|
|
Post by dog on Dec 9, 2010 19:54:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cadgi on Dec 14, 2010 14:05:28 GMT
her heart's in the right place, can't see it changing anything. best of luck to her.
|
|
|
|
Post by dog on Dec 14, 2010 14:20:27 GMT
I think there has been (previously unimaginable) movement from the K.C in a few areas stemming from the original programme but whether that relates to any significant change in terms of the Dog's health or whether there's scope for more change in the future I'm not sure.
She's certainly got a mountain to climb and I don't envy her but I can't help admiring her courage and tenacity. Not many people would put themselves in a position where there's so much bitterness and hatred aimed at them from those that have so much to lose.
|
|
|
|
Post by cadgi on Dec 14, 2010 15:01:30 GMT
know what you're saying buddy, they've way too much to lose. has any body notice'd the more health test the k.c. introduce the worse the dog's being bred become. never seem'd to happen year's ago when dog's were judge'd on what they could do,not how they look'd. just a thought. spoke to jemima the other day,lovely woman,best of luck to her.
|
|
|
|
Post by dog on Dec 14, 2010 20:10:12 GMT
There's some interesting stuff on this blog actually about people not breeding carriers and in turn they restrict the (already very tight) gene pool. A carrier could be used just as long as it's put to a non carrier and you can get rid of that gene in a controlled manner. They hadn't considered that not breeding from carriers of one gene can concentrate numerous other bad genes, some of which can't be tested for.
The sooner they realise that a restricted gene pool is a bad thing the better. Out-crossing should be considered essential if they really want to beat the health problems that effect so many Dogs.
|
|
|
|
Post by stefan on Dec 15, 2010 14:58:50 GMT
Really interesting.
|
|
