Irresponsible Breeding and no Ethics. - Page 1

I was looking for a new GSD Puppy, I had been warned to stay away from a certain person and I am so glad I did.  Her next one is due around about now, if you are looking for a puppy and you are like me someone who cares about German Shepherds and why they should be health tested and the results acted upon, then stay away from Nina Strange.
Apparently she is involved in a fairly new club that has been trying to get off the ground and registered with the KC but is failing badly and really upsetting people. The National GSD Club, a so called new transparent proactive club with progressive views, they say “We will be open and transparent in the pursuit of improvement regarding specific breed health issues, promote responsible breeding as defined by the Kennel Club Health and Welfare Department” . The Club website talks about responsible breeding and health requirements.
The results for Lewemma Devine Dezine are now to be found on the Kennel Club website, hips 38/42 = 80 Elbows 1.
Also Progeny number 1 Bitch, Hips 40/48 = 88,Progeny number 10 Dog, Hips 35/31 = 66, Progeny number 12 Bitch, Hips 8/7 = 15.

(***Edited due to no proof of the breeding***)

http://www.fossedata.co.uk/show_results/result.aspx?id=SCOS_MAY_13#.Uf60tWxwaUk
Now check this out. To be a member of the National GSD Club you have to comply with the clubs rules, and I quote the following.
“Rule 2d Only those whose dogs/bitches comply with the KC breed standard regarding conformation and fulfil this clubs requirement for Health Screening of Breeding Stock will be considered for full membership.
Rule 2e.The clubs requirement for Health Screening of Breeding Stock and recommendations for breeding stock are as follows:
The requirement is for hip scoring and the recommendations are, Elbow grading, Eye testing and Haemophilia A testing for males. This ruling is the same as is under the Kennel Club Assured Breeder Scheme for the German Shepherd Dog, under this clubs ruling any members breeding stock born after the 14th May 2010 with a hip score higher than the BVA mean score of 18 must not use these dogs/bitches for breeding purposes. This ruling will be subject to change to keep in line with the Kennel clubs requirements for the Assured Breeder Scheme.”
http://www.thenationalgsdclub.com/clubrules.html
And what about The Club Code of Ethics Rule 6
6). Will agree not to breed from a dog or bitch which could be in any way harmful to the dog or to the breed.
So what about the rest of the officers of the club, Richard Whiteside is Chairman of the club, he is currently advertising his litter of puppies for sale on Dogs and Puppies .co.uk
http://www.dogsandpuppies.co.uk/eight-week-old-g-s-d-pups-for-sale/dogs-and-puppies/347126

Both parents are owned by him, the mating has a coefficient value of 28%. Neither parents have had their hips x-rayed. The bitch was born after 14th May 2010 so by having this litter, he should not even be a member. What a club to be a member of or to be involved with.

The 'National Club' is not so new anymore, having been in existence
since about 2011 I believe.  As to the problems it is having or has 
had, well I 'm not surprised - in terms of Breed 'politics' there are a
number of reasons for that.  Not just the 'lip service' to health schemes
most of those involved had very little to do with developing, or ever used
much !   Actually  I hadn't heard a lot about the National Club
over the past few months, I had thought it was already 'dying a death'
because some of the people involved had fallen out with each other ?
Last time I took a look at their Website it appeared a bit neglected,
it hadn't been updated.

As to the 'Strange' one, no I wouldn't go to her for a pup either, even
if I wanted an 'Alsatian'-type (which I wouldn't).  Yes she has had a
LOT of litters over the years [which I daresay she'd just argue makes
her very experienced, rather than a puppy farmer  - LOL !];  and she was
foremost among those importing AKC showdogs here to widen the
genepool in UK dogs over the past few years, which those of us in the
majority of the GSD breed, favouring German /  International dogs, thought
was needed like a fish needs  a bicycle.

I once saw - and more to the point, heard, - Nina criticising Germanic dogs
and the judging in her [mixed type]  Class from INSIDE the Ring at Cruft's.
That was nice behaviour;  it was years ago but I don't suppose she has
changed.

Thanks for providing the info about these folks' breeding practices, I hope
some prospective puppy buyers will be warned.

Bump.

Thank you for commenting on my post Hundmutter, appears you know Nina Strange only too well, My original post has been edited, someone appears is not happy, but the barn door is open and all those that care about the health and welfare of this breed are welcome to join in on this thread.
As you can all see in red on the first post it says” (***Edited due to no proof of the breeding***) I think it probably should have said no proof of the mating. The comments that have been removed were about how W had taken X to be mated to Y and who owned Y and when W had actually taken X to Z&Z’s house, also that Z&Z would have known about the impending results of the now proven dreadful hip score of X, also comments about the mating of X to a son, this has also been removed as obviously no evidence is available, some other points I made were also removed but I have included those points back in and should not now be removed from this post as they are public knowledge or available on other sites.
Ok Nina Strange back to Irresponsible Breeding, hypothetically speaking, if a mating between Lewemma Devine Dezine ( owned by Nina Strange, confirmed on Higham press, archive, 2009, city of Birmingham CH Show judged by Stuart Morton, class 865, LB 1^st 4449 Mrs G S Strange Lewemma Devine Dezine ) and Strco Take That ( owned by Mr J & Mrs J Leadbeater, confirmed Higham Press Leeds CH Show Class 393 PGD 2nd: 1613 LEADBEATER Mr J & Mrs J Strco Take That Sh.CM ) has ever or does ever take place and a litter is produced and then gets registered this will be registered litter number three to her, if hypothetically speaking, Lewemma Devine Dezine has been mated to a son after litter number 2 then that litter would have been litter number 3 and could not have been registered with the KC, so the next litter she does have would be her forth. Don’t forget everyone to check out epupz, dogsandpuppies.co.uk and all the other puppy for sale sites for news of strco puppies for sale.
Proof of Lewemma Devine Dezine hip score of 80 is freely available to view on the KC website and here on PDB and of the 2 litters that have been registered to her, obviously no evidence of any unregistered litter’s for this bitch is available on any public website should she have ever possibly have had one ? If anyone owns a puppy from this bitch that has not been registered then please come forward, I am sure we would love to hear from you.
If a forth litter does not get registered then a fifth litter could hypothetically follow within the next 12 months and still get registered under KC rules.
I would like to state for the record that I have full sympathy for the breeders of Lewemma Devine Dezine, if they had been aware of what her hip score was ever likely to be, I would assume that they either would not have sold her to Nina Strange to be used for Irresponsible Breeding or at the least put a restriction on her.
“John & Julie Leadbeater” you had Strco Take That’s hips and elbows tested, a good result so would now not be the sensible time to mate him to a bitch with a hip scored bitch below the BVA average. I see on the results on Higham Press for Leeds CH Show, Strco Mizz Blizz is now registered to you both (Class 398 PGB  1st: 1614 LEADBEATER Mr J & Mrs J Strco Mizz Blizz )  ,her hip score is  88 as confirmed on the KC Website), oh dear!, well at least she was tested and you actually did the decent thing and sent them off to the BVA, fingers crossed she does not end up in whelp.
Strco Mizz Blizz is a daughter of Lewemma Devine Dezine.
On the National GSD Club website in news i quote “Going forward in 2013 the committee are to look to further integrate mandatory health checks” surely something is missing off the end of this statement? Should it not say but we the members of this club have the right to not do them and to not act responsibly and to ignore the results. My thread is titled Irresponsible Breeding and no Ethics and the reason for bringing their club into this was to draw attention to their double standards that appear to be blatantly flaunted. I stated in the first post that the secretary is Mrs Julie Leadbeater and Mr John Leadbeater is the Treasurer of The National GSD Club.
http://www.thenationalgsdclub.com/committee.html
The club website still has them down under the committee as officers ( and Nina Strange as a committee member ) so why was this fact removed from my original post? It’s there in black and white or could it be possible that there is shame and embarrassment in mentioning their name’s and their club in the same sentence.
I see from some of the previous posts on here that both Linedancer (Nina Strange) and Truckindog (John Leadbeater). have always had plenty to say so “knock knock” where are you! You both must have seen and have heard about this thread. This thread has been viewed over 1340 times and only one comment, but silence can be a wonderful thing, they say when a jury hears no comment to a question or statement or just no answer they often take it as a sign of admission of facts stated and or of Hypothetical theory’s being surmised.
1340 views means there must be an awful lot of discussion going on somewhere about this posting and the failings of you and yours regarding possible matings and your ethics, don’t be shy this is a public forum you have a right to voice your opinion. John Leadbeater in one of your comments on here you talk about transparency and open dialog being the only way forward, so come on a lot of people are waiting to hear from you and Nina Strange.
Truckindog, interestingly you have mentioned Chris Hazell who you say is in regular contact with the Kennel Club and have also mentioned Bill Lambert at the Kennel Club and that you believe something must be done by the Kennel Club about refusing to register litters that have come from irresponsible breeding situations, I have no crystal ball but could we be seeing one of those situations happening soon ? Perhaps you, Julie and Nina ought to let them both know about your problems with ethics and mating’s.
Been having a look on the KC website, Mate Select Health Test Result Finder, well Nina Strange has been a busy bee these past years 189 puppies HAVE been registered under the Strco Affix, plus on top of this there will be the unregistered ones (woops not supposed to say that am I?) no proof of Breeding and all that J, adding up the bucks that’s a lot of money going into the Nina Strange rainy day pot.
Just 10 puppies registered under the Strco affix have had their hips tested, (results as recorded on the KC website) scores of 66,12,6,5,23,88,13,12,15,4.
There must be 179 concerned owners out there.
The Leadbeaters are shown on the KC website as Registered Assured Breeders and the KC say “The Kennel Club Assured Breeder Scheme sets out standards for dog breeders and encourages responsible breeding, stating “Taking all reasonable steps to breed happy, healthy dogs that are “fit for function”. This includes making use of all relevant Kennel Club Health screening schemes .
Well you 3, making relevant use of KC Health screening means acting on the results and not ignoring them.
And to confirm Mrs Julie Leadbeater did judge Southern Counties Championship Show, ( as recorded on the Fosse data website) she gave the DOG CC  to STRCO COOL CHANGE SHCM  owner MRS G S STRANGE)  and the Best Breeder was MRS G STRANGE
Strange That ?
Finally, Nina Strange, John Leadbeater, Julie Leadbeater "Integrity”, check out its meaning.


 

wusvnfac:
The refs that the admins edited out:  its fair enough, if you
have no way to show a record of any successful matings,
(like registered names of offspring, eg), then its within
the Terms of Service for them to pull any comments about
them.  You are right;  the Taeberdale kennel does have a
semi-regular input on this board from John.  Not that the admins
would favour him just because he's a member, but you need to be
aware that they are aware of who is making up your audience ...
and they doubtless do not want to get too many complaints
reported.  (But I don't think the UK National Club has any influence
in editing PDB posts !)

Preferences at Shows for Strco kennels:  well unlike some
people I refuse to see conspiricies and 'favours' everywhere,
no doubt they do happen, but I think it is largely simpler than that;
there just are so few Show kennels left on the Alsatianists 'side'
these days, they have  to give the awards to each other most of the
time !

I don't 'know' Nina Strange in the personal sense, I've just been
around Shepherds for a good few years and taken a degree of interest
in what goes on, on t'other side of the fence.  I have done what people
are advised to do (but mostly don't) i.e. I've been to both sorts of Show
and watched and learned, and decided for myself which 'type' I prefer,
and believe to be correct.

Unfortunately there is currently no power on earth - even the KC,
through its ABS - that can stop anyone breeding a bitch who has
an 80 hip score.  Full stop.  This is not going to be the only time
this kind of thing happens (and I don't exempt any Germanic or
MOR breeders from doing it either - they won't all be like my late
mentor who successfully Showed a bitch with a 60 BVA Score,
then retired her to me @ 3 yrs old, rather than keep her in her
breeding programme).  I absolutely agree with you that using the
health schemes means acting (or not !) on the results you get.

The only things we have going for those of us who ARE concerned
are knowledge and peer pressure.  And the willingness of those of
us who have loud mouths and nothing to lose to keep exposing
dodgy breeding and behaviour !  LOL.  But it behoves us to speak
up carefully and have our facts straight first, and only make claims
we can support with evidence.  I think a lot of your 'hypotheticals'
WILL get edited out again,  just because  they are hypothetical.

Unfortunately knowing someone is breeding badly or breeding 'off
Register' [or intends to] isn't the same as proving it.  However, cheer up,
you are quite right that a lot of people have viewed this thred, and if only
a few of those are prospective puppy buyers who were unaware of the
issues, or looking at litters from anyone mentioned, then it has served
its purpose and they may be better informed for their search.
So, "well done"!    ... And yes, it would be very interesting if either kennel
would give you a (rational and polite, please !) reply.

It's interesting that the original post starts off "I was looking for a puppy...." and then degenerates into a diatribe attacking a breeder and an owner (the latter not being, as far as I can see, a breeder). The amount of information given isn't in the public eye and can only have come from a very few sources (some of which are uniquely identifiable). Now, you may question what those sources are and why the original posting was made.

Here's a clue. Some people who were originally committee members of the National GSD Club decided that they would no longer support the club as they no longer wished to hold to the aims of the club. Whether or not those aims are those that the majority of readers here would uphold, the simple fact is that the club was set up to provide a base for 'English type' dogs that would not being influenced, or controlled, by the owner of one particular kennel (as almost all other clubs devoted to the English type are). The committee members were all well aware of this. The minority who decided that they wanted to go a different way recently resigned before the committee pushed them off. In turn, they and a few others, decided to mount a campaign against the club and, in particular, some committee members. They did this because they are now not accepted by either the 'German' or 'English' sides of the breed. In short, they burnt their bridges. That there are only about half a dozen of them comes as no surprise.

The 'facts' presented in the first post were not correct. (Which is, presumably, why they were removed). The 'hypothetical' stuff in the second post is simply a repetition and embellishment of the sort of slanderous remarks in the first one.

For the edification of anyone else reading this, the breeder referred to is in very poor health and recently suffered a stroke. One of the people behind this campaign has come out and said  "Wonder if the Emergency Services were called out last night lol :)" - just to give you an idea of the mentality behind the sort of person making this posting. Further, the people behind this 'campaign' are hardly blameless, having themselves, in the past, used dogs that weren't hip-scored at all to breed from - conveniently forgotten in their attacks.

As to the lack of comment - I take that as a sign that any rational person would not want to be drawn into what is quite obviously an attack by an individual and not the 'public service' that she is trying to portray. It really is amazingly sad that someone is so desperate that they sign up to PDB simply to try and run some sort of assassination campaign. But, now you know the facts behind this, make up your own minds.

I should say that I have no vested interest in this matter and, indeed, I don't know some of the parties involved but I have watched this sorry tale unfold over the past eight or nine months. It is particularly disturbing that at least one of the 'campaigners' is a KC judge and at least 2 run dog related businesses. I would have thought this sort of childish behaviour would reflect badly on all of them. And I thought it important that the reality of this thread should be exposed.

Thank you, samjarram, for providing a 'wider view' of the OP's
thred.  I do not know who wusvnfac  is, it seems that you do.
This is not a 'campaign', at least on my behalf;  I just call it as
I see it  (as I said above, I have 'nothing to lose').  I did think it
worthwhile for the sake of readers of the thred, to point out
the need for a more factual approach ;  that does not mean the
behaviour described / anticipated is beyond criticism.

The first breeder may currently be ill, but that would not and does
not excuse either the use for breeding of a dog or dogs with a
huge hip score,  or much of her other behaviour over the years.
One unsportsmanlike example of which I have personally witnessed
as recorded in my first response.  I understand that was neither
unusual nor atypical.

The further explanation of the discord at the National Club is very
useful.  I was aware of some of it but saw no need to go into that
much detail in my response.  You surely have to admit, though,
that it shows none of them in a very good light ?

I don't know why you think the second kennel is only an owner, not
a breeder;  the couple concerned may not have bred many litters,
but there have been some.

I agree with you:  readers must come to their own conclusions.  But
in order to do so, they have to be presented with information and 
opinion (rather than an absence of comment);  so there is very much
a rational purpose to this thred, at least on my own part.
 

Hundmutter - I wasn't saying you were part of the campaign. Those who are have made themselves known quite clearly on Facebook and in other places. (Although I do believe that some people have been 'involved' who actually don't want to take part in the sort of stuff that has been posted here).

I'm afraid that I find the breeder's "behaviour" much more acceptable than that of the various members of the GSD fraternity who insisted on atrocious behaviour at both the Border Union and East of England shows, despite being asked to desist by judges in adjacent rings. (I refer to the appalling double-handling as mentioned in the canine press). And, as I clearly pointed out, it is a matter of hypocrisy to call out the breeder when the people behind these attacks are guilty of exactly the same actions in regard to breeding from unscored dogs. Perhaps they would like to publish those matings? No, thought not.

What the officers of the National Club do is of complete indifference to me. However, they have the right, as a club, to decide on their direction and if people disagree they too have a right to walk away. It would seem that, in this instance, walking away wasn't enough. If these 'rebels' were so sure of their ground they could easily have started their own club - but they are aware that they actually have little or no support. Basically, their toys were taken away from them. Their reaction is no better than small children in a playground. In fact, it's worse because they should know better. And, as one is a judge she should adhere to the KC's Code of Ethics which expressly forbids her making public comments.

I was not aware that the other people mentioned were breeders - I have no knowledge of them doing so but, there again, I have no great history with these people. And, finally, I have no objection, at all, to the publication of facts. IF, and only if, those facts are correct. I have a huge problem with insinuation and opinion which is presented as fact.

If I may take one example from the 2nd post by wusvfac where she says that only 10 puppies have had hip scores registered out of 189. So what? There are, literally, hundreds of people who get Xrays and decide not to go for hip-scoring if they can see it's not worth it. There are also hundreds of people who simply don't want to hip score because they aren't breeding or have the dog as a pet. It's that sort of inference which indicates exactly how much faith one can put in the 'evidence' presented. There's absolutely no evidence that 179 people would be worried at all. It's pure character assassination.

As I've said before, but you ignored, some of the information given is simply wrong. Much of it isn't factual at all, simply conjecture which is framed in such a way as to attack the people mentioned. And, as is blatantly obvious, the postings aren't from some innocent who "wanted to buy a puppy". They are from an individual with an axe to grind. I suggest that you and I leave them to wallow in their own mire rather than give the oxygen of publicity to what, in other circles, would be regarded as a troll. They aren't providing a service to potential puppy buyers, they are merely indulging in self-gratification.

That the OP might actually not be an ordinary puppy-buyer
who found something nasty in the woodshed  may seem 'blatantly
obvious' to you;  but I submit that it isn't, for the majority of people -
even in the UK alone - all that clear, to others reading it..

Of course one could argue that there should be no litters bred,
by anyone, that do not have the interests of the breed foremost.
The entire GSD community worldwide contains a heck of a lot
of people who disregard this, and trying to educate them into
actually acting on the results of health tests, rather than paying
them no mind at all in their own breeding methods is a task
akin to pushing a large boulder up a steep hill.  But there is a
great deal of difference between breeding with a dog which has
a 20something hip score, and one which has a (KC recorded)
80, or 88; or with the siblings and progeny of such dogs.  A little
above the 'breed mean' in lines where hips are all tested and otherwise
good, to a dog who has single figure hips, is an entirely distinct
matter,  which ever way you choose to dress it, from using dogs
with stonking great scores, from stock which has only in fairly
recent times been habitually scored AT ALL.  To me, that is still
indefensible, no matter who does it.

The fact that puppy purchasers in the majority do not Xray their own
individual dogs comes as no surprise in a 'market' riddled with ignorance.
That they are not complaining now does not mean that further down the
line they will not have HD problems with those 'pet' dogs ;  or the offspring of
those dogs, should they decide to 'get one just like Sheba'.  Thinking of the
breed as a whole (not even distinguishing between 'types'),  perpetuating
these problems in any way isn't the same as preventing them.  I have not
gone into the detail of whether the particular bitch in question really has
been bred from the number of times suggested by the OP;  although I
could, and will if I get time.  If potential registered litter #3 as suggested by the
OP becomes fact, those criticisms will be true;  they will of course show up as a
matter of public record IF THEY ARE KC REGISTERED.  But maybe it won't happen;
either as a result of these 'hypotheticals', or because of illness, or whatever.
Can you argue that that wouldn't be a GOOD RESULT FOR THE BREED, if
so ?

You know, you can't have it both ways, by implying wusvnfac is someone identifiably
closer to the source - enough to have the necessary knowledge of what breedings
might be under consideration - but also by trying to say there is no truth to base that
speculation upon, at all ?

You appear to have some sort of agenda of your own, to my mind;  otherwise
quite why you want to suddenly join this Forum and argue for the thred topic
not to be 'given the oxygen of publicity' is a little mysterious.  JMO 
[Amazed you managed to work in a reference against Double Handling as well ...  
ROFL  !!! ]

Just a quick note. 
The poster who is commenting as Sam Jarram. Is not the Sam Jarram we all know and love. It is someone else using her name for some reason better known to themselves. 
Kind regards
Kaye