Should pedigrees be banned?

[Warthog]

I love animals in general, wild or tame and I particularly like dogs. We have two here: both rescue dogs and, more importantly, both mongrels.

I recognise that some pedigrees are impressive animals and they were bred for a task:but those tasks are now often no longer applicable and breeding is now often for revenue, certificates, Crufts and kudos.

Is it not time that it was stopped?

A colleague of my partner was a fan of Newfoundlands: huge and strong, but prone to weak hips.
My boss has a British bulldog: a heart of gold, but also an inability to breath properly which will probably leave this friendly dog dead before its time.
More significantly, recently, a friend has a young Dachshund which almost paralysed itself by playing with our dog. Reason? A characteristically weak back.

There are so many strays strewn across the globe and yet we still breed dogs who are more and more prone to being unhealthy. Is that really ethical?
Seeing the state of our friend's Dachs, I'd say no...

[ian porter]

well we had a pedigree Springer Spaniel that had a short miserable life as she had a liver condition that isn't uncommon in the breed.

we now have a Bearded Collie cross hairy monster thing that we got from a rescue centre and he's the best dog we've ever had. he has his problems but they are due to mistreatment in his younger days and not breeding.

there's going to be some broken hearts here when he's no longer with us that's for sure.

so I guess I'm saying there's plenty of great dogs out there without pedigrees.

[GPS]

I have 3 dogs; The first one (Kasia) was bought, Crossbreed German shepherd/ Bull mastif (she looks like a German Shepherd but with mastif colouring. The second is a rescue dog and was supposed to be a small dog to keep Kasia company but things dont always turn out how you plan them and we brought Levi home who's a Great Dane cross Fox Hound (looks like a Fox Hound except he's the size of a Great Dane). And Tyson (also a rescue dog, but a pedigree Rottweiler).
I love my Dogs and yes I can empathise with your point about thorough breds being prone to weakness' but just cause a dog is a cross or even futher down the genetic table doesn't render them imune to any illness, I do understand that if you mix the breed then they are not as surseptable to common breed complaints.
Two of my dogs have arthritus Kasia in her hind legs and and Tyson in his front legs but Kasia's is due to her genes and Ty's are due to being abused as a pup. So the arguement doesn't always stand up.

You could also ask is the Dangerous dogs act right in banning certain breeds, I don't think so! I don't believe there is a Dangerous breed of dog only Dangerous owners who use and abuse their dogs into being bad. Now you'll always have an exception to the case i.e. the familly pet suddenly turning on the grandchild whilst he or she is playing in the other room but did anyone witness what had happened previously. Of course no parent or grandparent is going to admit not properly supervising their kids so it's the dogs fault.
Anyway I'm sure I've had my twopenneth worth, Rant over.

I love animals in general, wild or tame and I particularly like dogs. We have two here: both rescue dogs and, more importantly, both mongrels.

I recognise that some pedigrees are impressive animals and they were bred for a task:but those tasks are now often no longer applicable and breeding is now often for revenue, certificates, Crufts and kudos.

Is it not time that it was stopped?

A colleague of my partner was a fan of Newfoundlands: huge and strong, but prone to weak hips.
My boss has a British bulldog: a heart of gold, but also an inability to breath properly which will probably leave this friendly dog dead before its time.
More significantly, recently, a friend has a young Dachshund which almost paralysed itself by playing with our dog. Reason? A characteristically weak back.

There are so many strays strewn across the globe and yet we still breed dogs who are more and more prone to being unhealthy. Is that really ethical?
Seeing the state of our friend's Dachs, I'd say no...

[Warthog]

but just cause a dog is a cross or even futher down the genetic table doesn't render them imune to any illness, I do understand that if you mix the breed then they are not as surseptable to common breed complaints.

I'm not saying it's not a case of being immune, but with pedigrees, certainly for some more than others, their breeding is essentially producing a dog that is more likely to develop a condition that could drastically affect its quality of life.

Why automatically make the chances of a dog suffering in life greater by breeding in weakness, especially when that price is being paid so the dog might have a particular coat, posture, shape etc...?

[ukTiffy]

The Kennel Club and its Standards Judges are the ones who should be banned. Nothing wrong with a pedigree dog except it has been taken way too far for most breeds and they are now suffering. When dogs are breed for a particular "look" then it starts to become a problem. While we were breeding dogs to do work, if they line wasn't healthy it wasn't continued and the breed was made better for it. These days if a dogs looks "right" and emphasises its breed characteristics then it is breed from no matter what other problems come with it.

Hence we have Bulldogs that can't breath properly and have such large heads that they would kill the mother if left to have normal births and in stead must have a vet perform a section on them, Dalmations that are deaf, GSD with bad hip displacia etc...

Now I'm off to walk my two rescue Collie crosses ...

[StumpyFingers]

I used to have a golden retriever and it was prone to weak hips, the dalmation is prone to sun burn.
I do not care if the dog is a pedigree or a mongrel they should be properly cared for.

[Lumiya]

Our two were rescue dogs (one more rescued than the other as we rescued him from the death penalty... Not his fault he put a police handler in hospital and has now severely bruised my right arm in a play fight with my heaviest motorcycling jacket on ) and these days we'd never get anything else.

As far as breed problems that's an old story covered earlier this year on TV.. You can't stop the breeds just because the breeders are at fault, lets stop them first and their ultra selective breeding.. Then the breeds will sort out themselves

[icenian]

Well if you disapprove of something, clearly the only rational response is a law to prevent other people doing it.

It would be awful if, say, you avoided doing things you thought were bad, and let other people make up their own minds.

The tricky part, is deciding what you need to disapprove of. That's where the BBC comes in.

[sean]

I have a pedegee Boxer and a pedegree black labrador. I dont have a problem with either of these breeds but when you have breeds that cant breathe properly (some bulldogs) or are prone to problems such as easily damaged backs etc then yes ban that breed - but no, NOT all breeds..

Several sports bike riders have been killed locally recently due to stupidity - should ALL bikes be banned???

You get the gist..

[Warthog]

Well if you disapprove of something, clearly the only rational response is a law to prevent other people doing it.

It would be awful if, say, you avoided doing things you thought were bad, and let other people make up their own minds.

The tricky part, is deciding what you need to disapprove of. That's where the BBC comes in.

Indeed, but it seems a very easy stance to adopt when you are not the one that pays the price: I assume you can breath without difficulty?

Bottom line is do you think it is acceptable to breed animals that may be in perpetual discomfort simply because the aesthetic (for example) of said animal is pleasing?

Your response suggests "yes" as you still argue the main point as being about your personal choice, not the well-being of the animal...

As for the BBC: doesn't feature heavily on the Estonian Radio Times pages, so I'm having to draw my own conclusions...