siberian_wolf Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 as mentioned in another thread (main chat) though I would put it in here. From: Times Online The RSPCA cut its links with Crufts yesterday as a leading charity warned the organisers of the dog show that they must act to prevent the breeding of deformed and disabled animals. The BBC, which has broadcast the show for 40 years, is also thought to be on the verge of deciding whether to continue its coverage. The sponsors of the show await its decision. The RSPCA's decision to relinquish its stand at Crufts in March next year follows a BBC documentary, broadcast last month, that highlighted the genetic side-effects of intensive breeding programmes. Some unhealthy, inbred animals have won prizes at the show, the programme suggested. A prize-winning Cavalier King Charles spaniel was shown to be suffering from syringomyelia, a painful condition that results from the animal's skull being too small for its brain. A Pekingese, bred to possess a perfectly flat face, and winner of Best in Show in 2003, was found to have had surgery a soft palate resection to enable it to breathe. The programme also featured pugs that had difficulty breathing, boxers with complicated health problems, and bulldogs that were unable to give birth unassisted. The chairman of the Kennel Club, which organises Crufts, was filmed voicing his approval of incestuous inbreeding, as long as it took place between mother and son. Mark Evans, chief veterinary advisor to the RSPCA, called yesterday for a shift away from the rigid breeding standards that focus on small points of appearance. Dog shows using current breed standards as the main judging criteria actively encourage both the intentional breeding of deformed and disabled dogs and the inbreeding of closely related animals, he said. There is compelling scientific evidence that the health and welfare of hundreds of thousands of pedigree dogs is seriously compromised as a result. From a dog health and welfare perspective, such shows are fundamentally flawed and do our much loved pedigree dogs no favours. Breeding deformed and disabled animals is morally unjustifiable and has to stop. Britain's leading canine charity, the Dogs Trust, is also considering pulling out of next year's show. Clarissa Baldwin, its chief executive, told The Times: It would be a shame if we didn't have a voice there, but we would expect to see some really robust responses from the Kennel Club about what they are going to do. They have a certified breeder programme, which is full of pitfalls, the main one being that it's self-certificating. We need proper inspections. She also called for an end to the killing of puppies that do not meet dog show breed standards. We are horrified by the culling of dogs, she said. That has to stop. The culling of the Rhodesian ridgebacks that don't have the ridge, the dalmatians whose spots are in the wrong place. The Kennel Club accused the RSPCA of making unhelpful statements. The Kennel Club invests a great deal of time, money and care into the area of pedigree health, a spokeswoman said. This includes grants, via its charitable trust, into developing health screening for dogs. It had recently donated 48,000 to the RSPCA to improve dog welfare and would continue to work with the charity despite their stated position. The spokeswoman said that, according to the Kennel Club's own survey, 90 per cent of pedigree dogs did not suffer from health problems that would have a detrimental effect on their quality of life. She said that breed standards were under continual review, to ensure that they encouraged the breeding of healthy dogs. A spokesman for the BBC, which has a contract to broadcast the show for the next two years said that the issue of its continuing coverage was on the agenda. Any decision to withdraw or limit the coverage could be devastating for sponsors of Crufts, which include Samsung and various pet food companies. Barclays, which supported the show this year, said the sponsorship was a one-off and would not be repeated. CASE STUDY: Our puppy just lay down and died In Diane Andrews's home in Walton-on-Thames there is a portrait of Henry, a pedigree boxer dog the family bought as a puppy in February last year. He was red with lovely white paws, like socks, she said. He was a beautiful puppy. In January, her husband and son were out walking the dog when he lay down and died. You don't expect that to happen to a one-year-old dog, Mrs Andrews said. She got Henry from a breeder, complete with breed certificates testifying to his lineage, for 650. I would like to think they would guarantee his health, she said. I had asked if the parents had heart disease. I was told no, but I didn't see any certificates. For a few months Henry appeared to be healthy. In August he showed signs of sickness and was found to have a heart murmur and sub-aortic stenosis, a genetic heart condition. The vet said it was the worst case she had ever seen in a puppy, she said. The breeder claimed that all the other puppies in the litter had turned out healthy, though boxers are notorious for health problems. Mrs Andrews said: It's because breeders are trying to conform to the breed standard. There are good breeders out there, and we have since bought one, Charlie, who had certificates to prove that his parents had heart testing. Mrs Andrews, who goes to dog shows and is one of the three million viewers who tune into Crufts each year, was shocked by the documentary. I keep boxers, and my daughter has a King Charles spaniel and now she's worried about him. He seems healthy, but it seems we couldn't have picked two worse dogs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 Good!....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bec Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 More hysteria from the RSPCA - they really are milking it for all its worth! Breed standards have been around for a very long time. If some dogs within certain breeds are changing for the worse, it is not IMO about the breed standard itself but what has become a popular 'trend' in the breed and how breeders are interpreting the standard to fit with this trend. There is nothing in the GSD breed standard, for eg, that says the dog's back needs to slope as dramatically as you see it do on some dogs. There is nothing in the Peke breed standard that says the dog must have a face so flat it needs surgery to breath. And let's not forget that there are many different lines with different types even within the breed standard. Where does the RSPCA get the absolutely ridiculous statistic that 100,000s of pedigree dogs are at risk of genetic disease? Sounds a bit hysterical to me! Has anyone ever seen such a massive number of pedigree dogs "at risk" or terribly ill? I certainly haven't! And don't even get me started on the culling - if some breeders still do this to healthy pups they are definitely a rarity, it is certainly not something I have ever come across or heard supported within the pedigree dog world. And don't get me started on the case study - it's very sad but at least here in Australia no breeder worth their salt would touch a dog that hasn't been health tested. For each "case study" against pedigree dogs they write I could find 10 cases of pedigree dogs that have come from excellent breeders and have lived long and happy lives. A very bias article IMO that just like the documentary, points out the flaws in the pedigree world that makes the issue a lot worse and seem like it is more widespread than it actually is.... JMHO of course Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siberian_wolf Posted March 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 Is the documentary you watched available online, smeagle? If so could you send us the link over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BingBlaze n Skyla Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 . There is nothing in the GSD breed standard, for eg, that says the dog's back needs to slope as dramatically as you see it do on some dogs. . GSD's backs never used to slope at all i saw pictures n read up on it sumwhere cnt find it now tho but will try its all down to the breeding http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://dragongsd.com/26719.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.germanshepherd-breed.org/resources/pet-articles/is-the-german-shepherd-the-perfect-dog-for-you/&usg=__uT50TJb9OoHai6JhjNS3615hyF8=&h=440&w=450&sz=46&hl=en&start=9&tbnid=sw1i7VvVUw3YOM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgerman%2Bshepherds%2Bbefore%2Bselective%2Bbreeding%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26rlz%3D1T4HPEB_en-GBGB255GB257 and here a brindle shepard from 1922 look at the difference (not the colouring) in how they used 2 look like http://vcristel.members.atlantic.net/images/brshep.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siberianandy Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 its not just the rspca that has pulled out http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Crufts-Dog-Show-Starts-Despite-Pedigrees-Row-Event-Dropped-From-BBC-TV-Schedule/Article/200903115234772?lid=ARTICLE_15234772_CruftsDogShowStartsDespitePedigreesRow:EventDroppedFromBBCTVSchedule&lpos=searchresults Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 Oh......wonder if anymore are going to pull out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siberian_wolf Posted March 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 its not just the rspca that has pulled out http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Crufts-Dog-Show-Starts-Despite-Pedigrees-Row-Event-Dropped-From-BBC-TV-Schedule/Article/200903115234772?lid=ARTICLE_15234772_CruftsDogShowStartsDespitePedigreesRow:EventDroppedFromBBCTVSchedule&lpos=searchresults Crufts are becoming rather unpopular these days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raindog Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 Depends who with. Certainly not with exhibitors. This year's entry is the second biggest ever - despite all the bad press (mostly misguided) it has had. Mick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice and Cripton Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 If you go on youtube and type in: pedigree dogs exposed there are 6 parts and it's very shocking. Im with the RSPCA 110% i think it's absolutely vile, the Rhodesian Ridgeback is a beautiful breed yet breeders persist on breeding with the ridge, the ridge is actually a mild form of spineabifia and gives them problems when older, ridegless puppies are proven to be healthier dogs yet this woman on the docu said she puts ridgless puppies to sleep >> she kills a perectly healthy puppy due to an un-healthy cosmetic feature!!!!!!!:ran_confused: Have a read of this article if you can: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/jemima-lewis-the-British-bulldog-is-overbred-and-overfed-588909.html she makes a good point at the end: "Deformed cats look shocking to British eyes because we are not accustomed to them. Deformed dogs, on the other hand, win prizes at Crufts." They also showed on the docu the G.Shepherds and i was so suprised to see a supposed 'working breed' waddle it's way into the show ring!! The working GSHD: http://www.sapphireshepherds.com/images/About_us/3.jpg and The showing one: http://www.pcgermanshepherds.com/images/German%20Shepherd%20breed/small/international%20show/2007_Siegerin_Gina_Aquamarin%5B1%5D-30.jpg My great grandma and aunt have owned daschunds for years and without fail when they reached about 8 years they got arthritis and back problems because their legs are too short! I think most of the people at crufts are ignorant >> not all, but at least the ones showed on that docu, at the end of the day they are not working the breed which was their desired purpose, they are brushing their hair running around in a show ring wanting to win the prize of a dog that LOOKS the best, it's actually a barbaric system and would be considered unethical if it were with humans, i understand keeping to a standard to keep the breed as it was >> like the sibe but i dont agree with changing the breeds looks and culling puppies beacuse they do not match what it says on a piece of paper! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BingBlaze n Skyla Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 ice and cripton what a gr8 post i added to ur rep for that i totally agree that this is disgusting y change a dog when they r beautiful they way they were supposed 2 look take my thread further up for example on the way GSD's used 2 look like give me 1 ov those rather then the 'hump-backed' (as this is what they look like now) 1s anyday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raindog Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 I think the problem is that the Pedigree Dogs Exposed programme took a (very) few examples of bad breeding and claimed that all pedigree dogs were "mutants" (in the words of the RSPCA's moronic Chief Vet Mark Evans). When pressed, the woman who made the programme could only identify about 6 breeds (out of the 210 recognised by the Kennel Club) which had serious health problems due to the way they were bred. In any case, none of this is the responsibility of The Kennel Club and certainly not Crufts, which when all is said and done, is just another dog show. It is the Breed Clubs which set the breed standards, not the Kennel Club and the Kennel Club has an amazingly good record of pouring hundreds of thousands of pounds into canine health research long long before the Pedigree Dogs programme or the RSPCA/BBC pull-out. In fact the RSPCA pull-out is great news as the RSPCA is in my opinion, the biggest waste of space in animal welfare. Every time they run an advertising campaign, all the money goes into their central coffers and none of it goes to the local centres which have to be self-funding. I wouldn't give the RSPCA the snot off my nose - let alone a donation. Check out this link for some of the RSPCA's finest moments : http://www.alternativevet.org/rspca.htm Sorry about the rant, but I really hate the way that a completely biassed film and an opportunist "animal welfare" group have blackened the name of pedigree dogs in the name of a bit of publicity. Mick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sqwidge Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 interesting article Mick... i don't know where i stand on this as its a difficult subject to be objective about. On one hand you have 'poor' breeders and on the other you have the RSPCA who aren't always as ethical as they say they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raindog Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 The problem is, by their nonsensical statements recently, the RSPCA are actually supporting the puppy farmers and backyard breeders churning out crossbreeds by the hundred. If you look on E-pupz and the like, you can already see them advertising "healthy" crossbreeds (not that they have done any health tests whatever) which the RSPCA say are much healthier than those nasty pedigrees. They have never attacked the thousands of breeders of pedigrees who breed solely for money and never health test, show or work any of their dogs. The vast majority of breeders whose dogs are represented at dog shows like Crufts are reputable, ethical and responsible. They know their dogs are of good enough quality to breed because they have proved in in the showring and often in the working arena as well. Yet these are the people the RSPCA are targetting. If they aimed their publicity at stopping commercial puppy farmers, greedy backyard breeders and naive "pet" breeders, I would begin to have a tiny bit of respect for them. Until then, no chance! Mick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice and Cripton Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 I think the problem is that the Pedigree Dogs Exposed programme took a (very) few examples of bad breeding and claimed that all pedigree dogs were "mutants" (in the words of the RSPCA's moronic Chief Vet Mark Evans). When pressed, the woman who made the programme could only identify about 6 breeds (out of the 210 recognised by the Kennel Club) which had serious health problems due to the way they were bred. In any case, none of this is the responsibility of The Kennel Club and certainly not Crufts, which when all is said and done, just another dog show. It is the Breed Clubs which set the breed standards, not the Kennel Club and the Kennel Club has an amazingly good record of pouring hundreds of thousands of pounds into canine health research long long before the Pedigree Dogs programme or the RSPCA/BBC pull-out. In fact the RSPCA pull-out is great news as the RSPCA is in my opinion, the biggest waste of space in animal welfare. Every time they run an advertising campaign, all the money goes into their central coffers and none of it goes to the local centres which have to be self-funding. I wouldn't give the RSPCA the snot off my nose - let alone a donation. Check out this link for some of the RSPCA's finest moments : http://www.alternativevet.org/rspca.htm Sorry about the rant, but I really hate the way that a completely biassed film and an opportunist "animal welfare" group have blackened the name of pedigree dogs in the name of a bit of publicity. Mick Raindog, great post and rant excused lol!!!!! << I hope mine was too I can completely understand where your coming from, I know there are a lot of genuine breeders out there who truly care for the breed and whilst keeping to the breed standard do not breed on looks, e.g. a lot of good sibe breeders dont just breed blue eye to blue eyes because they are popular with people who know little about the breed. However I cannot allow the kennel club to go unnoticed, the kennel club support the breed standards, so each year (for example) the Rhodesian Ridgeback club of great Britain send the kennel club their breed standards and a form of summary, like their rules and codes of conduct, and each year the kennel club will be aware and will condone this and continue on supporting and funding the club, now the kennel club was in full aware that one of their fashions was to cull ridgless puppies, however as soon as this drew media attention the kennel club wrote a letter the club saying they disapprove and will not continue to support the club if they persist in the practice of killing perfectly healthy puppies. The club was most displeased by the kennel clubs approach to this >> as if this was new news to them!! The kennel club admitted they no not agree with all of the breeders but wish to act carefully as do not want to loose their breedersI think this is highly spineless >>> the scientific evidence is hitting us in the face >>> as you said there are 250 breeds, yet I didnt expect that docu to highlight them all, isnt 6 seriously ill breeds enough???! There are so many breeds with hereditary problems and breeds born already having a guarantee of pain and discomfort, we are breeding our dogs to death >> I mean in-breeding!! << a truly vile practice that should NOT be supported, the very fact crufts supports the cosmetic ability far more than the working one is very worrying! We are judging our dogs on looks and they were never bred on their looks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice and Cripton Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 ice and cripton what a gr8 post i added to ur rep for that i totally agree that this is disgusting y change a dog when they r beautiful they way they were supposed 2 look take my thread further up for example on the way GSD's used 2 look like give me 1 ov those rather then the 'hump-backed' (as this is what they look like now) 1s anyday thanks bingnblaze, i saw those links >> i think it's truly appualing what they have done to the GSHD, tryd to add to your rep but it said i needed to spread the rep around before adding you again >> annoying when that happens:rolleyes: lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice and Cripton Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 and is there really such a difference between BYB's and 'top notch' breeders who produce sickly puppies and kill perfectly healthy puppies all down to cosmetics >>> it's all negligence ...just in different forms with nice glossy gover-ups like crufts!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raindog Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 and is there really such a difference between BYB's and 'top notch' breeders who produce sickly puppies and kill perfectly healthy puppies all down to cosmetics >>> it's all negligence ...just in different forms with nice glossy gover-ups like crufts!! Any breeder who does that is not "top notch" but a scumbag who is no better than a BYB. Don't get me wrong, I am not a great supporter of the Kennel Club and I think they need to get their act together by refusing to: (a) register any dogs born to bitches under the age of two or over the age of 6; ( register any dogs whose parents have not achieved the required standard of health testing for the breed. © register any dogs born to bitches who have had more than 3 litters in their lifetime. (d) register more than two litters in any three year period to the same breeder. (e) register any litter which has not been microchipped (f) register any litter whose parents and the pups had not been DNA identified That would be a good start and would begin to make people realise that if they wanted to get a pedigree puppy with a genuine history and health clearance, the only way to guarantee it would be to buy a KC registered pup. This might begin to make inroads into the puppy farmer's market. On the question of pedigree breeds with health problems, I agree that just one breed with such problems is too many and needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. As far as GSDs are concerned, as someone who grew up with healthy, four-square "Alsations" (as we used to call them), I am also appalled by the current state of the breed and the banana-backed monstrosities you see in both the showring and the working arena - in fact the Germanic working type are worse IMHO than the UK show type. Mick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 Don't get me wrong, I am not a great supporter of the Kennel Club and I think they need to get their act together by refusing to: (a) register any dogs born to bitches under the age of two or over the age of 6; ( register any dogs whose parents have not achieved the required standard of health testing for the breed. © register any dogs born to bitches who have had more than 3 litters in their lifetime. (d) register more than two litters in any three year period to the same breeder. (e) register any litter which has not been microchipped (f) register any litter whose parents and the pups had not been DNA identified Mick Couldn't agree more with you on those points, there wouldn't be half as many issues if they adopted this sort of thinking. Added to rep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice and Cripton Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 yup i agree with you on those points mick, i think it is such a shame...gets me into full blown rant! lol the negligent breeders and the kc have a lot of work to do if they are to restore some breeds to their former glory....the dog world...complicated lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bec Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 I think the problem is that the Pedigree Dogs Exposed programme took a (very) few examples of bad breeding and claimed that all pedigree dogs were "mutants" (in the words of the RSPCA's moronic Chief Vet Mark Evans). When pressed, the woman who made the programme could only identify about 6 breeds (out of the 210 recognised by the Kennel Club) which had serious health problems due to the way they were bred. In any case, none of this is the responsibility of The Kennel Club and certainly not Crufts, which when all is said and done, is just another dog show. It is the Breed Clubs which set the breed standards, not the Kennel Club and the Kennel Club has an amazingly good record of pouring hundreds of thousands of pounds into canine health research long long before the Pedigree Dogs programme or the RSPCA/BBC pull-out. In fact the RSPCA pull-out is great news as the RSPCA is in my opinion, the biggest waste of space in animal welfare. Every time they run an advertising campaign, all the money goes into their central coffers and none of it goes to the local centres which have to be self-funding. I wouldn't give the RSPCA the snot off my nose - let alone a donation. Check out this link for some of the RSPCA's finest moments : http://www.alternativevet.org/rspca.htm Sorry about the rant, but I really hate the way that a completely biassed film and an opportunist "animal welfare" group have blackened the name of pedigree dogs in the name of a bit of publicity. Mick Mick, very well said! I am not that familiar with the RSCPA in the UK by unfortunately I am with the RSPCA here in Oz, and they are an absolutely disgraceful organisation that gets millions from government funding and millions from unsuspecting donaters each year and for what? The dogs certainly aren't getting it. They also played a big part in bringing in BSL and tail docking. I can't stand them and they are certainly not an organisation that I will ever support. And I agree with you about the documentary - some of the posts in this thread just show that sadly people are watching and it and thinking it represents the majority of the purebred community or the majority of the dogs at Crufts. As I said in my previous post, there is good and bad in everything including purebred dogs BUT in my experience, the majority of purebred breeders are fantastic and the fact that this "documentary" compared them to Hitler absolutely disgusted me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raindog Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 I mean in-breeding!! << a truly vile practice that should NOT be supported In-breeding is a very complex issue and we have to seriously define what we mean by it. Too many people confuse in-breeding with line-breeding and too many people automatically assume that in-breeding means health problems. If you look at it logically, the Siberian Husky is one of the most inbred breeds in existence, and yet it is also one of the healthiest. Of all the Chukchi dogs and bitches imported into Alaska and the US in the early years of the 20th Century, only 12 or so were entire. So the hundreds of thousands of Siberian Huskies throughout the world today were all the product of that handful of dogs - some in-breeding programme!!!!! Mick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bec Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 I have seen some beautiful line bred dogs, who are in excellent health. Like with many things it should only ever be done by someone who knows exactly what is in their lines and who really knows what they are doing. But I wouldn't automatically discount a breeder who in bred/line bred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice and Cripton Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 In-breeding is a very complex issue and we have to seriously define what we mean by it. Too many people confuse in-breeding with line-breeding and too many people automatically assume that in-breeding means health problems. If you look at it logically, the Siberian Husky is one of the most inbred breeds in existence, and yet it is also one of the healthiest. Of all the Chukchi dogs and bitches imported into Alaska and the US in the early years of the 20th Century, only 12 or so were entire. So the hundreds of thousands of Siberian Huskies throughout the world today were all the product of that handful of dogs - some in-breeding programme!!!!! Mick yes this is true, all breeds are in-bred to some extent and the sibe is one of the most healthiest breeds:p however the pug we have to today was down to in-breeding and over-breeding >>> im sure a lot of sibe breeders today do not in-breed their dogs, i have met quiet a few who show at crufts and have worked with the breed for over 20 years, a really nice woman called anne has said she always has a beautiful selection of studs and has never in-bred her dogs for purposes of mimicking her healthy bitches, in-breeding can go horribly wrong and there is scientific evidence to suggest in-breeding leads to an un-healthy litter, if you think about it logically in-breeding with dogs is not as bad as it is with humans however the procedure is still mimicking genes, they say if you in-breed a few times it could be great success << like the sibe, however todays breeders are going to far and as a result of this having a litter of puppies with a weak immune system having fragile responses to illness and even being prone to it, like the lab suffers from a horrible bone cancer >>> surely this could have been avoided via careful breeding! but hey this is just my opinion >>> im not a fan of the kc or crufts:icon12: im sure some will agree and others disagree lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bec Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 I&C, inbreeding can definitely go wrong if done by someone inexperienced or who does not have the right knowledge to do so properly, but there are certainly breeders today who line breed and in breed to cement the good traits they have in their lines, with great results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.