Saturday, 12 November 2011

Discover Dogs 2011

From the "Stop the BBC Making Another PDE" Facebook site this eve...

The "Stop the BBC Making Another PDE" Facebook site issued several dire warnings in the past week warning good dog folk to be on their guard at this weekend's Discover Dogs against "JH" taking pictures without permisson. Their cunning plan? To take photographs of me or anyone who might conceivably be an agent of mine.

That would, then, be pictures taken without permission. The irony appeared to be somewhat lost on them.

In fact, the Kennel Club had refused us access to film so we couldn't. No ifs or buts -  BBC rules are strict on this and secret filming is only allowed in special circumstances. There was nothing to stop us filming outside, though, so we set up camp outside to ask visitors about their breed choice; then I paid for a ticket to have a quick whizz round the show in the last hour; camera switched off and firmly zipped in the camera bag.

Don't think the KC trusted me to keep it zipped though. As I stopped to have a chat with Sarah Blott from the Animal Health Trust at the Cavalier Matters stand, the KC's Caroline Kisko and Bill Lambert approached and hovered.  Bill then followed me as I wended my way towards the exit, quite literally ducking behind breed stands to try to avoid being seen; at one point peering through a gap in one stand's dressing to keep me in sight. Very Keystone Cops.

I doubled-back and collared him, telling him he should feel free to say hello. I also thanked him for the information he had sent me last week in response to questions about the Assured Breeder Scheme. "I look forward to seeing how negatively you use that information," said Bill.

"Well," I replied, "I am a bit surprised to learn that the KC has inspected only 15 per cent of the breeders who have joined the Assured Breeder Scheme."

I mean, really, and with the best will in the world, it is quite hard to put a positive spin on that, isn't it?

On the plus side, Bill also told me that all breeders who have registered more than two litters in the previous 12 months are now inspected before they are accepted and that there are plans to extend this to all applicants (although he couldn't say when).

But if (as is the case) the KC has only done 1100 odd inspections in total since the scheme started in 2004 and they only have 23 breeder advisors (compared, for instance, to over 100 in Sweden where in 2010 alone they did 2000 breeder visits), when exactly is the KC going to get round the 6,000 or so ABS breeders who have never been inspected?

There was some good news at Discover Dogs during my brief visit.  A breed advisor was honest about the health issues in Boxers on the Boxer breed stand and it was good to see health informaton given real prominence on the Griffon stand, as it was last year. I also saw nothing to stop me lusting after a Hovawart (despite worries about the small gene pool).

But I'm afraid the rep on the Neopolitan Mastiff let the side down when asked if the breed had any health problems. "Not really," came the reply. He also maintained that they lived on average to 8 yrs old (not really his fault - this entirely unsupported claim is in black and white in the health info the Club prepared for Discover Dogs; a bit of a shame because the rest of the health info is not bad).

Finally, despite having lookouts/security in place to protect the Neapolitan Mastiffs from me and prying lenses, this picture was sent to me this evening of the dog on the breed stand this afternoon.


Just to make it crystal clear to Neapolitan Mastiff breeders who will no doubt express outrage: the crime is not in my publishing pictures like this; it's in you breeding dogs like this.

If you don't want pictures of Neopolians with desperate eye conformation, too-narrow nares and sore skin being blogged or broadcast for everyone to wince at... stop breeding them this way.

Edit 13/11/11 @ 20:04

Now that we know this dog is Rayvonley Leone (see comments), here is a picture of him at Darlington Championship Dog Show a few weeks ago, where he won Best Dog. If you click to enlarge it, you'll see there is no skin irritation under his nose, but his chin looks sore and his eye looks no better than it does in the above picture.



Edit 13/11/11 - 

The reaction from the anti-PDE Facebook site....


So now we know. The dogs are just fine. I have, apparently, been photoshopping the images in order to make the dogs look bad.

Which beggars the question: if I could prove that I have not photoshopped them, would they agree that there is a problem that needs to be fixed?

149 comments:

  1. I just love the reversal you've caused. At one time, these people were thinking about how proud they were of their dogs and for everyone to see them. Now they are terrified that photos of these dogs will be taken and displayed by people not under the spell of the groupthink.

    Wonderful. Maybe in time they'll even appreciate that they are creating monsters.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don't think so BorderWars..this was printed on the tickets: Discover Dogs is being filmed and your image may appear on television and other media.Acceptable if you are in the public domain to be filmed.It was always considered polite by most members of the public to ask permission before they took a picture of your dog , be it at a companion show , agility day or championship show.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I bet the Whippet breeders didn't need look-outs...

    The bottom line is this, if you breed a healthy dog, no one's going to criticise you because there's nothing to criticise.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So to be anointed an "Assured Breeder," one is requested to perhaps follow the recommendation that the whelping facilities "accord with good practice." But no requirement, mind you.

    And it would be nice if the breeder followed breed health recommendations, but not, you know, mandatory. You have to TEST the dogs, but they don't have to PASS or meet any health thresholds, and you don't have to publish the results.

    Their "suggested" contract language even includes the sentence: "The Breeder makes no warranty however as to the health or disposition of the Dog." (This contract template shows no signs of having been vetted by either an attorney or a grammarian.)

    It would be nice if you sort of helped people who couldn't keep the dog you sold them, but an RTB contract is strictly optional, you know, no biggie. Don't put yourself out by taking on any rash COMMITMENTS to the animals you produce and sell. We have people to clean up that sort of thing. Don't bother yourself.

    On the KC's page of FAQ's for buyers, we have this claim:

    Will buying from a Kennel Club Assured Breeder increase my chances of giving my puppy a happy, healthy life?

    Absolutely. Kennel Club Assured Breeders have agreed to take the necessary steps that will give your puppy the best possible chance in life. This includes giving their dogs the required health tests for their breed, which enables them to ensure that only the healthiest genes are passed through the gene pool.

    Which was certainly not vetted by a competent attorney.

    I do know one breeder in my breed who has the apparently sincere conviction that the very act of radiographing her dogs' hips is an act of virtue. The fact that most of them are dysplastic (as far as we can tell, as she keeps the results secret) and that she has apparently never removed a dog from the breeding pool or even informed mate selection on the basis of genetically diseased hips is irrelevant. They are all TESTED. The results are right there in the locked file cabinet.

    And here we have a national kennel club endorsing this practice and providing the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval to its practitioners. Can't wait for the buyer lawsuit on this one. Yes, Britain is less litigious than the US, but someone will hold the KC accountable, and their disclaimer is not worth the pixels that compose it.

    I wonder if they mention to buyers that, of the THIRTY-ONE breeds where NO health tests are required for such endorsement, virtually all really ought to be tested/checked for enzootic genetic diseases, sometimes quite the long list. (And many breeds with one or two tests required have up to six "optionals" that don't seem very optional to me, if one doesn't want an expensive heartache instead of a pet.) Yep, under this endorsement, a breeder who tosses together two bilaterally deaf and dysplastic Dalmatians still qualifies to be "Assured" as he peddles their puppies.

    Head, meet desk.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Many breeders do take enormous care, Heather, and they are just as frustrated with the ABS's failings. They want a tougher ABS, a scheme of which they can be truly proud - and certainly not one that awards accolades for just having a lot of litters.

    The Bateson report in 2009 said the ABS needed to be upgraded and recommended that the KC sought UKAS (www.ukas.org) accreditation for the scheme. Almost two years on, there is no sign of this. It is obvious that the ABS as it stands couldn't possibly earn UKAS accreditation. Is something better on the way? I hope so.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You'd think they wouldn't mind people taking photos. I mean, they're obviously so proud of the dogs they breed that they take them to shows which are open to the general public, so why the hostility? If you are going to put your dog on public display like that then you should expect the visitors to view them with a critical eye. By glossing over the facts and pretending there's no problem you are no better that a dodgy back street used car salesman, worse in fact since it's living beings you're peddling. Stop lying to cover your arses and start doing the right thing by your breed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Did you take the pictures of the people on the facebook page which are displayed here? If not are you breaking copywrite by using them with out their permission?

    ReplyDelete
  8. She breached copyright by not having permission to reprint the book cover shown in her stolen images.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Anonymous 11:23 I take it you mean the profile pictures of the people on the facebook site? Has anyone tried to copyright their image already? If not there's no breach 'cos there's nothing to breach. Are the pics not already in the public domain, what with facebook being a public site available to all? Which would void them from copyright in the first place, would it not?

    ReplyDelete
  10. No Roger Wilde, she stole copy from a closed group that includes an image of a book cover.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Steve Cox, Neapolitan Mastiff owner and breeder, also chairman of the UK breed Club:13 November 2011 13:19

    Hello my name is Steve Cox, I dont normally allow myself to be drawn into comments and gossip on any sort of forum as this is normally for people who get a kick out of stiring up trouble and prefer to speak behind backs etc,

    I start by saying that it is very clear to all who know the workings of Jemima Harrison that she has little good to say about anything in the dog world, her knowledge is non existent of Mastiff breeds and she has been trying to bring down the world of "Show dogs" for reasons known only to her? most likley financial.

    This dog for example has absolutely clear eyes,his my dog so I can tell you this, but this sneaky photo taken yesterday at Dicover dogs shows either camera flash or the photo has been messed about with by her or "someone" on behalf of her to try to "once again" de credit breeds and breed clubs that put on and support these fantastic events for all to see each year, many people within their breeds and clubs who give up their weekends completly free, she does this for her own personal reason? kick?

    This dog is called Rayvonley Leone, I bred him, he is about two and a half, his construction, movement and eyes are all very good (no problems at all) and correct, he has won many many shows incl wins all over europe, so you can imagine how upset and annoyed I am to see that yet again she is totally making up nasty and vindictive totally false stories.
    To prove that this is once again a set up I would be more than happy to take him to an independant vet for a complete health check and eye test of which he will pass with flying colours, the author is a fake and what she is trying to do the world of canine pedigree dogs is totally outrageous, she is simply making money.
    I agree that some breeds of dogs have had their health problems over the years and a certain amount of bad breeding has of course gone on in many breeds (we know and understand this) over the past few years the Kennel Club has addressed these issues with the UK breed clubs and serious work and changes have been taking place (where needed) this was already taking place, she simply jumped in and capitalised on the situation, with a documentory...

    This woman has personal attacked my dogs along side many many more, she is trying to make a new TV documentry called pedigree dogs exposed 2, so of course wants some tasty gossip (again) but if she is happy to use false and fake photos and information like this photo of Leone she will do, say and twist anything, I believe its time to stop her in her tracks.

    She has writtern to various breed clubs offering a chance to appear in her new TV documentory, but after the way her first one was full of twisted information along side photos of dogs and videos that she used without consent of owners, accompanied by a voice over speaking complete fiction,speaking about one dog then showing another etc, you couldnt possibley trust her, i have heard that most breeds have declined her offer, can you blame them. We all know what ever we say, do and prove she will twist, change and miss represent to make it look like we are a world of evil dog owners, breeders and clubs, I personally have had enough of her falseness and bull... and I am amazed that any TV company will give her time of day.
    I have many photos of Leone and if anyone wants to see him please dont hesitate in contacting me Steve Cox 0044 7702 315319

    ReplyDelete
  12. Now really anybody who is a canine journalist should know the laws of copyright and here are the exclusions...... One must remember that if one is taking the time to discuss a third party whether it be on a Closed Facebook Group or an Open Forum, one can still be sued for libel if the content of such discussions is false.

    8.Acts that are allowed
    Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:
    •Private and research study purposes.
    •Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.
    •Criticism and news reporting.
    •Incidental inclusion.
    •Copies and lending by librarians.
    •Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes.
    •Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as “time shifting”.
    •Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program.
    •Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society.
    (Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)

    I think this falls under the "criticism and news reporting" exclusions......

    No copyright theft here......

    ReplyDelete
  13. So Steve, what are his hip scores? And I'm sure you'll be aware that ectropion although not a factor that is included in the standard eye test, will almost certainly be mentioned in the comments section.

    Perhaps you would be willing to send copies to Jemima of both hip and eye test results..... That way you can provide documentation to support your claims of him being a healthy dog whose construction, movement and eyes are all fine (no problems at all!).

    That would be a great help because, as you can imagine, some things cannot be seen by the naked eye and require further health screening which gives a better reflection of the actual status of the dog.....

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thank you for your comments, Steve.

    The photo was taken with a flash, which has changed the colour of the dog's eyes, but it is otherwise untouched.

    The dog would appear to have ectropion - as do most Neapolitan Mastiffs. He may be beautiful to you and some judges but in my view, and many others, this dog is too heavy, has too much loose skin and too much wrinkling.

    http://www.rayvonley.com/Leone2.htm

    What you think is correct breed type is, to almost everyone outside of the breed, a welfare issue. It would, surely, be a kindness to these dogs to tone it down a bit?

    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anon @ 13:00 wrote: "she stole copy from a closed group that includes an image of a book cover."

    This, presumably, relates to Elaine Everest plugging her latest book by using the cover of it as her avatar on Facebook - an image which even with a magnifying glass and a following wind is impossible to make out in the screengrab above?

    The lawyer's letter should be interesting.

    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
  16. Annie Macfarlane13 November 2011 14:09

    In light of the above information relating to the KCAB Scheme - there is apparently a stand at Discover Dogs asking people to support the Assured Breeder Scheme and end puppy farming!

    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=300437519975086&set=a.135681623117344.20138.135679643117542&type=1&ref=notif&notif_t=like

    ReplyDelete
  17. http://www.uknmc.org.uk/breedhealth.htm

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jemima: This "Steve Cox" guy, is he for real, or did you just make him up? Is he really chairman of a UK breed club? He is a perfect foil!

    Steve, if you are still paying attention: I looked as scads of photos of your dog on Google Images. Your dog has a serious eye problem, and if you are in denial about it, then you ought to be the poster child for PDE2. -- Rod Russell, Orlando, Florida USA

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh, this is hilarious.

    Or rather, it would be hilarious, if it didn't mean generation after generation of dog suffering serious health issues as a result of the deformities perpetuated by some breeders.

    Funny how Steve claims he can spot a doctored photograph, but can't see the eye gunk and horrendous ectropion on one of his own *doctored* photographs on his website.

    So, come on Steve. Take some unadultered photos of your pride and joy, and send them for us all to see. Show us these perfect, sparkling eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  20. How on earth would supporting the Assured Breeder Scheme stop puppy farming when the KC allows puppy farmers to join the scheme?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jemima, I want to acknowledge how hard it must be for you to do your work under the verbal fire of so many resentful people. How daunting it must be to walk into the Discover Dogs room knowing so many people wish you ill. Your patience and dignity are admirable. You rarely, if ever, take the bait of slander that is thrown at you. You answer scathing vitriol with even-handed, respectful logic, in my opinion.

    One would think that all dog fanciers/breeders/show folk/etc would welcome your work. After all, you are merely asking that they breed for health first, looks second. And yet, these otherwise intelligent people cling to the fads of their breeds as blindly as did the devotees of Chinese foot-binding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_binding).

    We are an odd species, aren't we? The way we fetishize what we love to the point of the grotesque... then keep going, to the horizon of oblivion.

    Mr. Cox, while it pains me to see the deformity you have bred into your dog and to learn that this look is actually deemed "correct" by your fancy, I do appreciate that you used your name and stated your case with a minimum of ugliness. Your post did not entirely rise to the level of even-handedness that Jemima typically demonstrates, but it wasn't as evil as others. At least you tried to put forth facts rather than empty vitriol. As a reader interested in opinions from both sides of the issue, I very much appreciate calm facts over hysteria. And I can appreciate your anger. You have probably spent many years inside a circle of like-minded fanciers who share your belief that the exaggerated folds of Rayvonley Leone's face are an achievement of beauty, much like the Chinese bound foot was valued. How confusing it must be when the light of outsiders is shined on your work and our reaction is to recoil in disgust. That can't feel good to you. But still, for the Mastiff's sake, can't you dial it back just a little and still find them beautiful?

    Good luck with your work, Jemima. Whenever (if ever) you feel alone and vulnerable under the barrage of fury, please know there are many, many like me who have your back and appreciate the courageous work you are doing on behalf of the future of dogs.

    Maria Nation

    "The animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with extension of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren; they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendor and travail of the earth." Henry Beston, naturalist & author (1888 - 1968)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Steve its not the eyeballs or the flash that is being brought up here , it is the skin around your dogs eyes , or not around your dogs eyes as it has drooped half way down ehr face.

    The fact you dont even see what is being critisised show just how kennel blind neo breeders are

    ReplyDelete
  23. Is not fair! Someone take PIKSHUR of my dog!

    Here's a photo that Mr. Cox published himself, of this dog, when the dog was not yet two years old:

    http://www.rayvonley.com/Images/5thFebruary11/Fullsize/12%2011%202010%20315.jpg

    I see the exact same eye-shine from the flash, which is not the point. (Though I am glad to see it; it is the only photographic evidence that the dog actually HAS eyes under there.)

    I also see the same painfully distorted ectropion and the crust that forms from the irritation caused by this painful genetic deformity.

    I see pasterns already dropping, and front feet already splaying out and deforming, in a way I've only seen in this breed, that strongly suggests a connective tissue disorder.

    And I see the unnaturally superabundant skin that clearly wins ribbons, but means disability to the dog.

    Libelous, is it, to publish a photograph of a tragically deformed dog, taken while the dog is on public display for the purpose of competing for accolades based on its appearance?

    Mr. Cox libels himself very effectively, then.

    ReplyDelete
  24. BorderWars said...
    I just love the reversal you've caused. At one time, these people were thinking about how proud they were of their dogs and for everyone to see them. Now they are terrified that photos of these dogs will be taken and displayed by people not under the spell of the groupthink.


    Mr/Ms Borderwars.
    We are not stopping Ms Harrison from taking images of our dogs because we are ashamed but because she is doing it in an underhand way. She is not allowed to take images or film dogs at KC events due to her lies and the way she never shows healthy dogs in her films.
    There are plenty of images of UK dogs in the press and year books to prove this point. Why are you twisting comments? Another trouble maker?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Heather,

    The state of his front feet and pasterns would definitely worry me if I were this dog's owner. What is happening there?

    ReplyDelete
  26. "To prove that this is once again a set up I would be more than happy to take him to an independant vet for a complete health check and eye test"

    That would be an extremely good idea. Perhaps the vet could talk some sense into you, and tell you the problems associated with baggy eyes like your dog has.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Several years ago - 2006 or 7, I did a breed stand for the Brentwood 'All about Dogs' show with my dog, and we were next stall on to show winning Neapolitans with horrendous drooping elbow and leg callouses. I was taken aback then to see that these were 'show dogs'.

    I was helping at a stand yesterday -not with my own breed but a friend's dogs, and while looking around,looked for the callouses on the Neos, and can at least say I saw none on the dogs I saw - though agree the eyes, the folds and the sheer bulk of dog being bred to fit onto an inadequate frame is beyond immoral.

    I did see several dogs that broke my heart for wobbling hips, not least a huge brindled English Mastiff that could barely stand and didn't want to stand, but kept being encouraged to do so so that he could please the stand visitors.

    The dogs I were with were a pretty natural kind of breed, not particularly pretty but robust dogs and they did enjoy the long day out, being keen to greet their visitors to the end, and I think this kind of show is great for people, prospective dog owning people - so long as the dogs are up for the event and physically sound enough to ensure that the public aren't mislead into thinking dogs are supposed to walk with a wobble in their hips.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I've added above a picture of Rayvonley Leone taken at Darlington Champ Dog Show from which the ectropion is obvious. In truth, I've seen worse in other Neos but it's still something that needs addressing as a matter of urgency.

    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
  29. Cindy's blogmaster wrote: "I did see several dogs that broke my heart for wobbling hips, not least a huge brindled English Mastiff that could barely stand and didn't want to stand, but kept being encouraged to do so so that he could please the stand visitors."

    I didn't see a brindle, but I did see two very heavy fawns - one in particular with a lot of facial wrinkling. It is nothing like as extreme as the Neo, but the excess is worrying.

    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
  30. @ anon 18:01 nov 13

    Catalogue Ms. Harrison's lies for me and the other readers here, Anon. Catalogue them and I will listen. If her arguments can be discredited, I am willing to revoke my support of her journalism.

    Thus far I have seen no evidence of dishonesty or fabrication from her in her film or on her blog.

    Tangentially, she is not OBLIGATED to show healthy dogs in her films. Her films are about the poor breeding of dogs and the consequent suffering this causes to dogs and the people who love them. People like you come here and cry, "But what about the healthy ones?" The healthy ones are not the point, and this is not a court of law. Ms. Harrison is not obligated to step down from her soapbox and turn it over to "the other side." The fact that she lets whomever wishes to post in the comments section (anonymously!) is more than fair enough and demonstrates, I believe, her willingness to engage in public, transparent discussion of these issues.

    Miss Margo Adler
    New York City, USA

    P.S. I must admit that a big reason I read this blog is to follow the comments sections, which I find weirder and more entertaining than any tabloid. Pedigree dog show/breeders are one of the strangest subcultures I've ever come across. Weirder than Civil War re-enactors, weirder than Star Trek fans. So, so weird. And I am astonished at the ferocity and intensity of the outrage directed towards Ms. Harrison and her work. I doubt if Holocaust Denial websites get as much negative comments.

    ReplyDelete
  31. A further edit above...a screengrab from the anti-PDE site to show the reaction there. I am, apparently, a HSUS lackey who photoshops the images of perfectly healthy dogs in order to discredit them.

    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
  32. ''I doubt if Holocaust Denial websites get as much negative comments.''
    Interesting subject to raise ...Jemima with her family background knows all about the holocaust...

    ReplyDelete
  33. Do I, Anon? You're definitely going to have to explain that one..!

    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
  34. Standard internet definition of Fair Use:

    If I like you and what you're saying, it's fair.

    If I don't like you or what you're saying, it's NOT FAIR.

    Jemima, you have some serious Pshop skills. You're obviously in the wrong business.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The fawns were on in the afternoon, the brindle was there in the morning.

    ReplyDelete
  36. JH, I must know... DO YOU support the HSUS? That is a very nasty and alarming accusation, and I am aware that for the most part people who have issues with you make up groundless and baseless things. So far I have not always agreed with some things you say, but I stand firmly behind your call for change, for better health for all dogs. But I must know if the HSUS support accusations are based on fact or not. Please reply. Thank you

    -Fdotd (Fugly Dog of the Day)

    ReplyDelete
  37. WhatAmILookingAT asked: "JH, I must know... DO YOU support the HSUS?"

    No. I do not support the HSUS. The allegation is because earlier this year I spoke at a scientific conference, organised by the University of Pennslvania, that was co-sponsored by the HSUS.

    I have addressed this issue here:

    http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2011/07/hate-hope-and-hsus.html

    See also the Myths Busted tab of the blog, above.

    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
  38. More Nazi and holocaust comments, my god jemima you do have a fixation about Nazis. As anonymous said with your family background you know all about the holocaust. that sounds very interesting so were your familys Nazis then.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Annie Macfarlane13 November 2011 21:53

    A Neopolitan Mastiff attended my previous ringcraft classes. While I would sit and look at the dog in wonder, it was not because I thought him beautiful, in fact I really did pity the dog. He was covered in slobber, had sore skin due to excessive folds which meant his coat stank - and used to urinate while lying on the floor resting. He wasn't even aware he was doing it poor lad. I never ever ever thought he was beautiful....he had my pity because he could hardly run and after his "stint" around the circuit all he wanted to do was go back and lie down completely knackered - for a rest and possibly a pee. Not a beautiful dog....a sad, pitiful dog with no quality of life whatsoever. To coin a well known phrase sometimes I think these anti-Jemima Harrison peeps just "open their mouths and let their belly rumble"....if Jemima thought this breed was beautiful, they would come back with all the reasons why it's not....damned if you do; damned if you don't Jemima - but I don't have to tell you that! I personally find this breed extremely sad and there's no way on earth I could stand in it's company for "ages" without wanting to ask why on earth they are bred to look like this when the dogs are clearly suffering because of it.

    I take it that Steve's dog is not hip scored or eye tested then if he is prepared to take the dog to his vet for a check up and an eye test. I am confused as to how he can comment with such clarity on the health status of the dog.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @Miss Margo

    You want lies catalogued? Start with the whole 59 minutes of PDE1 for a start. Then ask her why she lies about her past? IF she was a 'top print journalist' for so long she would have a track record - she doesn't. Even journalists - 'top print journalists' - have never heard of her.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Yossi wrote: "my god jemima you do have a fixation about Nazis. As anonymous said with your family background you know all about the holocaust. that sounds very interesting so were your familys Nazis then."

    Er, no. Come on Anon... please do tell me what you think the connection is. Totally scratching my head on this one.

    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
  42. I show dogs have seen many dogs become champions who have faults and should not have become so.
    The reason being mainly that they know the Judge or expect some kickback by way of giving something back.
    The amount of corruption in the ring is outstanding. The way forward is to make changes by judging. I have started to judge and will be doing it honestly with the dogs health in mind. How long my career will last within the corruption i do not know.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Yossi, try sleeping with the enemy!It's genetic!

    ReplyDelete
  44. @Miss Margo
    You want me to catalogue jemimas lies
    EVERY TIME SHE OPNES HER MOUTH

    ReplyDelete
  45. @Anin 22.28 You are a saint!

    Do you not realise that even breeders hate bent judges? By agreeing with Jemima Harrison it shows you have no idea about dogs. You done yourself a favour by remaining anonymous. Why not read the dog press, there are writers there outing bent judges. Agree with them rather than hang around dodgy blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  46. LOL at the latest post from your hate group Jemima. These people are terrified of you!! Please, keep up the good work. The dogs need you. Too bad the people are fighting so desperately against what is best for the dogs. The problem being they care more about their own egos than about their dogs' well-being.

    The photoshopping accusations in particular are laughable. Has Jemima photoshopped the images on the breeder's own website, then? Because they are just as horrifying as the photo taken at Discover Dogs, if not more so!

    ReplyDelete
  47. Romany Dog
    Ask Jemima about the members of parliament that have written to the BBC abour her program

    ReplyDelete
  48. Steve Cox said: "I have many photos of Leone and if anyone wants to see him please dont hesitate in contacting me Steve Cox 0044 7702 315319"

    Mr. Cox, I do not have an email address for you, otherwise, I would have written to you privately. i would be interested in seeing your photos of your dog so I can best determine if and how JH allegedly doctored these photos. Surely there will be some huge difference in your photos, yes? Can we see them please? I am really hoping that your photos of your dog make your dog look like a dog instead of a wrinkled mess that struggles to carry around all that skin. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Ask Jemima about the members of parliament that have written to the BBC abour her program".

    I'll save you the trouble, Romany Dog. A few weeks back, the anti-PDE lot composed a pro-forma letter full of inaccuracies and wild claims about me and the programme, which they sent to their MPs. As a result, the BBC has received some letters from MPs who have written to the BBC on their constituent's behalf inquiring about the programme.

    Apparently, I am very afraid about this because the programme is "on the brink" of being cancelled thanks to the anti-PDE lot's lobbying.

    Anyway.. I think that's enough of a diversion on a blogpost that was intended to prompt discussion about, among other things, integrity of the Assured Breeder Scheme and how to tackle breed blindness when it is so very entrenched.

    This is the question that exercises me most, really: how do you educate people who don't want to be educated? And when - if ever - do you give up trying to persuade them and bring in measures which force them to do the right thing by the dogs?

    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
  50. So are you saying that all the people on that facebok site have unhelthy dogs and are corsing all this troble to stop youre film?

    Maggie

    ReplyDelete
  51. Wow, I are a figument of Jemima Harrison's imaginifcashun.

    That's a load off, let me tell you.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous Maggie, I think it's Jess who has the dogs capable of "corsing" a facebok.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Annie Macfarlane14 November 2011 01:36

    Yes, please let's get back to the point in hand....the KCAB scheme and the fact that the KC are now promoting it as a way of stopping puppy farming and a way of ensuring that you are buying a healthy pedigree puppy from a responsible, ethical breeder. This is simply not true!

    While I do believe that this scheme could be very successful tool to identify ethical breeders, the KC are not doing enough to actually police it properly. For instance, one KCAB bred over 200 puppies last year with some bitches having their 6th litter! Info gleaned from KC registrations. If the KCAB is supposed to promote health and welfare this clearly goes against the whole ethos of the scheme. This is nothing short of puppy farming - that the KC say is being stopped by the KCAB scheme! WRONG! They agree that 6 litters can be detrimental to a bitch's well-being - confirmed by the fact they are reducing litter numbers for bitches and yet they allow a breeder to be a KCAB scheme member who is a high volume breeder, taking 6 litters from their bitches - and to remain on the scheme! It seems that the KC are talking the talk but they ain't walking the walk. Before initiating campaigns that make all sorts of promises - they should actually find out if this is FACT as it merely serves to confuse and puts a huge questionmark over the scheme's authenticity. I'm sure this will not be the only "dodgy" breeder who is part of the scheme. There are good breeders mixed in alongside the dodgy ones which really makes the scheme a farce in its present form because you can't differentiate between the two.

    Additionally, no health screening is mandatory - only recommended - and if you bring something to the attention of the KC relating to the health of dogs being bred they do nothing about it and register the litters anyway.

    What to do? Well I think the KC have tried to "persuade" people long enough and it's now time for them to take a more "hands-on" approach starting with mandatory basic health screening of hips, elbows and eyes - with additional tests for breed specific problems.

    It's been said to me when I questioned the ethics surrounding a particular mating "I'm not doing anything that others don't do". A KCAB scheme member I hasten to add!

    So it would seem that the only way forward is for the KC to bring in strict rules relating to dog breeding - or take the whole area of health from the KC and move it somewhere else that doesn't have a conflict of interest financially.

    ReplyDelete
  54. LOL, I love the passive aggressiveness, reminds me of a tango. But, no, even if you proved its not photo-shopped, they would just pretend the whole thing never happened and go onto another subject on you to talk about. I've dealt with their people, and that is what they do. They, have a problem with reality, not you. But good god, that dog is butt ugly and does not look healthy at all. Even if it was healthier, those wrinkles belong in/on fabric, not dogs.

    I also love how smart they are. "Majority are overseas", LOL. I love how they make things up so they can feel like they are winning/superior.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Jemima Harrison said...

    "Anyway.. I think that's enough of a diversion on a blogpost that was intended to prompt discussion about, among other things, integrity of the Assured Breeder Scheme and how to tackle breed blindness when it is so very entrenched."

    I don't think there's anything you can do about breed blindness. I think it has to do with deep seated brain processes and you're not going to change those without either an 'adverse event' of some kind that will change the individual's thought processes, or perhaps brain-washing. See this post on Querencia about the same subject.

    "This is the question that exercises me most, really: how do you educate people who don't want to be educated? And when - if ever - do you give up trying to persuade them and bring in measures which force them to do the right thing by the dogs?"

    You are not looking at simply imparting information to people. You are trying to change a religious mindset. Without a conversion process, you are not going to get anywhere with some people. In fact, what you will do is create a persecution complex, which I'm sure you're quite familiar with by now. There was, I remember reading, a recent study that looked at people's beliefs (in a political sense,) and showed that when their erroneous beliefs were pointed out, that belief became even stronger. Part of what you are also seeing with all this fooferaw, is tribalism at work; the 'responsible show breeder' is a hotly coveted tribe, belonging confers a lot of prestige, and by attacking the tenets behind the tribe, you are making warfare. People feel threatened and respond in kind.

    I am adamantly opposed to any kind of regulations involving the minutiae of breeding dogs, because frankly, it's too subjective. Looking at the Neo in the post, most reasonable people would conclude that he is probably uncomfortable. But we have no objective measurement for this, easily understood by *anyone*, and I don't believe that you could actually write legislation regarding such things that would not be abused.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Steve Cox - If you threw a ball at this dog's face, could it catch it?

    Jemima - you say that there's no skin irritation under the nose in the older photo. I see it in that photo clear as day. Red angry skin, right under the nose, even the hair looks moist from the weeping.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I honestly cannot believe people are actually saying that photo has been altered... the pictures on the breeder's website are, as already mentioned, just as bad if not worse.

    Here's a thought for all the people that think this is a good, healthy example of the breed: Any normal/average person who would look at that picture would have the first thought of "What is wrong with his eyes?!"

    Anyone (except apparently the people breeding the dogs...) can recognize that the dog doesn't look healthy. He doesn't look comfortable. If you look at that dog and think he looks 'beautiful' there is seriously something wrong with you.

    Why are people even worried about Jemima's ancestors? Why does that matter? Why does anything other than the health and well being of the dogs matter? Any breeder who doesn't support changes being made by the kennel club, that doesn't support a more honest look at a breed's health and more health testing in addition to breeding not to favor excess but health and function...well that isn't an ethical breeder to me. That's not even a moral person. What really matters is that arrogant breeders (not only of Neos) refuse to admit they're wrong and swallow their own pride and do what is right by the dogs. Dogs have served as our companions, our protectors, our family and THIS is the thanks we give them?

    We should all be ashamed...

    ReplyDelete
  58. To be fair, photos can show things in a bad light I guess.

    So see leone here
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIX_aiLD16k

    He's the first dog you see (not the one with white chest or on eye drops).
    Nice close up of his face at 33/34 seconds in.

    ReplyDelete
  59. you can pause it for a good look at 35 seconds

    Looking dead forward you cannot see half his eyes?

    His eyes are tighter than the other two dogs but.....if that was a labrador you would be concerned about ectropian, particularly the eye to the right (as you look at him).

    ReplyDelete
  60. Miss Jemima!
    I absolutely *love* your blog and that you are pointing out the fact that mutants masquerading as normal dogs. Neo Mastiffs look as if someone ran them up into a wall. Those poor doggies and their eyes :( I'd love to see a breeder and dog switch bodies for a day and see how they liked living in all that floppy skin.

    Keep up the good work! The louder "they" scream, the closer to the truth you are :D

    ReplyDelete
  61. Annie Macfarlane14 November 2011 11:04

    "@Anin 22.28 You are a saint!

    Do you not realise that even breeders hate bent judges? By agreeing with Jemima Harrison it shows you have no idea about dogs. You done yourself a favour by remaining anonymous. Why not read the dog press, there are writers there outing bent judges. Agree with them rather than hang around dodgy blogs."

    And herein lies the problem!!!! "You done yourself a favour by remaining anonymous". That is a threat - purely because somebody has stated their opinion. I see nothing in the dog press "outing" bent judges - perhaps one article a little while ago that, interestingly, had the exact phrases I had used in a letter to the editor!

    These people have no idea of the strength of feeling about this behind closed doors - because the people are frightened to raise their heads above the pulpit due to the fact that they may "fall from grace".

    As usual though the writer of this post preferred to remain anonymous!

    This is shameful behaviour - especially when they themselves so clearly hang around "dodgy" blogs - as they put it...

    How can change happen when you have this type of mentality?

    ReplyDelete
  62. I will be very interested to see the Neo that wins 'Best of Breed' at Crufts 2012. As, according to the Kennel Club's own 'Fit for Function' campaign, it will need to be given a clean bill of health by a vet before its award can be confirmed.

    Unless the winning Neo looks completely different to the above dog, i.e. little to no loose skin and no ectropian, I do not see how any Neo can be given a clean bill of health. Unless clean bill of health precludes eye problems, joint problems or skin irritations. That amount of loose skin cannot be good for the dog - I can't see how any vet is going to get around this issue.

    I will be very interested to see the uproar from the general public should a dog like the one at Discover Dogs be awarded its 'Clean Bill of Health'.

    There are quite a few breeds of dogs that hold no appeal for me; that is just personal preference. However, with dogs like the Neo, I feel shocked by their deformities. If that dog was a mongrel, rather than a pedigree, people would be understandably appalled that unscrupulous, backyard breeders had 'bred' such a disfigured dog, with complete disregard for the dog's wellbeing.

    ReplyDelete
  63. My question does not seem to have reached you. Who is holding the dogs face and pulling the skin down below the eye in the pic?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Checked this with the person who took the pic. He wasn't touching the dog - a visitor to the stand was petting him. It is possible this might have dragged the eye down a bit, I guess. But check out other pix of this dog - they show the same problem.

    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
  65. I have to veer off topic, just a little, and with a slight grin. Jemima I think this comments section may actually now hold the record for "Godwin's law" in action, I've never seen it come up so quickly.

    For those who are unfamiliar:
    Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.

    ReplyDelete
  66. How do we know you're even telling the truth about the person taking the picture not pulling down the skin? I'm sorry but I certainly don't pet a dog by grabbing its face like that.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Nazi analogies as per Eugenics in pde

    ReplyDelete
  68. At last - an Anon using their real name!

    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
  69. Annie Macfarlane14 November 2011 15:29

    LOL....it's clear to see that the hand is no way pulling down the skin - as there are still folds of skin below the eye. If the skin was being pulled down there would be no folds - and you only have to look at the other photograph of the dog to see the eyes look the same. There are none so blind as those that cannot see! I won't even comment on what Mr Himmler says.....gee can things get any lower Jemima? I'm glad you've started posting all the comments. It makes us see just what you have to deal with on a daily basis.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Kate, that video is horrifying. Those poor dogs. It's clear the photos were not doctored at all. Sad sad sad.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Annie Macfarlane14 November 2011 15:33

    No health test results on the KC health test result finder for Rayvonley Leone. No hip scores, elbow scores or eye tests registered as of today's date. They may of course be in the pipeline...

    ReplyDelete
  72. Annie, my own bitch was health tested in July and her results are still not on the KC website...

    ReplyDelete
  73. Annie Macfarlane said "I'm glad you've started posting all the comments. It makes us see just what you have to deal with on a daily basis" gosh isnt niave to think thats what you do, as you havnt admitted that NO breed club or show has spoken to you for PDE as you were challneged here, we can see your normal editing takes place here too, to make things suit YOUR views. Thank goodness the BBC are now taking a very difference stance with you and Pedigree Dogs, and you will shown to be a loud voice but on the sidelines, and the true voices of dogs given THEIR chance.

    ReplyDelete
  74. You know Jemima I'm genuinely puzzled - if you truly wish to change this or indeed any other breed surely you need to work WITH those that breed them - constantly attacking the very people that could make any kind of change achieves nothing - all your huffing and puffing, snide comments and direct insults simply serve to alienate those who in the end hold all the cards - the breeders themselves- try working with them if your real objective is 'improvement' instead of raising your journalistic profile by any sensationalistic means

    ReplyDelete
  75. Annie, this is not normal traffic for this blog, most are here in response to Ms Harrison's underhand tactics at Discover Dogs on Saturday and her collaboration with the person faking images of the Neopolitan Mastiff. You are blind if you cannot see that the fingers is pulling down the eye of this dog - but then you are blinded by your misguided loyalty to your mistress aren't you? Do please remember that she has let you down on occassion as well.

    At least we know that most of the anon posters are true dog folk and not trouble makers, As for the names postersvery few even live in this country or have any knowledge of the show scene. It only takes one click to see they come from obscure places in America - one assumes members of HSUS like Jemima (and you?).

    How many MP's does Jemima have supporting her film eh? The 'Stop the BBC making another PDE' have over 200 helping them.

    Then when you have absorbed these words think on to why people are mentioning the Nazi party. It is not just Jemima's over zealous use of their movement in pde1 she has much closer links to them. Not nice is it when you think that this past weekend we were remembering the dead of wars past and what the Nazis did to our world.

    ReplyDelete
  76. bijou, I disagree. I think Jemima does at great job at educating the public on the horrific state of these "purebred" dogs. If people don't buy these genetic messes, the breeders will have no one to sell them to.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I've been involved with Mastini (Neapolitan Mastiffs) for years. I've seen behind-closed-doors at breeders' kennels and club committee meetings. No matter what anybody says, believe me when I tell you that they are not taking the KC's reforms seriously...

    ReplyDelete
  78. Hey Anon 16:27 ... did anyone pull down his eye in this photo? http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8sQ2jJybkPE/TsAPAtwcGbI/AAAAAAAAAmE/8hsKr-hry_g/s1600/darl-297.jpg Or did they photoshop in an all that extra skin? Why not post photos of this dog that you are happy with and you can show us what the dog really looks like. How about that?

    ReplyDelete
  79. It appears the Neapolitan Mastiff Club does not even care for the welfare of their own breed...

    http://www.neapolitanmastiffwelfare.org.uk/

    ReplyDelete
  80. Annie Macfarlane14 November 2011 17:49

    I knew it would only be a matter of time before I was branded an animal rights activist....but until these people actually start printing their names I will not allow myself to be drawn into their childish antics. You clearly think you know me though but not very well by the comments you've made about my personal interests...lol ?

    You may think that this dog's face is being pulled down; I don't....and as I've said his face is certainly not being interfered with on the second pic and his eyes still look the same.

    I realise the health test results for this dog may still be in the process of being published but as of today's date there are none available on the KC health test finder. Health tests are normally published fairly quickly so I would certainly get in touch with the KC to see what the problem is if your test results are still not on the website as that's a very long time to wait. :-)

    I'm not a member of HSUS or PETA or any other animals rights organisation and nowhere will you find information to the contrary!

    I would like to add that I find it worrying that breeders still believe that they will be holding the cards to make change in the future. I believe the time for persuasion has long passed. We now need more robust action from the KC...the way they manage the KCAB scheme is scandalous - especially as they make so many guarantees about the breeders who are members.

    The whole area of health needs to be removed from the KC. They've had long enough to make simple health testing mandatory. There is clearly a conflict of interest between the money made from registrations and the reduction in registrations should they introduce mandatory testing. This juxtaposition is just never going to work.....sadly.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Dear "Anonymous,"

    You are in denial. One need not live in the UK or be a member of HSUS in order to see what has happened to the Neapolitan mastiff. It is obvious to EVERYONE except the breeders themselves that they have taken what was once a relatively healthy, viable breed of dog and turned it into something hideous, deformed and crippled. Whether the dog's eye is pulled down in that one photo is COMPLETELY irrelevant. The dog looks the same in every photo on the breeder's own website! Does the breeder himself pull his dog's eyes down in every photo? Does he also squish his dog's front legs so that the feet and pasterns look weak and deformed? Sadly, no--he is posting the most flattering pictures of his dog that he has available. And yet, to the rest of us, his dog is depressingly deformed.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Would those people who allege that Jemima has close links with Nazis please put their money where their mouth is and stop talking in riddles. Same for this photoshopping and photo-falsifying talk. Evidence, names, spill the beans please. Otherwise quit the reductio ad absurdum (Hitlerum!) and give us all a sodding break.

    Kudos to the Mastino Club person who tells it like it is. Honesty is refreshing.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Bloody hell. I am just as appalled - if not moreso, every time I see a photo of a dog who's been bred to look like this. I wonder if we stretched the skin of the people who supported dogs looking like this, they'd be OK with it? Would you like to look like Elephant man?

    I don't care who says it's a breed standard, it's bullshit and anyone breeding dogs like this should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, AND if you BUY one, you're equally as responsible. (Unless you're kind enough to buy one, and take it to a vet to have the vast rolls of UTTERLY UNNECESSARY skin reduced.)

    ReplyDelete
  84. Even if the hand on the left side of the dog's face was pulling on the face (and based on the wrinkles between the hand and the eye I don't believe at all, if the hand were pulling down the skin would not have the horizontal folds), the dog's right eye is also extremely droopy and there are no hands on the right side of his face.

    ReplyDelete
  85. My Gods! Photoshopped eye disease? Nazis in the family tree? These comments take the cake for libel and character assasination of JH... have the negative anons escaped from Broadmoor?

    Jemima- perhaps its time to switch off the anon option?

    ReplyDelete
  86. What one is seeing from this unedifying exchange (one cant call it discussion) is that the anti PDE group dont even care whether the Neapolitan Mastiff has conformation so grotesque that it causes health problems and a shortened life, or about the poor little pug videod at Discover Dogs (not by Jemima) gasping for breath with protruding tongue and bulging eyes . All they want is another opportunity to throw slander and abuse at anybody who mentions these issues.
    Please can we stay with intelligent and impersonal discussion of canine conformation and health problems? That's what I expect to get when reading this blog website . Reacting to the disgusting slander lowers one to the level at which these people roll around in the gutter
    And yes, I would welcome having the anon alternative to a signature switched off. So people who post slander can be held accountable

    ReplyDelete
  87. Jonathan Margolis15 November 2011 08:43

    Anonymous @ 22:13 wrote: "Then ask her why she lies about her past? IF she was a 'top print journalist' for so long she would have a track record - she doesn't. Even journalists - 'top print journalists' - have never heard of her."..
    I'm a print journalist and I can promise you Jemima is a legend. It's you, anonymous, that are ignorant, She joined the BBC 1997 But before that wrote for just about everyone: Mail, Telegraph, Times,Guardian, Indy, Standard, Marie Claire and the Sunday supps.
    Maybe you should do your research properly, not just with a lazy Google search, and then apologise?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Forgot to add. I'm a real live British gundog breeder , with dogs currently being shown and field trialled in the UK, and took an active interest in health and conformation problems in purebred dogs long before I had ever heard of Jemima or met her. Most of what Jemima says and believes is not new, the same arguments , conformation v function and health have been around since the beginning of dog shows in the nineteenth century, what she has contributed is the use of her journalistic and film making skills to sharpen and focus the arguments , and get a much wider audience discussing them . What can be wrong with that? Whether you are agree or disagree, its a great opportunity to discuss the issues and increase the awareness of the dog owning public

    ReplyDelete
  89. For giggles, I have been trying to deform my dogs' lower eyelids by grabbing their facial skin and pulling down.

    Problem the first, there isn't really anything to grab, as their skin cleaves pretty well to their skulls. Funny, that.

    Problem the second, we are not amused. They've been humoring me so far, but my chances of being killed in my sleep seem to be rising with each experiment.

    Challenges aside, I have not been able to distort their eyelids at all, no matter how hard I pull. Also, at all times there is a full view of the entire iris of both eyes, with the exception of the small amount of nictating membrane that persists in Rosie's left eye, secondary to an injury a couple years ago. Also, they sometimes blink. (For Neo owners, that's this physiological reflex in which, for a fraction of a second, the animal's top and bottom eyelids manage to meet in the middle, completely, thereby cleaning and lubricating the cornea. Try it yourself -- you will be amazed! Don't ask your dog to try it.)

    Just sayin'.

    I'll see if I can get a photo of this in the daylight. It's not too easy to get a picture with one hand while yanking on a dog's face with the other.

    ReplyDelete
  90. The comments on this blog never cease to amaze me. It seems that ignorance is indeed bliss and that stupid people can become very aggressive in attempting to protect their idiotic state of bliss. Great work jemima :)

    ReplyDelete
  91. Annie Macfarlane15 November 2011 15:39

    Of course the discussion should be about canines - and nothing else. It's interesting to note that the Anons don't add anything to the discussion about dogs but merely use it to make libellous comments that they can't back up. There is of course an option to identify the perpetrators of such libel via their IP address if Jemima chooses to do so. Every comment is traceable....you are never Anon on the WWW!

    ReplyDelete
  92. I admit its not nice to have your breed ripped to bits on nationbal tv. its not nice to be told you and your forbears have got it wrong for the last 100 years and seriously ruined your dogs health in pursuit of appearance.

    BUT the fact is dog breeding and showing needed a good kick up the backside so change could happen. Yes PDE caused a lot of upset

    but when that blows over hopefully the future of all breeds will be brighter, Breeders will take more notice of their dogs health for fear of being exposed and not keep inbreeding sick dogs until a problem gets so widespread that it cant be ignored.

    Would So many cavaliers have been MRI scanned if there had been no PDE ? or would things have gotten worse and worse with the few who did notice the problems mocked & ignored until the dogs where simply too sick and inbred to reproduce anymore.

    if PDE had come out 15 years ago could we have stopped these problems before they became so widespread ?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Annie Macfarlane15 November 2011 16:53

    I found the following statement from an experienced Mastino person particularly horrifying that I feel I had to share them here (with permission!) to get some answers from the people who are breeding these dogs.

    "....The eye drops are usually either to soothe entropion or to lubricate the eye because the tear glands have been removed (in Neapolitans)...."

    When I asked why the tear glands would have been removed (which I found horrifying bearing in mind that "tears" are nature's way of clearing debris from the eye), I was given the following information.

    "....The glands are removed because they pop out at some point during puppyhood due to the looseness of the connective tissue (being pulled down by excessive flews. This is called Cherry Eye and is actually accepted as a normality in the breed. Tacking or scrolling the gland back never works because the connective tissue is rarely strong enough to hold the gland in permanently so they are generally removed, often requiring life-long artificial lubrication of the eye to keep it healthy. The most horrific thing to ever happen to me when I ran the breed rescue was a well-known breeder criticising me for spending £500 on the op for a dog in our care when his vet "... would've done it for £25 per eye without anaesthetic..."

    Is this something that a dog should have to endure in order to have "type"? I just can't get my head around this! I would welcome replies from Mastino breeders please. Tell me that this is not so.

    I would add that I have been told this will be vehemently denied but that a simple search on Mastino forums will tell the real truth.

    The suffering.........this is a true welfare issue... :-(

    ReplyDelete
  94. It is terrible to think that dogs are being bred to need ops and this is seen as the norm...I do really hope that the general public don't think this is the normal attitude of people who breed dogs. Some breeders give little consideration to dogs health which is quite evident but some of us do try really really hard to keep our dogs really healthy.

    ReplyDelete
  95. The Cherry eye commonly affects young dogs, especially Beagles, Cocker Spaniels, Boxers, Neapolitan Mastiffs, Chinese Shar-Peis, Pekingese, and Bulldogs. Cherry eye also affects cats. Burmese and Persian cats are more prone to developing this condition than most other cat breeds.
    Treatment of "Cherry Eye"
    Treatment varies by exact diagnosis. Usually, the treatment involves a surgical procedure where the prolapsed gland is pushed back in its pocket. This procedure can be performed under local anaesthesia , which explains £25 for each eye (maybe a few years ago however )

    ReplyDelete
  96. Cherry eye does NOT normally affect well-bred dogs of certain breeds. It is never a norm for any breed. It is only the direct result of the irresponsible breeding of poor quality, unhealthy dogs.

    ReplyDelete
  97. I admire what PDE has done, but feel some sympathy with breeders. Photos are often cheap shots. Some conditions/conformations that look awful are not serious. Some things that look fine mask serious underlying problems. Photo-mania is great for the media. But I fear there's a disconnect between how serious a condition is and how easy it is to display in a photo. I hope PDE II will pay more attention to temperament and not get so hung up on wrinkles.

    ReplyDelete
  98. "Treatment varies by exact diagnosis. Usually, the treatment involves a surgical procedure where the prolapsed gland is pushed back in its pocket. This procedure can be performed under local anaesthesia , which explains £25 for each eye (maybe a few years ago however )"

    If you get to it quickly you can do it yourself;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hzgHo4SSKg&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

    ReplyDelete
  99. Annie Macfarlane16 November 2011 10:54

    The whole thing about the statement I posted was the fact that in the Mastino the connective tissue is not strong enough to hold the gland in place and so it pops out again - hence the removal. That's what I'm taking from it anyway!

    I do believe that this is a breed that does suffer due to the conformation. I know it must be hard for breeders who have been involved in the breed for many years to accept this criticism - nobody wants to be criticised - but I do think that the time has come to look realistically at the breed and identify areas for change. Cherry eye should not be classed as a breed norm...... I realise that other breeds can suffer from it but often it's dogs that have been badly bred. In the mastino however I would imagine that cherry eye is caused due to the extensive loose skin. It's very sad to see an animal like this.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Just back from Nepal and saw a number of street dogs with Cherry eye.......so much for Hybrid vigour!

    ReplyDelete
  101. Annie Macfarlane16 November 2011 13:50

    With all due respect, we're not talking about street dogs in Nepal, we're talking about a dog that is specifically bred to look a certain way that causes cherry eye and other issues.

    Many breeds and dogs can suffer from cherry eye on occasion. Nobody is disputing that fact. The real welfare issue here is that dogs are continuing to be bred that have a huge predisposition to cherry eye which means they require surgery to remove the gland because of problems with connective tissue. The dog then ends up requiring eye drops all its life and has no natural way of removing debris from the eye. The fact that most appear to have ectropion adds to the problem.

    Is it fair and ethical to be breeding dogs that may suffer in this manner and if the breed specialists are actually correcting this themselves then that is actually against the law - but there are videos showing this on Youtube.

    Surely the best thing to do would be to try and breed out this "breed characteristic" albeit it may be difficult because it's so prevalent - but please let's not get confused with things such as hybrid vigour as it's not the issue here but may be an interesting topic for further discussion at a later date.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Jonathan said
    I'm a print journalist and I can promise you Jemima is a legend.
    Legend to whom? legends roll of the tongue like Andrew Neil, John Pilger, James Weatherup, Mike Molloy, Eve Pollard, Garry Bushell. These Jonathan are Legends in history. Jemima is probably a legend in her lunch hour.

    You said She joined the BBC 1997
    So Pedigree Dogs Exposed was commissioned because of Nepotism was it?

    You Said before that wrote for just about everyone: Mail, Telegraph, Times,Guardian, Indy, Standard, Marie Claire and the Sunday supps.
    Where are these alleged articles? why did she not answer this when it has been brought up before? Why did she need to get you involved?


    You said Maybe you should do your research properly, not just with a lazy Google search.

    She should learn to do the same thing!

    The great British public are growing tired of her type of journalism and seek honesty, truth and humilty. Something that she sadly lacks.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Without stopping to check up on the exact details and facts, but the shar pei of the 80's (check out that classic 80's teen flick 'Weird Science')looked very like a smaller version of the neo today, and the breed clubs realised that this was wrong, and changed the standard to reduce the amount of folding in the skin and improve the health of the breed. Maybe the folk behind that movement might be traceable and willing to help share their experiences?

    ReplyDelete
  104. Bijou, regarding your post from November 14th: everybody should be nice to the breeders "who have al the cards" so they will take a new interest in not breeding on deformity?
    Look, breeders hold no more cards than legislation and public patience will allow them. If breeders would avoid legislation - for goodness sake, wake up!

    As for snide comments, fake, etc, you lot take the cake, any day, any comparison. Yes, if the anonymity option could be switched off, I for one think it would be great. Either the mad hatters disappear from the blog, leaving articulate comments pertinent to subject at hand; or else get used to the common decency of showing their faces.

    So the great British public is getting tired of something? I should think so, but judging from visiting figures it´s not this website they´re getting tired of. Very possibly, people are getting tired of you! Too many comments here display a level of knowledge and an attitude of mind to make absolutely anybody weary of "true dog people". Honestly, Jemima, please consider refusing anonymous comments - they´re so boringly similar, such a waste of time, and they give breed people such a name...

    ReplyDelete
  105. Annie Macfarlane16 November 2011 17:13

    Victor M..... this is a blog about the Discover Dogs, the KCAB scheme and the Mastino....what part of your post is relevant to that? There are those of us that are growing tired of the continuous insults put forward by the anti-PDE group on this blog. We want honesty, truth and humility - for the sake of the dogs being bred for "type" that severely affects their quality of life.

    We want to discuss dogs. If you don't want to discuss dogs then I can't understand why you bother to visit this "dodgy" blog - as somebody put it. There's a hell of a lot of work going into some of these posts.....work that would be better spent elsewhere me thinks.

    Sandly Cindy...the Shar Pei is not a healthy breed. There are far too many people breeding it who know nothing about the health problems - most of them BYBs or puppy farmers - but the breed also suffers from very serious health issues - eye problems, skin problems and, worst of all, a condition called FSF - familial shar pei fever which can lead to a death sentence by way of amyloidosis. Many Shar Pei die young because of amyloidosis and sadly there is no way of curing it. There has been research carried out recently which may help with FSF in the future so fingers crossed. This is a breed that is well favoured with back yard breeders because there are no required health tests whatsoever. I find that very strange considering the problems.... :-( Some of the BYBs and PFs are actively breeding for more wrinkles but it has to be said that the more experienced breeder DOES NOT breed excessive wrinkles so they definitely have been working towards getting away from that look.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Its a shame that so man on here that just slag off pedigree dogs and try to blame all problems on shows, breeders or the Kennel Club, didnt bother to such an event as Discover Dogs, perhaps like the rest of the public who do go they would of gained some knowledge, information and dare I say it some respect for those groups above who have since the 1940's striven to improve the health and welfare not just in many breeds but ALL dogs. Annie M harps on about teh KC interested in money above health, well perhaps if she looked at the published accounst for the club she would see where any profit goes back to help ALL dogs, and indeed fund such event as discover dogs that show the positives all all breeds and dogs

    ReplyDelete
  107. Just how exactly does it matter if its anonymous or not??? are you going to start turning up at said peoples doors, i really don't see how it has any relavance to a debate.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Oh, no! Don't switch off the Anon button. The Anon posts keep me coming back often. I love to read the hidden thoughts of these breeders, and you can only find them out if they can hide their identities.

    Also, no matter how many times I try to sign up for Google Account and WordPress, etc., I still cannot post here using any of them. So, I must remain one of the Anon, myself. -- Rod Russell, Orlando, Florida USA

    ReplyDelete
  109. Jonathan Margolis16 November 2011 18:14

    Dear Victor,
    It's very amusing watching you squirm, old chap, but while opinion is cheap, you can't fight facts.
    I know, because it's my business, what I'm talking about when I say Jemima was a well-established Fleet Street writer before she went to the BBC.
    You, in the absence of a scintilla of knowledge and no idea what you're talking about are instead flailing around impotently trying to back up this still-born fantasy about her NOT being a former Fleet Street writer of high repute.
    You ask 'Where are these alleged articles?'
    Well, I put it to you, you're the pipsqueaks trying to prove she's an impostor, so you go search. Prove it. Bring to the table statements from each of the publications I mentioned having never published her work.
    Then, you will have your moment.
    Why did she need to get me involved? Well I involved myself, actually. I don't like lies being published. Sorry, it's my training as a journalist.
    I also know Jemima as a superb, hugely knowledgable and wholly trustworthy authority on her subjects.
    The Great British public (brilliant, original phrase, Vic) isn't getting tired of her type of journalism.
    It is desperate for more because, it loves honesty, truth and humility.
    I wouldn't be so rude as to suggest you wouldn't know those qualities if they bit your confused rear.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Annie Macfarlane said...Sandly Cindy...the Shar Pei is not a healthy breed. There are far too many people breeding it who know nothing about the health problems - most of them BYBs or puppy farmers.

    Yes, byb's and pf's will always be cashing in, but in this instance, you acknowledge that it was the 'breeders' that 'did something'.. better than nothing, hugely better than nothing and a huge step in the right direction.. and surely then, praise where praise is due to encourage these folk to keep on making improvements and lead the way? Better than just saying everyone is c**p without distinction.

    ReplyDelete
  111. I agree about not banning the anons. I don't watch "reality"
    television because it is too vulgar. This blog is where I come to slum, to catch a gimpse into the fevered consciousnesses of the most deluded of "the fancy."

    When nice, ordinary people who are looking for a pet dog -- and newbie wannabe SAR dog handlers looking for a real working partner -- disbelieve my self-moderated caveats about the deranged priorities and distorted perceptions of members of "the fancy," who will try to sell them a pig in a poke, I can now say "Dude, you have no idea," and send them here.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Please make a correction for Jonathan Margolis (as we know journalist should check facts and print/report the truth) Jemmima Harrison is not and never has been employed by the BBC, she sells ready made TV to them or anyone else who will pay the price, indeed the BBC Board of Trustees confirmed this in their recent report. Isnt it only right you should clarify this point?

    ReplyDelete
  113. Yes, very happy to "clarify this point".

    1) I was indeed employed by the BBC.

    2) I do not sell "ready-made" TV to the BBC or anyone else. All our programmes have been commissioned and entirely funded by the BBC/BBC Worldwide or other broadcasters).

    3) You are wrong about the BBC Trust 'report'.

    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
  114. Annie Macfarlane16 November 2011 20:57

    To Cindy. Yes I absolutely agree with you. You should not call all breeders c**p and that's the reason I commented that an experienced Shar Pei breeder does not breed for excess wrinkles. I find that is the domain of the BYBs and PFs. That aside though the Shar Pei still has significant health problems that need addressing. I am happy that research has been carried out into FSF and hope that this can be used in the future to help the breed and stop dogs dying horrible deaths at an early age. I would also like to see basic health testing for the breed ie hips, elbows and eyes as done in the USA (I don't think elbows are done there but I know hips, eyes and thyroid are routinely tested by good breeders) as I think that would go a long way to separating the wheat from teh chaff ie the reputable breeders from the BYBs and PFs. At the moment there is nothing to differentiate them. The original Shar Pei looks so different to the dogs being bred now but I understand that temperaments of the original dogs did not make them ideal family pets or show dogs. The Shar Pei bred now have better temperaments but I wonder if health has been sacrificed for this.

    It's my understanding that the BBC "commission" documentaries and therefore the companies involved are in fact employed by the BBC to produce them. Although not directly employed by the BBC and on their payroll, one would imagine that they are paid for the work they do so, effectively, they do work "with" the BBC as a contractor.

    I'm very much looking forward to viewing Pedigree Dogs Exposed 2 to see what changes have taken place for the benefit of dogs since 2008. There have been significant changes so let's see how it's actually affected their quality of life.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Jemima,

    You ask: This is the question that exercises me most, really: how do you educate people who don't want to be educated? And when - if ever - do you give up trying to persuade them and bring in measures which force them to do the right thing by the dogs?

    Welcome to the nightmare world of the educator.

    I can’t answer the first question. If I could, I’d have been able to retire a very rich woman long ago.

    I came across this article when I was asking myself the same question regarding people who cut off their dogs’ ears and tails (I don’t do euphemisms). Sadly, this is still an issue here in North America.

    Tail docking in dogs: can attitude change be achieved?
    PC BENNETT, E. PERINI
    Australian Veterinary Journal
    Volume 81, Issue 5, pages 277–282, May 2003

    The article uses cognitive dissonance theory as a framework and discusses the question we struggle with: why do perfectly nice people who love their dogs dearly and often campaign for their welfare still subject them to a process that causes suffering for no useful purpose. The framework is transferable to understanding those who breed dogs that have conformation standards that create welfare issues. To change the way of thinking requires those involved recognizing that what they do causes suffering. Most people are unable to do this because it is simply too painful a realization to make. It is utterly horrifying to understand that you have deliberately caused unnecessary pain to a sentient being you love and that loves you in return. The conclusion is that there is little hope for changing the mindset of those already deeply involved in the process but that there is some hope for more success with the general public and those who are newer to dog breeding: you need to educate before the entrenchment. The rest are basically a lost cause.

    Which brings me to your second question. That one is easy to answer:

    Never.

    You never, ever, ever give up trying. Giving up means you have lost hope. You have allowed ignorance to triumph. You have accepted the unacceptable suffering that results.

    Focus on the successes, however small, because every small change changes the world for someone or something.

    You have already made changes happen. More will happen because of you. Keep going.

    ReplyDelete
  116. You don't argue with idiots in order to enlighten them. That horse has long since fled the barn.

    You grit your teeth and engage, without stooping, in order to give the idiots ample opportunity to expose themselves for what they are to the great mass of interested non-experts.

    "Fanciers" have been explaining to ordinary pet owners and other civilians about "what makes a quality dog" for decades. They've usurped the position of subject-matter experts while wallowing in their own willful ignorance about the most elementary principles of genetics, substituting a self-referential "mastery" of their own gibberish based on whole-cloth lore and a fetish for meaningless fancy points.

    Quite a few of the "civilians" have always seen through this pretentious posturing. Unfortunately, they often respond by rejecting the very concept of hard-won, genuine, and relevant expertise. (Hence, for example, the explosion of "designer" mongrels that are no more thoughtfully-bred than the unfortunate purebreds who sire them.)

    Those who have made a genuine study of dogs, the realities of their genetics, and the ways that a breeder, a buyer, and a community can optimize their chances of ending up with healthy, sound, functional dogs whose own bodies and brains are not a torture to them, can earn the attention of the interested multitudes only if they are obviously different from the self-deluded, breed-blind and body-image-dysmorphic-by-proxy "fanciers" who have gotten dogs, and their owners, into a heartbreaking genetic mess.

    There are ways out for almost every breed, and the solution is not a goldendoodle.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Annie Macfarlane said...
    [quote]To Cindy. Yes I absolutely agree with you. You should not call all breeders c**p and that's the reason I commented that an experienced Shar Pei breeder does not breed for excess wrinkles. I find that is the domain of the BYBs and PFs. That aside though the Shar Pei still has significant health problems that need addressing.[/quote]

    Still missing my point (Cindy is my beautiful weim, I'm Diana) - I was answering the question 'how do you?'.. and as I believe in clicker training, and positive reinforcement, I see a situation whereby there is opportunity to reward the good, and make a very prominent example of the 'good work started'.. Of course, there's always more to be done, but if you set the treadmill rolling at too high a speed before people have a chance to make up pace, you'll get more people giving up and jumping off before they get a chance to see the benefit for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Annie Macfarlane17 November 2011 14:52

    Diana, I think that the KCAB scheme was designed to reward the good breeders - to separate them from the less reputable. It's been going now since 2004. What has happened however is that the less than reputable are able to use the KCAB scheme as a way of promoting their dogs, puppies and kennels because they are allowed to become members, in amongst the good breeders. The KC are actively promoting this scheme as a way to stop puppy farming - which clearly it does not. I'm sure when it was first introduced the aim was to reward and give recognition to those following best practice. As we can see from the original post this hasn't happened and I wonder if its too late now to change.

    Members of the KCAB scheme are rewarded for the number of litters they breed; they are not rewarded for carrying out necessary health screening; using healthy bloodlines etc., Top dogs in the UK are rewarded by the number of "wins" they have at champ shows - not how healthy they are and whether they are "fit for function". This is wrong!

    I personally think that the time has come for the whole area of health and breeding to be removed from the KC and given to an independent body. The KC can still register the puppies and hold their events, but health and welfare need to be removed for the sake of the dogs. The KC would then follow the rules set down by a separate body prior to registration. This would take a lot of the criticism from them and, in fact, may give their more power to work for dogs.

    If this were any other organisation in the business world they would be reported to the Monopolies Commission. The Kennel Club is, however, a private members club and they set their own rules. There's clearly a conflict of interest between litters registered and health - hence the reason there are no mandatory health screening requirements prior to registration with the KC. Would their registrations reduce if they did this? I don't think so, but still they refuse to take the one simple action that could make a lot of difference to dogs.

    Cognitive dissonance is an interesting take on this topic. The thing about cognitive dissonance is that the person actually makes themselves believe that things are OK but still has a feeling of unrest until they remove themselves from the situation causing unrest. From the comments posted by breeders on this blog I get the feeling that they don't think they're doing anything wrong! It's a strange one certainly - when all the evidence points in the other direction!

    I don't know what the answer is, but you can't change people if they don't want to change - or worse - if they don't think they need to change.

    If this behaviour was being meted out to an electrical appliance or the like then it wouldn't be so difficult to understand - but it involves living, sentient animals and that's where the real tragedy lies.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Cindy, Diana, You are so right reward good behaviour. This is exactly where the program went wrong. It came over as informing the general public that all dog breeders, what ever the breed, are evil,stupid and uncaring. As someone whose whole life has been dedicated to studying genetics, pedigrees, exhibiting and occasionally breeding (one litter per generation) a breed of un exaggerated type with few health probs I took offence. Why would I want to breed unhealthy dogs to compete with.
    Heather I agree Goldendoodles are not the solution.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Annie Macfarlane said... [..] I do agree with much of what you say re the KC. I'm not at all pro KC but I am in awe of the most incredible creature that is the most versatile, most understated, most by-our-side defender and supporter of human kind, that is the pedigree dog.

    ReplyDelete
  121. "Bijou, regarding your post from November 14th: everybody should be nice to the breeders "who have al the cards" so they will take a new interest in not breeding on deformity?"

    ...actually I did not say you had to be nice to us but I sure as hell think you have to work with us if you want any kind of change - and of course we hold all the cards - we after all are the ones doing the breeding !! - you can huff and puff until you're blue in the face but in the end you can do absoloutely nothing without our involvement and support - for goodness sake stop the endless insults and sarcastic comments it simply drives both sides even further apart - you must realise that you will NEVER be able to force change - bodies like Dog Advisory Council need to have many more dog breeders on board and actually LISTEN to what we have to say and work with breed clubs to formulate realistic and sustainable changes to those few breeds that need it on a breed by breed basis -


    "This is exactly where the program went wrong. It came over as informing the general public that all dog breeders, what ever the breed, are evil,stupid and uncaring. As someone whose whole life has been dedicated to studying genetics, pedigrees, exhibiting and occasionally breeding (one litter per generation) a breed of un exaggerated type with few health probs I took offence. Why would I want to breed unhealthy dogs to compete with."


    ......exactly and this is I'm sure the view of most of us - why would you deliberately alienate the very people you need to work with ?

    ReplyDelete
  122. Well, no, Bijou: you are after all not the ones who do all the breeding. Competition is getting tough. We don´t have puppy farms in this country and very few designer dogs, at least as yet. But whereas we did until recently have basically only pedigree dogs - the others were either mishaps that people were a bit embarrassed about, or mixes of two hunting breeds that the hunters produced for a special purpose to suit their own needs - we now, since perhaps ten years back, have a situation where more and more people prefer cross breeds or non-pedigree purebreds. Why? Distrust of health in pedigree purebreds and distrust of motives behind pedigree pure-breeding. I understand that this is not the only country where things move in that direction and it´s not entirely difficult to understand. Again, Bijou: you hold only so many cards as the public and the market deal you. And it seems to me that they are falling in numbers.
    Ever wondered if it´s pedigree breeders that to some extent alienate the very people they would sell to?

    ReplyDelete
  123. "Distrust of health in pedigree purebreds and distrust of motives behind pedigree pure-breeding."

    ...and we all know where that distrust came from .....!!

    despite the rise of the designer doodle the public remains passionate about pedigree dogs just look at all those folk who visited Discover Dogs last weekend ( nearly 30,000 ) go to any park and you'll see many happy healthy pedigree dogs chosen and loved for their unique breed traits - in my small village alone we have Bouviers, German Spitz, Groenendael and Tervueren, Standard Poodles, Cardigan Corgis, Giant Schnauzers, Leonbergers, OES and Elkhounds as well as the usual Labs, Cockers and GSD - if we want to continue enjoying all this glorious choice then just who would you have producing them ? .... puppy farmers - or breed specialist hobby breeders such as myself ? - for goodness sake grow up, stop insulting us and start actually talking...and listening ... to those that do the job.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Just a quick note; cherry eye can not be fixed properly under local anaesthetic and surgery costs more like £250 per eye! Cherry eye surgery should be reported by the vet to the KC, but this needs the co-operation of the owners.
    Vicky Payne (I have to post as anon or I can't post at all! silly computer virus guard software)

    ReplyDelete
  125. Is Bijou seriously trying to blame PDE for the public's distrust of show-dog fanciers, and a cultural shift towards both adoption of shelter dogs and cleverly-marketed crossbreeds?

    I guess Jemima has some heavy-duty powers over the time-space continuum, then.

    For the record, I have been a working dog breeder for 8 years, and found nothing in PDE that attacked "all" breeders.

    If one identifies oneself fully with a corrupt institution, then one chooses to take on the criticism leveled against it. Sure, some Catholics believed that holding the Church, as an institution, accountable for the child-rapes that it has enabled and perpetuated was an "attack on Catholics." But most sensible Catholics can differentiate between themselves and the corruption of an institution. And most don't deny that the victims were themselves Catholics who had been made vulnerable by misplaced trust in a corrupt institution and the unearned elevation of unworthy individuals.

    It matters not a whit that some individuals within a flawed and corrupt institution endeavor to hold themselves to higher standards, or, in fact, entirely different standards than those promulgated by the corrupted system. As long as the rewards, incentives, and sanctions are designed to favor wrong actions, the overall results will reflect that evil.

    Just ferexample, a scheme that is presented to consumers as a means of assuring health and quality in a puppy they purchase, but in fact does no such thing -- does not require that dogs bred or sold meet minimum health thresholds for their breeds, and stamps a seal of approval on "puppy farmers" (what we call puppymillers here) -- that's a corrupt scheme. It is designed to serve the sellers and mislead the buyers. The fact that it could be good if it was designed correctly is not relevant. The fact that some sellers do practice due diligence is also not relevant -- in fact, those sellers are placed at a disadvantage because the shysters receive the same, or in some cases, a "better," stamp of approval from the corrupt institution.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Posting as 'Anonymous' as every time I try to post as something else, my comment gest lost in the system...

    Bijou, I don't think you can assume that everyone who went to Discover dogs is a 100% in favour of pedigree dogs. I know one person who went, the proud owner a lovely dog known to us as a 'Labradinger'.

    For my own part, I am not anti-pedigrees. It's just on the basis of what I have read and such genetic knowledge as I have, I think that closed registries are a really duff idea. I also think that it's truly shocking that dogs are bred to have extreme features which make them uncomfortable and unable to do the 'dog stuff' their minds are wired to do.

    And re the point about who holds the cards, they are not all in the hands of the pedigree breeders: they are in the hands of anyone who wants a dog and anyone who has an intact dog capable of reproducing. Both our dogs are neutered, but I would never sign a spay-neuter contract on buying a dog: if I buy the dog, that is my decision.

    Bex

    ReplyDelete
  127. Yes, Heather, I should think that Bijou is actually delicately hinting that Jemima Harrison´s film and journalism was the sole cause of it all, down to the point where countryside people in Sweden who couldn´t even spell PDE and never heard of Ms Harrison have unwittingly fallen into her trap...? I agree with you, there must be extraordinary powers at work here.
    Either Bijou finds it convenient to believe this, or she finds it convenient if the rest of us would believe it. Don´t ask me which it is!

    So, where, then, would I buy my next pedigree dog? From any of the knowledgeable, health and mentality testing, small scale hobby breeders that bring up and sell puppies and not pieces of paper full imaginary merits with a dog attached to them. There are enough many breeders of that kind around - no need to put up with arrogance and pretense. Like Heather says, most of us "civilians" want dogs that can live long and actively as our friends and/or working partners; give us those dogs and keep the CCs!

    ReplyDelete
  128. ????? ..... - my point is that unless you are personally going to breed your own 'improved' versions of every breed you disapprove of then you'll simply have to work with those that ARE breeding - hurling insults may be fun but ultimately is pretty unproductive - but hey you know I think that it's the war against the 'evil pedigree dog breeders' that's the main focus on this blog not actually moving anything forward !........

    ReplyDelete
  129. Bijou said:

    ‘...and we all know where that distrust came from ...’

    This distrust has been going on for years and years.

    When I was a baby in the early 1960s, my mother, who had had purebred dogs all her life, had to put down a beautiful, much-loved spaniel because it had such severe behavioural issues it was too dangerous to be around me or to be adopted to a new home. My mother put the blame squarely on the dog being too inbred.

    The dog I grew up with was a border collie. You can guess what dog politics I grew up with as well and where my family stands.

    Distrust of pedigreed dog breeders among quite a large group of people predates PDE by quite some time.

    ‘…start actually talking...and listening ... to those that do the job.’

    I couldn’t agree more. Breeders such as Heather Houlahan, Jess, and Border Wars are well worth listening to and I do so on a regular basis.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Bodil,

    Or you could get your next pedigree dog from a dog rescue, rather than *any* breeder, and possibly save a life. There are lots of unwanted pedigree dogs to be had. (There are even more mongrels needing homes.)

    ReplyDelete
  131. Kate says "Or you could get your next pedigree dog from a dog rescue, rather than *any* breeder, and possibly save a life. There are lots of unwanted pedigree dogs to be had. (There are even more mongrels needing homes.) " well most good breeders take back what they have bred no matter what age or what reason, and dont forget the largest dog rescue are the BREED clubs who rehome more dogs than ALL the otehr major charities like RSPCA, Dogs Trust, Battersea combined, and ostof the breed rescues are funded and run by those who have or do show their dogs, .............can she tell us if the designer dogs set do this or those who produce a;; the monrels?

    ReplyDelete
  132. Kate, I might. Friend of mine got a GSD bitch a few months back, a dog that was "dog aggressive" and troublesome and too much to handle for inexperienced young owner. Non-registered, no pedigree, unknown background, normally built straight-back classic GSD... and an animal of such impressive intelligence that it is a joy to watch her now learning to play, to interact, to understand spoken words. That bitch keeps reminding me of the great delight it is to have the company I of another intelligent species. She would have made a marvellous SAR dog, I think. Yeah, she has no papers, but it´s not the papers that make the value of the dog, is it? It´s the dogs that make the papers meaningful, so we can know where the mind and the will came from and let the breeders know they´ve done their job well.

    Then again, that bitch is what she is BECAUSE a generation or two back there are registered good working dogs bred by people who set out to produce GSD:s like her...

    ReplyDelete
  133. Mistrust of KC registered pedigree dogs is nothing new . Breeders of working sheepdogs, working terriers , greyhounds and lurchers have always preferred to stay outside the KC. Working gundog breeders in the UK have mostly used KC registration and papers , while remaining sceptical about the necessity for "purity" and closed stud books, continuing to quietly do the occasional outcross when they deemed it necessary. For all these groups of breeders, function took priority over form and purity of pedigree. In the US, many working gundogs are not registered with the AKC but with the American Field or other registries, who are less rigid about purity
    What Jemima was saying in PDE had been said by many before her, that the breeding of show dogs within closed registries had produced useless dogs incapable of performing their original functional, handicapped by their conformation, and with a multitude of genetic and health problems. In more recent years , but before PDE, there were Internet groups like John Armstrong's Canine Genetics list which attracted people who shared many of these ideas. Very distinguished people like Jeffrey Bragg (Seppala sled dogs) , Laura Sanborn and Norman Epstein(Working German Shepherds), Donald McCaig (working sheepdogs), and many more. I joined a Working Setters list in 1998, which was set up for setter owners and breeders who wanted to have functional healthy working setters, and deplored what breeding for the show ring and closed registries had done to their breeds - extremes of conformation and long lists of health problems
    The idea that dog shows and closed registries are not entirely beneficial for the breeding of functional healthy dogs has been around since the earliest days of shows and kennel clubs, and some breeders have opted to stay out of both with good reason. You cannot try to pin the blame for these ideas on Jemima!

    ReplyDelete
  134. It's just as ridiculous to blame Jemima for the popularity of Labradoodles. There have been Labrador/Poodle crosses known as Labradoodles sinces the 1950! And their popularity took off in the late 1980's when they were bred as guide dogs in Australia
    There is some sound evidence that crossbreeding does produce healthier dogs with stronger immune systems, and less risk of doubling up on recessive gene problems. Statistics from pet insurance companies show that crossbreds have lower costs of veterinary care than purebreds. Helmuth Wachtel , the Austrian scientist, has written fairly convincingly about the better health of crossbred dogs. Although many labradoodle breeders are simply cashing in on a trend in the pet market, there are other breeders who genuinely believe that crossbreeding healthy purebreds will produce dogs with even fewer problems, and puppy buyers who also believed it, and well before PDE

    ReplyDelete
  135. Anonymous 18 November 2011 22:58 said...

    "well most good breeders take back what they have bred no matter what age or what reason, and dont forget the largest dog rescue are the BREED clubs who rehome more dogs than ALL the otehr major charities like RSPCA, Dogs Trust, Battersea combined, and ostof the breed rescues are funded and run by those who have or do show their dogs, .............can she tell us if the designer dogs set do this or those who produce a;; the monrels?"

    I will take back any dog of my breeding at any time in it's life, whether it's a purebred or a 'mongrel.' Pups have a sixty day money back guarantee, no questions asked; health warranty, and are microchipped.

    My primary focus is my 'mongrels.' I also breed purebreds; my last litter was co-bred with a 'show' breeder, a combination of coursing and show lines.

    Stick that in your pigeonhole and smoke it.

    ReplyDelete
  136. I miss Dr. Armstrong and the old CANGEN list so much.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Anonymous 18 November 2011 22:58 wants to know if the producers of designer dogs or mongrels take back puppies. I have known two dogs who went back to their breeders. One was to what is so kindly called a 'BYB' - a couple who had a single pedigree litter from their bitch. After a year or so, what they had thought was a good home didn't want their puppy anymore, and they took her back and have her still. The other was your classic scrappy mongrel puppy. One of the owners fell terminally ill, and the breeder of said scrappy mongrel immediately took him back and eventually found him a new home.

    Yeah, I know this is just anecdotal evidence, but to my mind it's reasonable proof that not every person who breeds the occasional litter - even the occasional mongrel litter - is careless or heartless.

    Bex

    ReplyDelete
  138. Look, it might not be a doable idea, but I keep wondering... What if there was a common website portal (is that the word?) for all of us who share the same views on dogs, all who read and write blogs like Jemima´s, so that there was one place where all the blogs were registered and easily accessible?
    I know there are many of us who share the same thoughts and quite a few with more knowledge to sdhare with others. What if we got together in one place?
    We´d have visiting figures and convincing arguments enough to create some leverage for change.

    ReplyDelete
  139. The Cangen list still continues , with some of the same people, but the current moderator censors discussion, particularly anything critical of show dogs and breeders, has many members permanently on moderation,or removes them from the list, and makes it difficult for new people to join. Still some good contributors but the list doesnt have the same freedom of discussion that it had when John Armstrong was alive

    ReplyDelete
  140. I am disappointed (although not surprised) to see that not one of the people who accused Jemima of altering the photos of Leone has posted what they feel are "undoctored" photos of him ... especially Steve Cox, who accused her of posting a "sneaky photo" and to whom I directly asked (as per his request) to post his own photos. There has been no response. It speaks for itself, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  141. Annie Macfarlane19 November 2011 17:39

    Also the question I raised about tear duct removal and DIY cherry eye correction!

    I would also like to see the figures that confirm that breed rescue re-homes more than all the other rescues put together! All these comments are made with no evidence to back them up. I would also say that if the breed rescues are re-homing more dogs than the other rescue charities - doesn't that say something about the breeders selling their puppies to the wrong homes - and not taking them back?

    I have great admiration for anybody who is involved in rescue so I'm not trying to argumentative there....but these comments really need to stop without the evidence to back them up. There are hundreds of charities up and down the country that are bursting at the seams who do a fantastic job and most of them ARE NOT affiliated to breed clubs or the show world. They're much too busy to be doing that too. If it is the case that the breed rescues are rescuing more dogs then of course it would be good to actually see the evidence as opposed to the other rescues which not only re-home crossbreeds but pure bred too....

    ReplyDelete
  142. I agree with Annie.

    I'd like to see those stats and sources please.

    ReplyDelete
  143. go check out the breed club websites, ring the rescue coordinators, oh and put brain in gear before engaging gob.

    ReplyDelete
  144. I'll third that - where are the stats? And where are the "undoctored" photos of Rayvonley Leone? And how about his health test results? You have had him health tested, haven't you Mr Cox? I mean, he is as you say, about two and a half now, so you've had plenty of time. Especially seeing as you are a "responsible breeder" and all. I went on your website but couldn't find any information about his health test results, leading me to think that perhaps you either haven't updated your website recently (though I noticed you HAVE added the puppies for sale), or that you haven't had the tests done. Which is it Mr Cox?

    I also couldn't find any mention of the Kennel Clubs Accredited Breeder Scheme on your site. Flawed though the scheme is it's at least a step in the right direction, so you would expect the chairman of a UK breed club to be leading by example here. Are you a member of the scheme or not? If not why not?

    And while we're on the subject of looking for things that aren't there, where is the evidence of Jemima Harrisons alleged links to the Nazis? We've heard lots of allegations but so far none of you seem forthcoming with any actual evidence. So do you have any evidence or is it just malicious gossip? IF (big if) there's any evidence then I'll stop supporting her, if not then you lot have not only made yourselves look stupid, you have also shown just how spiteful and vindictive you are, sinking to any depth to try and move the spotlight away from your own wrong doing. Which is it people? Only you have the answers, the rest of us are dying to know.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Annie Macfarlane19 November 2011 21:36

    Let me first say that on Breed Club websites you will very rarely find rescue dogs for re-homing. The breed rescue co-ordinators will give you estimated stats but the actual post said that breed clubs, breed rescue etc., re-home more than Battersea, RSPCA, Dogs Trust put together but gave no reference to where this info can actually be found..... I merely want to check that this is indeed the case!

    One is therefore putting ones brain in gear before one is opening one's gob......Anon who wrote the post needs to supply a link to the actual data before it can be taken at all seriously - or they've been guilty of not putting one's head in gear before opening one's gob! Maybe that's what mean Victor M?

    And still no response to the very relevant questions asked.....

    ReplyDelete
  146. dalriach said...
    The Cangen list still continues , with some of the same people, but the current moderator censors discussion, particularly anything critical of show dogs and breeders, has many members permanently on moderation,or removes them from the list, and makes it difficult for new people to join. Still some good contributors but the list doesnt have the same freedom of discussion that it had when John Armstrong was alive

    That's why I left. I don't stay on lists that practice double-secret moderation, or use moderation to shut up civil participants with whom the list owners disagree.

    The original Cangen on the U. of Ottawa server was a graduate seminar in canine genetics. I can't count the number of times one of my preconceptions was punctured there, and I had to change not only my thinking but my actions because of someone's expertly-presented evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  147. So, Heather, where would one go if looking for a "graduate seminar in canine genetics" today?

    ReplyDelete
  148. > the crime is not in my publishing pictures like this; it's in you breeding dogs like this.

    Great, Jemima! You go, girl! This breed is another abomination, like the bulldog and pug. Breeding a dog like this is an act of animal cruelty. Where are the poor thing's eyes?

    To Neo breeders: An infected bit of pus wedged between inflamed folds of skin is not a healthy eye.

    ReplyDelete
  149. I've noticed alot with pedigree pugs and how alot of them have their own look, all have short muzzels, but they all have a somewhat different expression in their faces. I know alot of people that have and had pugs, and the only problem they really had with them is with their shedding, they tend to shed alot, but I am aware that they can have joint problems, but the only thing to watch out for is their eyes, they can pop out. Mostly what causes it is due to choking on their necks, or if they have a tight collar, another thing to note, it is wise to have them wear a harnest, another thing to note, is they are not out door dogs, and if its hot outside, they can have breathing problems, due to their sensitivity to the hot weather. They breath much better when its cooler weather. Plus, pugs were bred to have wrinkels in their face, the wrinkels are suppose to form in the shape of the chinese character for, "Prince", and they were bred mainly for the chinese emperors as a friendly companion. This breed was a very popular family companion for the rich and royalty, Queen Victoria had a handful, Marie Antoinette had over a 100, The Duke and Duchess of Windsor had 11, and Winston Churchill's daughter had one. Pugs are one of my favorite dog breeds, they have such an outstanding temperament, and I love their easy going personality, I love their cute faces and their curly tail. I think in my own opinion, they are a great family dog. I think its wise to know your dogs breed health history when you go and adopt your dog from a a breeder. Or rescue one too.

    ReplyDelete