I just read somethng that sounds very worrying. I am taking care of a friend's Neapolitan Mastiff for a few days while they are having a higher fence installed. It's been an experience, belive me. In order to be prepared for this I went to the U. S. Neapolitan Mastiff Club's web site. While I was gathering information I saw an article about Crufts. It was reffering to animal rescue groups proposing the banning of breeding certain pedigree breeds they consider to be deformed, such as pug/flattened muzzles, or long backs, etc. They are also against shows. Because of this pressure, the article said that the BBC was considering canceling the Crufts show. It also made mention of another BBC programme, "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" whichsaid that pedigree dogs were suffering from a myriad of diseases and conditions. A second, related article said the RSCPA decided to not have a stand at Crufts any longer because of the BBC programme.

Have any of you who are in England or Scotland seen or heard of this or seen that programme??? This was the first I'd seen.

I believe the NM club web site is www.neapolitan.net

Yes Terry, I saw some of the program. Basically the accusation is that for certain breeds (Boxers, Puggs and others) that the breeders are encouraging certain physical aspects of the dog that are not compatable with the well being of the breed. For example they are breeding Boxers to have a shape of head that causes the dogs brain to not have enough space in the skull, resulting in it being very painful for the dog as its brain grows.

This practise is being encouraged by the shows in that the judges are biased towards that physical look, the breeders are therefore going along with the judges to win shows. The result of all this is that it is very bad for the long term well being of the breed.

Now that this has been exposed the BBC are considering not screening Crufts and the Queen of England is also considering withdrawing her patronage from the UK Kennel Club.

I'm glad that this practise has been exposed as maybe now the dogs well being will be given priority over superficial looks.

Hallo Robb,

I have to agree about how some of the breeders are going to extremes and need to get to the real standard for the breed and consider the whole dog. But what I find is that these people start out decrying something to seemingly cure a real ill and then expand their agenda to encompass more and more. The mention of "longbacked dogs" as a fault, made me think about the construction of Deerhounds and other sighthounds as compared to some of the other breeds that are shorter and don't turn as quick. In this country, we are seeing peta pushing for mandatory spaying and nuetering of all pets as a solution to all the pets that turn up in shelters, when their end is to have no one having pets and they push a vegan diet. Those are the things that concern me. Sure breeders should take a long hard look at what they are breeding, look at the discussions we've had on this chat list about responsible breeding. And perhaps the kennel clubs should promote the real standard of the various breeds over current trends. I've long thought that the judges here for Deerhounds should be schooled that bigger is not always better, considering all other things being the same. Somehow the judges need to be better prepared. But I know how the system works and it will take a lot to rectify thins in the minds of both breeders and judges.

I also hate to see that the BBC and the Queen give in to pressure of that sort. It's quite similar to how th hunting bans came into being, at least in my opinion.

Yess Terry, we had a programme here in the UK, (probably BBC1!) I hav it on Sky+ and watched with horror at a woman who had King Charles Cavaliers with a certain hereditary disease (of the brain I think) and she continued to let her dog have several litters, knowing she was going to pass on this dreadful disease to his progeny. They caught up with her at a show and she declined to speak, funny enough!

I don't think we have this in the Deerhound world (do we??) though not having ever bred a litter and only having owned a Deerhound for 3 years, I don't know, pehaps some might have a different story. Though reading between the lines, these judges that start talking nonsence and expecting certain breeds to have this and that, they are the one! They are setting these bad examples, those poor little pugs with breathing difficulties was so sad.

I think you can see the shows on youtube, there has certainly been a lot of backlash, I think the RSPCA has also pulled out of crufts. It is a shame that the practice of some bad breeders is tainting the rest, but that is how the media works I suppose. That said I definitely don't agree with breeding for a certain look that compromises the dogs health.

I think when they talk "longback" dogs they are more talking bassets and dachshunds etc who can get spinal problems due to their disproportional length compared to their height.

Hi all
I too watched the programme which was on BBC1 in either August or September. Like Lurch I was particularly disgusted with the woman with the King cavailer Spaniels - to me as a novice it just showed complete irresponsibilty and lack of love of the breed - it must have been just about the money for her.

I was also surprised and disgusted to learn about the Rhodesian Ridgebackswhich the classic ridgeback of hair is actually a sign of a serios spinal/ neurological condition, and healthy ridgeback don't actually have the ridge of hair.

However, I will stick my neck on the line, and say that it is important that people are made aware of the suffering that certain pedigree dogs (and I'd imagine cats too)have to go through to meet show standards. I'm not against showing animals, but perhaps it is about time that it is not about the appearance of a dog but rather 'fit for purpose' that is judged in the animal. Perhaps then we would be getting back to what dog breeds originally looked like and were designed for?
Just a thought...
Cheers

You are 100% right Clunie, although I do 'have a go' at the showing, it is more for the social side, i:e meeting other Deerhound owners, rather than winning that 'all important ticket'. Some people purely show for winning, which if they are breeders then you can understand. I don't get upset if I am not placed, I've still chatted with the same people I would have had I won anything! I still have the best dog in the show to cuddle up to.
It is a shame that some breeders are ruining it for those that do enjoy it, not all dogs are bred for appearance in the show ring, are they???

I forgot the one about the Ridgeback, didn't she also put the ones without a ridge to sleep? How sad, luckily their parents didnt do the same with them when they were babies!

It is the same with Greyhounds in Ireland, some of the trainers/breeders put them to sleep, and not in a nice way, all because they didn't run as fast as the other dogs on a particular night, how sad. Someone sent me a poem, as if 'written' by a Greyhound, it was really sad and made my daughter cry.

The BBC Panorama programme was harrowing and the complete callous smugness of the breeders made one very angry.
The real message was about inbreeding. The genetic diversity of the entire population of Cavalier King Charles is equal to that of 50 unrelated individuals. The geneticists reckoned they are being bred to extinction.
The problem is that notion of pedigree dogs has only been around for just over 100 years and has curtailed the practice of out crossing.
Remember, in the 19th century, when a few Scottish breeders set out to rescue the deerhound, because of the small number of dogs, out crossing was practiced, notably with Borzois, to whom the white flash and feet have been attributed [this is more likely linked to the Irish greyhound]. Famously Lord Orfford out crossed greyhounds to bulldogs and all modern greyhounds are reckoned to have some bulldog genes in them. Such sensible practices are closed to breeders who want to maximise profit, by cashing in on the huge premium [ 4 times in the case of deerhounds ] paid for registered dogs. The idea of a closed stock of pedigree dogs means that the genetic pool is always being diluted.
The pernicious side of shows is that the rewards, both financial and in terms of kudos have led to in breeding as close as father on daughter to try and fix characteristics that are seen as desirable in the show ring. As the stock has, inevitably, degenerated faults have been tuned into plus points in the show ring and breeder try and tell you, for instance, Alsatians should have weak back ends.
I am not saying Deerhounds have got to such a state, but the breed standard is for a taller dog than was considered desirable for hunting, and most pedigree dogs exceed it It is instructive to read posts by Doxhope , who breeds working dogs. The other thing I have noticed is that some dogs are displaying small heads. Not only is this not attractive, but it compromises intelligence and may be why Deerhounds are often described as having low problem solving skills. Just to consider what is required of two dogs bringing down a red deer stag, soon makes you realise a dim dog would have no chance. Remember 2 wolves couldn't do it without help.
I have bitch, bred as a working dog and she is the most intelligent dog I have ever had; just don't confuse intelligence with bidability or trainability! Incidentally, her breeder imported her mother, a working coyote hunter, from America, due to his concerns about suitable working stock in the UK.
I just hope Deerhound breeders get things right before it is too late

I've, as mentioned in other posts, a Doxhope bitch and a Leoch bitch (whose gransire was Coronach Penny's Chieftain) and both are working dogs as much as can be here in the southern states. And I've read Bill's site and talked to him, as well as others. I agree that the standards are some what out of sorts with what they should be for Deerhounds, not all dogs are what they were back 90 or 100 years ago, obviously because of the history of the breed having to be brought back from the brink of extinction. A lot of the dogs put up in shows today have faults that are over looked for whatever reason and people then think that those dogs are proper and then more are bred toward that image, wrongly of course. From most of what I've gathered from comments on this site we are concerned with the preservation and improvement of the breed. Improvment, meaning trying to get rid of health problems by more selective breeding.

My concerns about the various pressures being brought to bear are that a lot of the people involved go beyond the stated reasons and people who are trying to do the right things are impacted and unable to carry on. For there is a massive move in this country to require mandatory spaying and nuetering of all dogs a early as possible. The exceptions, if any are allowed arae highly punative. One peoposed for people whe need to keep their dogs intact was that they had to be registered as a breeder, pay $500 per dog and meet the redquirements for being a breeder (even if they only were showing, not breeding) which were thought up by politicians, who sometimes know very little about dogs or breeding. And those types of action do not heal the ills of the pedigree breeding. Unless they are entirely legislated out of existance. And that is what some groups want. In my opinion, it' up to the concerned Breeders and informed owners to work together to correct things to protect their various breeds.

I also watched the 'Pedigree dogs exposed' programme and was not really surprised at the arrogance and smugness of the breeders interviewed and the Kennel Club's attitiude. How that man from the KC, when shown a picture of a latter year basset hound and a picture of todays basset hound, could say that he thought todays hound looked far better beggars belief.
If the KC changed some (LOTS) of the standards to get dogs back to being what they were bred to do and judges opened their eyes then maybe these poor dogs would not be suffering too much.

I also think that it is a 'supply and demand' ethos - if joe public were not so influenced by 'designer' dogs then these breeders would not have a market to breed for but I feel that my view is probarly niaeve.. I am pleased that at least some organisations are putting their heads above the parapet

Wait a minute here. You're all taking that programme as gospel, when its agenda was so obviously slanted against pedigree dogs, breeding, shows and the KC. Try and see through the spin before assuming that every point made was true. It took two years to make such a biased view of the show scene, but there is so much being done to improve breed health, both by breed clubs, including the Deerhound Club, and the KC - see www.doggenetichealth.org for details. None of that was mentioned, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MAKE GOOD TELEVISION. And no, I won't apologise for shouting.

However, despite its pro-mongrel, anti-pedigree view, the programme did make one or two good points, which are being addressed by the KC and the breed clubs. This week's UK dog papers are full of the KC's latest intiatives, some, but not all, of which should have been introduced years ago - have a look at www.dogworld.co.uk/home and see what you think.

Hi Sid
I acknowledge what your saying but the point I was trying to make, albeit not very well, was that if the KC revised some of its breed standards then maybe some breeders would not be breedings dogs then end up both looking like freaks and have compromised the health of the animal. This is maybe what is caused by the interbreeding ie father/daughter.

I agree that the negatives make for better TV than the positives but I will not change my views about the man from the KC with his appallingly arrogant attitude. After all, why are a bunch of people in a position to decide to change the apperance of a dog so they will win prizes at a show. It leaves me feeling sick to my stomach.They should be concentrating on breeding dogs to the standard for which nature intended.

I personally appauld this programme because this issue has been long overdue for exposure but whether or not it put a balanced view over is to be debated, but at least it has got a lot of people and organisations asking an awful lot of questions and as long as these questions end up protecting and helping the dogs then I haven't got a problem with it.

We will all have our own opinions and that is what is good about these forums - after all we all care about our dogs and their futures and that is why we get so passionate about issues like this - right or wrong

Hi Sid,
Nice to hear from someone with a more objective view. I am surprised that this subect hasn't raised it's ugly head before.

Anyone who has been showing for any time knows that there are some breeds with health issues which need addressing. It would have been good if this could have happened without the media hype, but I suppose that this was never possible. For example I know of someone in USA who breeds Dachs, their ideal is the shorter the leg the longer the back, the better. When people breed with attude there always going to be problems.

I do think that the answer to a lot of these problems lies with the judges, if the more exagerated specimens did't win people wouldn't breed for them.

Hi Sid,
Nice to hear from someone with a more objective view. I am surprised that this subect hasn't raised it's ugly head before.

Anyone who has been showing for any time knows that there are some breeds with health issues which need addressing. It would have been good if this could have happened without the media hype, but I suppose that this was never possible. For example I know of someone in USA who breeds Dachs, their ideal is the shorter the leg the longer the back, the better. When people breed with attude there always going to be problems.

I do think that the answer to a lot of these problems lies with the judges, if the more exagerated specimens did't win people wouldn't breed for them.

I've been showing dogs all my life and the greatest majority of show breeders are doing the right thing! I would hate for people to think this program is gospel because so much of it is exaggerated and portrayed in a ridiculously negative way.

The program is VERY biased against ALL pedigree breeders. Do not for a second think that Deerhound breeders are safe from the kind of stories that this show and other similar programs are portraying. I believe that this issue has links with Breed Specific Legislation and PETA's long ongoing campaign against breeders. If PETA had their way, pedigree breeders would be no more "The most important thing that animal guardians can do is to spay or neuter their animals and avoid buying animals from breeders or pet stores, which contribute to the overpopulation crisis." - from PETA's website.

The pedigree dog community needs to stick together to do the right things such as breed health programes, etc. As a whole, the pedigree dog community needs to stand together against those groups who would see breeders disappear completely. I never want to see Deerhounds disappear.

Breed Specific Legislation would legislate big dogs out of existance (apparently, they're size means they are too difficult to control). In Australia we have some local Councils that have legislated (or are trying to) the size of the dog that you are allowed to keep! I never want to have someone tell me that I can keep a Toy Poodle, but I can't have a Deerhound because they are too big. I think something similar occurs in some US states too (but it's based on weight - if they're over 100pds you can't keep them).

While I agree that form/function should not be at the expense of health, this program is not an unbiased view and seeks only to rubbish ALL dog show people. I know a Ridgeback breeder here in Australia that was given a hard time by other Ridgeback breeders because she didn't cull the ridgeless puppies in a litter. She chose to put them in desexed pet homes. So, I do understand where some of the negativity comes from. BUT not all breeders are this way and most of us do the right things by our breeds! It's our responsibility to deal with the health issues that need dealing with and to educate the public that most breeders are responsible!

Off my soapbox now...
Mel

As one would expect, the pedigree breeders are becoming defensive, yet failing to address the real problem. How out of touch they can be with the greater dog world came home, on BBC breakfast, in a slot about breeds that were in serious decline. Among the breeds cited, by the spokeswoman from the kennel club, was the greyhound. Am I missing something, or are those dogs running around numerous race tracks not greyhounds. The harsh reality is that 18,000 of these "endangered" dogs some out of racing every year in the British Isles, but, to her, did not count as greyhounds, being un-registered. That surely is someone existing in a bubble.
The issue is the genetic health of the breeding stock; once that is compromised you are only going to improve the situation by bringing in fresh blood, which the kennel club and breed societies will not countenance. While some of the more obvious faults, such as excessively short muzzles can be addressed, other problems, such as genetic heart disease are going, in some breeds be impossible go breed out, without fresh blood. Deerhounds exist in such small numbers that there is a very real danger of loss of genetic diversity. Already there are marked differences between show and working stock, which should be the first warning sign that all is not well.
I just do not want to see our fantastic dogs get into the state That
Cavalier King Charles Spaniels are in.

The difference between show and working stock isn't that great, you know. When we could still course legally, it was commonplace for dogs running at the Borders meeting in late February/early March (depending on whether the ground was snow-locked) to be shown at Crufts the following week. Sometimes the same dogs would win at both. However, since PETA got its million quidsworth from Labour, we may no longer legally work our hounds on live game in mainland UK (I'm not certain about Northern Ireland - can anyone confirm, please?). There's a swingeing fine and the risk of having your dogs confiscated if you're caught coursing - it's not worth the risk, in my book. Nonetheless, most breeders and show judges still bear the Deerhound's original purpose very much in mind when assessing potential breeding stock. I know I do and I'm sure I'm not alone.

When I look at any Deerhound the first thing I look for is has it got a good even temprement and then would I take this dog up the hill to catch my dinner (see below) there should be no difference from a show dog to a working dog what is the Kennel Club's new catch words Fit for Function Fit for Life
The photo was taken at the bottom of our garden when we lived in the hills

chrishafod I think you miss my point entirely. Yes I am a pedigree breeder and I am defensive because this is bigger than just the issues the show chose to raise. (And don't get me started on the ethics/behaviour/treatment of racing greyhound people. In Australia you can show racing greyhounds, but people just aren't showing greyhounds - they are a declining show breed, but they're worth $$ to the racing community).

While my Deerhounds do not hunt (I have neither the inclination or the land to hunt - and it's often illegal), they come from dogs that were used as hunters and I have NO doubt that they could hunt if given the opportunity. First and foremost they are companions and while they do well in the showring, I am certain they would work too. I wouldn't own or breed from a dog that didn't show the potential to do what it was bred for. I agree with Sid that breeders certainly do consider purpose!

Maybe it's different in the UK, but in Australia most of our show Deerhounds are worked (or come from working lines). Many of our older breeders also own land and do work (or have worked in the past) their Deerhounds. On the whole, I believe Australian Deerhounds are in pretty good shape.

But as I said, it's also about our declining rights as dog owners more generally. PETA and similar groups are sending out a lot of misinformation (in various guises), that we need to try to counter.

How cool to have deer in your garden! But then, we have kangaroos in the oval across the road from our house and you UK folk would probably think that was pretty cool too!!