Kennel Club has to say about the programme:
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1976/23/5/3
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1993/23/5/3
A quick skim through their "Dog Breeding" page shows that everything they promote is "self-regulating," i.e., not regulated at all. Q&A about their "Accredited Breeders Scheme" is here: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1495
They keep no stud register (which surprises me) and I suppose therefore the lady interviewed on the programme whose Cavalier won best in show at the main Cavalier event and went on to sire 30-odd litters, knowing full well her dog is passing on a very painful brain disease, has done nothing wrong at all. But then, that's 30-odd x no. of pups in each litter = bits of paper the KC can charge for.
For all those who watched the programme and felt saddened and angry to see so many dogs suffering because of inbreeding why don`t you put pen to paper to the Kennel Club and make your feelings known. I for one will be doing so in the next day or two and maybe it will make them sit up and think. There now HAS to be health checks on all dogs taking part in Crufts and then the results published. I had no idea that inbreeding was so widespread and the terrible problems these poor animals have to endure. I have always wanted to go to Crufts but not anymore and it`s about time the general public made their voices heard, then hopefully this discusting practise will be stamped out. If enough people make a fuss then they will have to do something to stop it and the sooner the better.
porshiepoo
25-Aug-08, 01:05
For all those who watched the programme and felt saddened and angry to see so many dogs suffering because of inbreeding why don`t you put pen to paper to the Kennel Club and make your feelings known. I for one will be doing so in the next day or two and maybe it will make them sit up and think. There now HAS to be health checks on all dogs taking part in Crufts and then the results published. I had no idea that inbreeding was so widespread and the terrible problems these poor animals have to endure. I have always wanted to go to Crufts but not anymore and it`s about time the general public made their voices heard, then hopefully this discusting practise will be stamped out. If enough people make a fuss then they will have to do something to stop it and the sooner the better.
I admire the fact that you're willing to put your pen where your mouth is and tell the KC exactly what you think of the state of our pedigree dogs today, unfortunately I don't see it making any difference, however that shouldn't stop us all from trying.
I was just wondering what sort of health checks you have in mind???
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.