Here's what it says:
 |
| Click to enlarge |
The addition to previous rules regarding photography is this line:
"The Organisers reserve the right at their absolute discretion to confiscate cameras and/or films for infringement of this condition. "This is, actually, illegal and if they try it, the KC could be done for theft. Additionally, the KC has no right to delete photographs or insist the photographer does. They can ask only that the photographer leaves the premises. Any pictures or footage taken remain the copyright of the photographer.
I do appreciate that it is uncomfortable to have problems highlighted but this is a dog show where dogs are presented for exhibition and judgement. To try to put measures in place to ensure that only nice, positive, celebratory things about dogs are reported or photographed is censorship. And, moreover, pretty much impossible given the number of visitors to Crufts - almost all of which will have a camera, even if only on their phone. I should point out, too, that while individuals in certain circumstances have a right to privacy (although that's arguable if you've chosen to exhibit your dog at an event attended by thousands of snap-happy members of the public), dogs certainly don't.
My suggestion to the KC is that they man-up here. The correct PR advice is, surely, for them to welcome everyone and actively encourage anyone who records something that appears to be highlighting a health or welfare issue to discuss it with the KC. And if, say, the photograph or recording shows prizes being awarded to a Basset Hound with ectropion or a Chinese Crested with obviously sore testicles because they've been shaved, or a Peke that can barely walk or a Bulldog or Pug with a massive overnose wrinkle, for the KC to not just point out the positive steps they are doing to deal with them (and there are some) but, where appropriate, to be unafraid of issuing a statement saying that they are extremely disappointed that a dog with such an obvious problem is still being rewarded in the show-ring.
The KC has vet checks for the Best of Breed winners of the 15 highlighted breeds starting at Crufts and this is a good move (although I am concerned to hear that the vets are not allowed to put a stethescope on the dog). This should mean that dogs with obvious problems will not win. Which could mean that there won't be a BOB winner of Neapolitan Mastiffs at this year's Crufts. I have yet to see one without ectropion which, thanks to input from veterinary opthamologist Professor Sheila Crispin, has been included as a disqualifying problem.
Another massive public relations failure from the Kennel Club. It's clear they do not have real public relations professionals at work or competent legal help either, as otherwise this notice would never have appeared. Now it is perfect fodder for another national column about how the Kennel Club weaves, dodges, and denies what anyone with eyes can see, and anyone with a camera can document.
ReplyDelete"The Organisers reserve the right at their absolute discretion to confiscate cameras and/or films for infringement of this condition. "
ReplyDeleteThis statement is illegal and, quite rightly, anybody having cameras confiscated could contact the police and have the perpetrators of the crime arrested!
It seems a lot of people who dont want dogs photographed at shows havent read the recent ruling by the Press Complaints Commission, who have said that taking photos of dogs without permission is NOT an intrusion of privacy, as rules on privacy apply only to people and not to animals..... just leave the owner out of the photo if you want to publish it.
ReplyDeleteI am quite amused at the paranoia of the anti PDE mob who claim that somebody is currently taking photos at shows for PDE2, and are agitating for even more controls on photography at shows like Crufts 2012. Has it not occurred to them that the finished film will be going to the BBC within the next month?
They also seem more than slightly confused about the differences between copyright law on the use of photos owned by somebody else and the taking of photos of somebody else's dog.
And if their dogs are as fit and healthy as they like to think, why would they be so worried about anybody photographing them?
When you live in a country that supervises your every move, cameras on street corners, speed cameras, special "garbage police" anti bullying police etc and you LIKE it that way why would this surprise you? When you ask for MORE regulations.. MORE laws and MORE of government intervention in everything you do why would this surprise you? When you beg the government to "crack down' on even the most minute aspects of peoples lives why would this surprise you?
ReplyDeleteNorth Korea.. yes you are correct but not in the way you put it.
Annie Macfarlane said...
ReplyDelete"The Organisers reserve the right at their absolute discretion to confiscate cameras and/or films for infringement of this condition. "
This statement is illegal and, quite rightly, anybody having cameras confiscated could contact the police and have the perpetrators of the crime arrested!
But would anyone who has been taking photographs without permission want to call the police and admit they were doing such underhand things?
Forgive my American ignorance, but is there a law against censorship there?
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the KC is in the wrong with these statements, but am unclear on their rights and the rights of attendees. It's a public event, but hosted and sponsered...what a mess.
This Rule is not new, it appeared in the Schedules for 2011 and 2010 to my certain knowledge and, if memory serves, for several years before. I agree that much of this Regualtion is heavy handed and much will be legally unenforceable. Exhibitors will be bound by the parts which are enforceable by virtue of their entries. The press may also be bound by conditions of their admission passes but members of the public will not be bound unless the Rule is made known to them at the time of buying a admission ticket. Confiscation of cameras is not dealt with by the Theft Act 1968 unless an intention permanently to deprive can be proven but a civil action may well succeed under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.An attempt at confiscation will probably involve physical action against the user of a camera which could easily result in criminal charges for assault and even battery. A Member of the KC or it's staff would face such charges on their personal responsibility.
ReplyDeleteRules regarding filming/taking photographs have been in place for a while but I think this is the first time they have mentioned anything about confiscation - I would have noted it before, otherwise. I don't have the 2011 schedule here but the 2010 says that "if a visitor is found to be filming or taking photographs without a permit or in breach of the restrictions in any way they they will be requested to vacate the NEC immediately." ie no mention of confiscation.
ReplyDeleteJemima
Please read the NEC group rules for events .
ReplyDeleteI love the "anonymous" postings. Amazing that they don't have the cajones to put their name to their post. Another rather entertaining aspect is that all of these people are running scared because people are taking photos of their dogs ... AT A DOG SHOW! How ... ironic.
ReplyDeleteI have read the NEC group rules for events and I can't find anything that has a bearing on this post.
ReplyDeleteIf there is, could you point me in the right direction?
Jemima
LOOKATME LOOKATME LOOKATME I'M PRITTY, SO PRITTY!!!
ReplyDeleteGAAAA!!! DON'T LOOKATME! YOU'RE MEAN AND WILL SAY I'M NOT PRITTY!
I don't see how any vet can do a proper vet check without putting a stethoscope to the dog! That is utterly ridiculous! What have these exhibitors got to hide? Surely, if they really cared for their dog as a companion and not just an 'exhibit', they would WANT to know if their dog had a heart murmur or breathing difficulties?
ReplyDeleteDitto what Fran said, it does seem a bit strange that a vet is expected to check the health of a dog without this most basic of tests being done. I wonder what vets make of it?
ReplyDeleteAs for them confiscating cameras, I'm sure the KC already know it is an unenforceable rule and that they would be breaking the law if they tried. But the general public might not know that. I think they're banking on our ignorance. The worst they can legally do is to ask you to leave.
Members of the Public that have approached myself at Crufts at least have the manners and show respect by asking if they can take pictures of my dogs.
ReplyDeleteFran said ..............
ReplyDelete'What have these exhibitors got to hide? Surely, if they really cared for their dog as a companion and not just an 'exhibit', they would WANT to know if their dog had a heart murmur or breathing difficulties?'
Exactly..... One has to assume they have goals other than the best for their dogs & breed. Who else would shove their fingers in their ears to the sound of la, la, la, la, la then wait for the accolade of best in breed/show when in their heart of hearts they know otherwise?
If you are proudly displaying your dog at a dog show, you certainly shouldn't mind someone photographing it. Although if someone took MY picture without my permission, I would be plenty angry...LOL. But then, if I were a contestant in a beauty contest, I would certainly expect that my photo might be taken!
ReplyDeleteI was at the AKC/Eukanuba show this month in Orlando, and there were scads of people with still and motion cameras, and all sorts of flash equipment in use, during classes, with the judge examining the dogs. --- Rod Russell, Orlando, Florida USA
ReplyDeletePerhaps what Jemima is missing is that taking of pictures for personal use seems to be permitted. It's the phrase "for sale or reward" that's the big fly in Jemima's ointment and I would think the KC is well within their rights to provide that caveat. I'm sitting here in the US and none of that disclaimer sounds problematic to me. Any journalist here would be expected to get a release from an owner before publishing a picture of their dog unless they were publishing in the National Enquirer. But then most of Jemima's rants these days are at the level of the Enquirer.
ReplyDeleteJemima, have you no sense of balance or objectivity ? Why would you expect the KC to do anything to facilitate your next PDE production, given your clearly unabashed bias toward the negative in dog breeding? Did PDE produce any positive change ? Let's hear about it.
In the meantime, you bite the hand that feeds you (I'm sure BBC paid you handsomely for your last attack on the KC)and wonder that you're not getting soothing pats on the head. You claim to have all the PR answers for the KC, but your own PR is failing you. If you wore at least a thin veil of objectivity and led the KC to believe you wanted to COOPERATE with them to improve the situation, things might go better. But I'm sure that's beyond your acting reach given your obsession with attacking the breeding of purebred dogs.
"Any journalist here would be expected to get a release from an owner before publishing a picture of their dog"
ReplyDeleteI'd be very surprised if this was true. There is generally no requirement for a release for news or editorial use - in the US or UK. And for very good reason.
Jemima
I agree with JH's condemnation of the KC here, and sympathise / sympathize with her frustration. But I think there's a serious labelling problem. The KC is an old, sclerotic, British institution. It is NOT Pedigree Dogs. Many people in the dog world value pedigrees but aren't interested in Crufts. Pedigrees are as useful for maintaining health and for maintaining and improving working traits as they are for winning in conformation shows.
ReplyDeleteJemimma says in reply to ""Any journalist here would be expected to get a release from an owner before publishing a picture of their dog"
ReplyDeleteI'd be very surprised if this was true. There is generally no requirement for a release for news or editorial use - in the US or UK. And for very good reason."
Perhaps you limited understanding of copyright is the very reason why that American photographer threatened to sue you for missuse of their work on this blog, such a shame you dont respect the work of others but crave attention for your own.
In this modern world of enlightenment, how has the term "exhibit" survived to describe a dog taking part in a beauty pageant? Ghastly.
ReplyDeleteI also fail to see how a vet can pass a dog as healthy without a full medical examination. It would be good to see a response from the BVA on the issue of examinations without the appropriate equipment. It seems farcical to me. H
Hmm last time i was at the theater in London ( not so long ago) it was stated very clearly .. NO PHOTOS ALLOWED.. NONE ZERO NADA.. if you did take a picture your camera was taken from you.. and the pictures deleted or destroyed. No flashes were allowed and certainly no "filming". One person violated the rule and was quickly escorted out of the theater..so I guess the theater has boundaries in the UK while dog shows do not..
ReplyDeleteso Jemima .. what is the very good reason? That anyone should be able to take a picture and sell it for money.. 9gee that sounds like.. anyone should be able to breed a dog and sell it for money)
gotta go with Alapria.. Jemima..can you say "sour grapes"?
Heather.. can anyone come any time to photograph you and your dogs and then publish whatever they want o without your permission?? Good then tell us where you live and we will be there to take pictures of any training session you do.. any time you work with dogs.. and interpret those photos in any way we feel like it.\ "Pritty is as Pritty does"
ReplyDeleteas for the statement by Jemima.. is this for "news" or for "editorial" use..?? very funny
LOL.. the "Enquirer " is well known for their "Photoshopping" pictures.. many times you see the head of a "star" shopped onto the body of someone else.. same thing happens here.
ReplyDeleteBut would anyone who has been taking photographs without permission want to call the police and admit they were doing such underhand things?
ReplyDeletethis is so true.. you know the rules going in.. they are published and printed on your ticket.. so then you complain and bitch about what has happened to you poor poor you who was only trying to get a picture that would prove your point.. WAAAWAAAAAAAWAAAAAA
"Any journalist here would be expected to get a release from an owner before publishing a picture of their dog"
ReplyDeleteUmmm. No.
I've had my animals' images and my own appear in the newspaper and on television countless times. The photographs and video are generally taken when we appear at public events, such as fairs, or when we are working on a search, which is a law enforcement operation. I have never once signed a release. I have sometimes been unaware of the presence of a camera (local TV news cameras have frighteningly long lenses). No one has ever asked permission. Most of the time the cameraman or reporter asks for names if that's feasible.
And, in particular, journalists and citizens in the US have a strongly protected right to fair use of even copyrighted images for the purpose of criticism.
Also parody, but then, the fanciers have already contrived the parodies, using actual dog flesh.
If you don't want your dog to be looked at and critiqued, then it seems an odd hobby or business to pay money and go to considerable trouble for the specific purpose of putting the animal on public display and having some guy in a monkey suit rate it.
Anon 4:09
ReplyDelete"Heather.. can anyone come any time to photograph you and your dogs and then publish whatever they want o without your permission?? Good then tell us where you live and we will be there to take pictures of any training session you do.. any time you work with dogs.. and interpret those photos in any way we feel like it.\ "Pritty is as Pritty does""
A bit dramatic don't you think?
First of all, there is a drastic difference between taking pictures and/or video in a PUBLIC setting vs a HOME setting (as you suggested above.) Public property is, well, public whereas private property is a whole different world.
I close with this (and I own "show" Border Collies)... I have nothing to be afraid of. If/when I am approached for picture and video, there are more than welcome because I have NOTHING TO HIDE. I also don't need to be "approached"... I am at a dog SHOW after all, I kind of expect the attention.
Having now read Crufts' rules, as well as the NEC's, I intend to go to Crufts in March, and to take as many photos of dogs as I want.
ReplyDeleteI will also post them on my blog, and I will comment on them as I see fit.
I pay to run my blog btw, which as no advertising. It is a hobby.
If the goons at Crufts ask me to leave, I will leave. If they try and take my phone off me, I will resist. If they force the issue, I will sue their arse off and write about it on my blog.
Hopefully, I will come home empty handed, because hopefully I'll find no wheezing bulldogs, wobbly alsations, obese labradors or bassetts with drooping eyelids.
I would say to anyone who has film or still pictures taken of their dog and used in Pedigree Dogs Exposed without their expressed permission. Send Jemima an invoice for use of such images. All show dogs have a kennel name (affix) which is a recognised trade mark. Use of images tied to that trade mark are an infringement of it's copyright.
ReplyDeleteIt is not about having anything to hide, it's about Passionate Productions having a monetary GAIN from their use. Why should the owners of those dogs featured not benefit from some of that gain ? It would buy the dog a lot of bones, chews and tidbits.
"Any journalist here would be expected to get a release from an owner before publishing a picture of their dog "
ReplyDeleteThe Press Complaints Commission has recently ruled that dogs can be photographed without permission from the owner. Rules on intrusion of privacy relate to people, and not to dogs. The advice would appear to be, if you photograph a dog and then publish the photo, but dont have the owner's consent, make sure the owner/handler doesnt appear in the photo.
And like Heather, I have had my dogs photographed by strangers at dog shows and field trials, including Crufts, have never asked who the photographer was or why they want the photo, or even thought of asking to "sign a release" . Our Dogs has used a photo of one of my dogs , I signed nothing and certainly didnt get paid when they used the photo. Dog World published a photo of my bitch Dalriach Neige running in a field trial last year, I wasnt asked if the photo could be taken by a professional photographer, and it was a complete surprise to me when it appeared in Dog World. But then I have nothing to hide, the bitch is fit, functional, and healthy ...... I'm happy to have the photo used to promote working setters.
I can only conclude that the people who dont want photographers at dog shows, or want to censor photos of their own dogs, have something to hide or are afraid of the public seeing uncensored photos
Oh, I think it would be a hoot if Anonymous 4:09 showed up at my home with its camera.
ReplyDeleteIt would get lots of nice shots demonstrating just how, sound, even, and white my guys' toothiepegs are -- raw diet, you know. Raw diet of what, you ask? Ah, chevon, beef, chicken, rabbit, venison, trespassers ...
It's probably less hazardous to just look on the interwebz for the many photographs of my animals that are bopping around, none of which portray the effects of genetic disease and body-dysmorphia-by-proxy.
But golly gee, if I can tolerate being photographed and filmed by the media while I'm doing something trivial like leaving the command post on a search task for someone's lost child, I reckon the Anons will just have to suck it when they bring their important fancy dogs out to a public SHOW, for the purpose of SHOWING them.
This subject has been up for debate on one of the forums I belong to for my breed of dog as, an accredited press photographer, belonging to the World Dog Press Association, had released into the public domain pictures of dogs from a certain show and 1 exhibitor took objection to this based on the rules clearly stating that press photographers are provided with permission to take photos ONLY for news purposes but the photographer in question had uploaded the photos to a well known public photo website. The exhibitor in question reminded everyone of the issues faced a few years ago when, despite the dogs being very healthy, some very unflattering pictures were being chosen to be made public and breeders reputations were being damaged by these photos. This is akin to being a top class model and having your photo taken by the paparazzi at 5:30 putting the bin bags out, with no make up, your hair in a mess and wearing baggy cotton pyjamas. Yes, you're a model so expect your photo to be taken but is it really news that you don't always look perfect, just like the rest of us humans? It's all great publicity but at what cost to your reputation.
ReplyDeleteOK so the KC can't legally confiscate equipment from the general public but what else can they do? The rules about photography/video have been in place for many years at many shows, not just Crufts and have largely remained unenforced, making them pointless rules. The KC do notify eveyone on their Crufts website that there are rules about photography and video and invite members of the public to contact their Press Office to clarify these rulings.
I think, Jemima, that overall you've blown this one up out of all proportion. Yes it seems a tad Draconian (and illegal) to suggest that you'll have you're equipment confiscated but this is a move to enforce a rule that has always been in place, not really one to avoid photo's of unhealthy dogs. The authorised Press and TV companies ARE allowed to take photo's/video and then handle them as news so if an obviously unhealthy dog wins it's class, breed, group or the whole show this WILL be photographed, warts and all!!
Are we to suggest that rules on photography/video be abandoned entirely? Lets examine this premise for a moment. Lets say that you have the most healthiest example of your breed, no known issues and that your breed is one that does not suffer from any health issues. If someone takes a really useless picture of your dog and this gets published everyone now sees your dog in a very different light from previously. Reverse this and say you have a dog with huge health issues, chronic genetic disorders and the breed itself is suffering from massive problems. You show your dog and a photo is taken that shows your dog in a very good light and is published. Everyone now sees your dog as being fantastic and wants pups from your dog. The end result of this is obvious and unnacceptable, not only for the humans involved but more importantly, for the dogs, their breed and thier breed health.
So whats next Jemima, the balls in your court?!?
The only people who should be worried about this are the people who want to make profit from the photo's and haven't had permission. Newspapers and TV who have permission, and the general public can still take pictures, so I don't really see what all the fuss is about.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I've had many people ask if they can take pictures of my dogs at Crufts and ive been happy to let them. I have nothing to hide.
By the way, none of my Cresteds (or any other's as no-one does this) have shaved testicles as Jemima's clearly un-researched comment suggests.
I have seen photos of field trial dogs posted on the internet, without permission of the owner or photographer, and ridiculed by show people as terrible examples of conformation and breeed type ie they dont look like the show version of the breed. This usually makes the field triallers laugh, but I cant ever remember field triallers suggesting banning photography at field trials in case show people misuse the photos. On the other hand when field triallers have posted examples of show dogs on the internet as dreadful examples of exaggerated and non functional conformation (from their perspective), this usually produces cries of outrage , demands that the photo be removed and even threats of legal action
ReplyDeleteI can see it from both sides.
ReplyDeleteI think, as an exhibitor myself, if someone wanted to take a picture of my dog then they can if they want but if they make money from the picture or use it to slag off my dog and my breed I would get a bit miffed.
I don't think its the actual taking of the photos more than what they will be used for afterwards.
Most showdogs are peoples pride and joy. Mine are my babies. Its like if you entered your children into pagents and then someone took pictures of them and published them, saying how disgusting and horrible they are, it would piss you off wouldn't it.
I dunno :/
It clearly states that authorised press and individuals can take photos all they want, they have consent to use them accordingly, the same would go for using photography at a football stadium, concert, gig etc etc etc.....
ReplyDeleteAfterall, members of the press and certain magazines may have paid to cover such events, and it's hardly fair that any old dim wit with a flash can photograph the exhibitions and use their photos for 'sale or reward' which is what the first paragraph very clearly states. It would be the same as trying to sneak a picture of the Beckham's newest baby after a magazine has paid them a gazillion pound for the exclusive rights.
Not all rules and regulations at events that involve dogs are drawn up to stop Jemima Harrison looking at pedigree dogs and exposing their pure evil to the world, as hurtful as that may be to your ego.
To be honest Jemima it just looks like you were having difficulty deciding on what to rant about this week. Must Try Harder.......
Lets put a couple of things in perspective.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, Crufts is NOT a public event, its a private event to which the public are admitted on payment of a fee.
Secondly, the 'rule' that says equipment can be confiscated is probably quite legal. It does not say what will happen after, but in the event that officials see the need to use the rule, not doubt security would be called. The Police don't have the right to delete, or destroy photographs, but they have an important right in law. That of confiscation to preserve evidence. I guess that this is primarily what the KC rule is aimed at.
As a member of the public, anyone can take photographs in public. But restrictions CAN be put in place on private property. The NEC where Crufts takes place is private property and as has been pointed out is subject to rules. I have not read the rules, but I am guessing the ruling of the KC falls within those rules.
The same rules probably were in place in one form or another at another private event to which the public were permitted ( and organised again by the KC), namely Discover Dogs. If the KC rules are truly without foundation why did someone who posts on this blog previously complain about not being permitted to film there and being followed by KC officials while present at that event.
Why should someone Profit from my animal and I mean profit? Its not a good feeling seeing a photo of your own dog displayed as a car/window sticker and YOU'VE GOT TO PAY FOR IT! One of our males is on sale at every damn show as a car sticker infuriates me no end saddens me since the dog has been dead 8 yrs yet still he looks at me as I walk past! He was 16 when he died just to clarify.
ReplyDeleteThe KC doesnt appear to have any rules about photography and filming at field trials in the UK. Nevertheless the gundog clubs who run field trials have their own rules. A few years ago there was a problem with people trying to film pointer and setter field trials who got in the way of dogs, handlers and judges, so there is now a general ban on filming except for the authorised person who films the whole of the Champion Stake and then sells the DVD commercially. There is no problem with photography, as long as the photographer stays BEHIND the dogs, handlers , judges, gun and steward, and on the whole it is considered polite but not essential to ask the owner/handler before taking a photo of dog or handler. I believe some people also ask the trial secretary if its OK to take photos, out of courtesy. I take photos at field trials, partly because I like to have my own photographic records of dogs , partly because other people in the breed like to see photos from field trials online. Nobody has ever refused to let me take a photo, or complained about a photo being shown on the internet
ReplyDeleteIts similar at spaniel trials, maybe somebody knows about photographing retriever and HPR trials?
IF you can prove it is your dog that has been photographed and that picture is being sold (as in the car sticker example) you can do something about it. It may not be cheap, and will possibly involve lawyers, but you can object.
ReplyDeleteIF the photograph is to be sold for anything other than news/editorial use a model release (for humans) or a property release (any other object including animals) must be obtained. Sadly dogs are considered property, but a release is required all the same. The release will detail the exact circumstances in which the photo's can be used.
As for the comment by dalriach, can I suggest that it not specifically down to the KC to impose rules on photography, but as said it is down to the organising club/association. In the context of Crufts, the organising club is the KC.
The other authority who may have an input are venues. If you go to many leisure centre's in the UK you are required to sign papers detailing who you are and your purpose of taking photographs. Some ban all commercial photography as a matter of course. Even Royal Parks have restrictions on what you can and can't do.
"although I am concerned to hear that the vets are not allowed to put a stethescope on the dog"
ReplyDeleteWhat is the source of this information ?
Get a grip Daz,I thought you regarded yourself as a professional photographer.There is no requirement in UK law to get a model or property release.The ASA require a release if images are to be used to advertise or endorse a product,that's just an ASA requirement not a legal requirement.
ReplyDeleteHeather trains dogs that do not belong to her.. she runs a business. She presents workshops and more.. so it is not the same as coming to home.
ReplyDeleteI can only conclude that the people who dont want photographers at dog shows, or want to censor photos of their own dogs, have something to hide or are afraid of the public seeing uncensored photos .. It is not the problem of the photos themselves.. it is problem of "interpretation" of what the photo actually shows.. If your setter photos had been underlined with something like "Dog being abused by being sent to work in a field.. this must stop." or "Dog being tortured by being made to retrieve dead animals.." you might feel differently.
ReplyDeleteAnon @18.50 asked the source of the information that vets are not allowed to put a stethescope on the dog at the Crufts vet checks.
ReplyDeleteI believe it came from the BVA. The vet checks are under review by the sound of it, though, so hopefully this will change
Jemima
Believe me, we do get stupid and negative comments from breeders of show dogs about photos of working and field trial dogs . Usually along the lines of "dreadful conformation and type", "skinny and half starved", "no front chest, no coat, not enough angulation, too small " etc which means they dont look like show dogs. The stupid comments dont cause any great offence, the breeders of working dogs know their dogs are constructed the way they are because thats what makes them functional. And they carry less weight than show dogs because more weight would slow them down and reduce their stamina
ReplyDeleteEasier just to get on with working with one's dog and laugh about the ignorance of those who make negative comments.
Anonymous at 18:57.
ReplyDeleteI never said I was a professional photographer, that was Jemima. I never actually confirmed that. My professionalism is my business, but lets say this, I am not JUST a photographer,
That said, any picture library that I submit photographs to, anywhere in the world, expects that for any image I submit for sale I have the relevant release. May not be 'law' as such, but it is the requirement of 'the business' which to me is as good as law. If I sold a photo that I did not have a release for I may not be prosecuted by 'the law', but I could face a civil suit for the payment to the 'rights holder' for the profit I made. Personally, I would not risk it. In essence, what I am saying is that if say Jemima filmed my dog (just as an example) without my express permission and sold the film for profit, I could expect a share in that profit as a 'rights holder', and could enforce that right through the county courts system (or high court if my claim was high enough). And before you say I need to get a grip again, that principle has been tested in court.
As for Dalriach's comment re skinny dogs, can you clarify what you mean by 'working and field trial dogs' please.
And Jemima, the vet checks should be done BEFORE examination, not after, otherwise whats the point!
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean "before examination", Daz? You mean before dogs go into the ring?
ReplyDeleteJemima
Why should they need a stethoscope?? Thought the faults that these so called 15 unhealthy breeds had were so noticable--especially as they are bred by show breeders of course lol
ReplyDeleteSo do they need one for entropian, so called skin rashes and of course breeds that are unable to actually breath due to the bad show breeders!!!!! If they are that bad then why the need of a stethoscope??
Infact JH your bum chums on here can seemingly tell from a picture what poor health some dogs are in so why the need for a stethoscope at all lol Just send in the JH bum chum bloggers
ReplyDeleteYes Jemima.
ReplyDeleteIt used to happen before they entered the show.
Why did this stop? Surely you know of this?
Its was a basic exam, check in mouth, look over dog, check general health etc
(If you don't, contact me, you know how and delete the bracketed part)
before examination by the judge.. have you ever been to a dog show? Oh wait.. of course you have.. where you are both judge and jury.. and veterinarian
ReplyDeleteI think photo's should be allowed but I do believe people have the right to contest or challenge if the photo is later used innapropriately.
ReplyDeleteThe KC states that they don’t mind the general public taking photos as long as they are for private use. But what’s to stop anyone attending Crufts from taking a photo of a dog with ectropion or a video of a dog stuggling to breath freely through its non-existent snout, and then passing that photo or video onto a public site? Or selling it to the press? Nothing at all. And with good reason I think. Of course, this is what they are afraid of.
ReplyDeleteSomething Ian Thompson said earlier caught my eye:
“This is akin to being a top class model and having your photo taken by the paparazzi at 5:30 putting the bin bags out, with no make up, your hair in a mess and wearing baggy cotton pyjamas. Yes, you're a model so expect your photo to be taken but is it really news that you don't always look perfect, just like the rest of us humans?”
I’d agree if we were talking about the dogs in their owners homes, where they might not always look top notch, especially after they’ve been for walkies. But we aren’t, we’re talking about a dog show, supposedly the premier dog show in the world. Akin to Paris fashion week. So you would expect the dogs to look their absolute best, just as you would expect the models to, wouldn’t you? So if, by some random chance a member of the public happens to catch a freak photo of a super model on the catwalk, from an odd angle which clearly shows her nose has been damaged by her cocaine habit, that photo would be quite valuable. Or a video taken on someones mobile phone that showed the model forcing herself to vomit in the toilets to keep her weight down? I’m pretty sure the media would be happy to pay handsomely for such things. They would be considered of sufficient public interest to be published/ broadcast without consent of the model herself. Equally, if a photo or video of a dog was taken, like the examples I gave in my first paragraph, surely they would also be considered of sufficient public interest to allow publication without permission, no? That’s the key to it all: Public Interest.
Of course, you could try to argue that, if someone did see a dog at Crufts suffering from whatever ailment, the best course of action would be to inform the handler or an official etc. rather than putting the proof on the net for the whole world to see. The reply is simple. If the various breeders, owners, handlers and officials that will have seen the dog during its career haven’t spotted it by the time it gets to Crufts, they’re never going to.
Daz wrote"As for Dalriach's comment re skinny dogs, can you clarify what you mean by 'working and field trial dogs' please. "
ReplyDeleteWorking setters are setters used for shooting and falconry (locating and pointing birds), and gamekeepers' dogs .
Field trial setters are setters who compete in field trials
Daz , you are confused between copyright law . If you or somebody else takes a photo of your own dog, the copyright belongs to the person who took the photo (or the person to whom photo and copyright has been sold) . The fact you own the dog doesnt give you copyright of a photo taken by somebody else
I have had photos of my dogs taken by professional photographers from time to time, some at my home, some at shows and field trials. If I want to post a photo taken by one of them on the internet or in a magazine, I have to get the photographer's permission (he or she owns the photo). But he or she doesnt have to ask my permission to publish a photo of my dog, although it might be considered a matter of courtesy to do so
I see there has been some chatter on the dog fora re the vet checks at Crufts and the restriction on using stethescopes - with posters accusing me of rumour and lies re this because I was rather vague in answer to a direct query about the source of the info.
ReplyDeleteI've now had time to look back through my notes and can confirm that the information came from a face to face discussion with Harvey Locke at the BVA and was later confirmed in an email exchange with Professor Sheila Crispin. As you might imagine, I expressed my concern about this to both of them.
The vet checks are now under review, however, with an announcement due shortly, I believe.
Jemima
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeletebefore examination by the judge.. have you ever been to a dog show? Oh wait.. of course you have.. where you are both judge and jury.. and veterinarian
31 December 2011 01:51
Yes I have.
And in times past I have been to shows where, at the POINT OF ENTRY to the show, my dog was subject to a veterinary examination, along with EVERY dog that entered the venue of the show. And I had no problem with this, why should I have?
I think that post was aimed at me, Daz.
ReplyDeleteI have never been to a show where dogs have been subject to a vet exam at the point of entry - and in truth, I did not know it happened. I would be interested in learning more about this.
I can see a logistical problem at shows attended by a large number of dogs - vet-checking every entry would take all day.
Jemima
Dalriach,
ReplyDeleteYou are entirely wrong with your interpretation of photographic release.
Copyright, you are correct. The photographer owns copyright, but thats as far as it goes. Try taking a photograph and selling it to an advertising agency, and IF they take it without a release, see what the comeback on the agency is. The release is a form of contract, which basically outlines the model or property owner's rights to recompense in respect of their input into the photo. Without it anyone who PUBLISHES a photograph leaves themselves open to civil action for payment after the event (or prevention of further distribution if so desired). How do you think professional models earn their living if you can just photograph them and use the photo's how you wish?
As for your explanation or working dogs, thanks for that. I guess the Goldies that I used to work on a Saturday and Show on a Sunday in the mid '90's, together with the working Cocker that was three times as wide as its show peers must have been proper mutants then.
What's a 'bum chum blogger'? I don't understand. Perhaps you could provide an example as illustration?
ReplyDeleteDaz, you are incorrect re releases. You do indeed need a release for advertising/marketing and pictures used, eg, for posters/cards etc. But you do not need a release for editorial or news use.
ReplyDeleteThis site gives the lowdown:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/photography_law_rights.html
Jemima
Jemima,
ReplyDeleteThats what I said in my post at 18:18 yesterday.
Yes, you're right, Daz. Apols - I missed that. Although I think Dalriach was referring to news/editorial use, hence why I responded as I did.
ReplyDeleteJemima
Jemima,the site you gave refers to the USA.The USA and the UK have different requirements.In the UK there is NO legal requirement for a model release, not even if your image is used for advertising.However the ASA,Advertising Standards Agency,require a model release for any image if it is to be used to advertise or endorse a product,service etc.
ReplyDeleteSo if, by some random chance a member of the public happens to catch a freak photo of a super model on the catwalk, from an odd angle which clearly shows her nose has been damaged by her cocaine habit, that photo would be quite valuable. Or a video taken on someones mobile phone that showed the model forcing herself to vomit in the toilets to keep her weight down? I’m pretty sure the media would be happy to pay handsomely for such things
ReplyDeletesays Roger
of course the model could have had a severe cold or been in an aaccident and the other could have had food poisoning and needed to clear her stomach but no let's jump to the ridiculous conclusion stated above.. one is a junkie.. the other mentally ill.. why see something simple when you can see something sensational? Exactly why this blog and PDE are wrong to use short vids and, even worse, single pictures to try to prove a point.. would have been more believable ( maybe) if the producer had a vet with her and after filming the GSD had asked the owner if the vet could take the dog for examination and xray.. if the dog was proved to be dysplastic.. point made.. if not.. well then..
Even "vet exams" before going into the ring are not helpful.. ever had your blood pressure taken just before going in to see the doctor to have a procedure done? Please this is all falderal and excess nonsense..
"Advertising Standards Agency,require a model release for any image if it is to be used to advertise or endorse a product,service etc. " by association you use this blog to endorse your production company and the films you make and any article you write...... you will be subject to such requirements, to try and defend that you dont would I fear mean a long law case that you would not win, just any good lawyer who will tell you the same,
ReplyDeleteAnon 17.30,you have misunderstood.There would be no "long law case".There is NO UK legal requirement for a model release therefore no law has been broken.All that happens is that the ASA asks the advertiser to withdraw the ad.That's it.No legal action,no suing for compensation,nothing.
ReplyDeleteAh, an open invitation to all the brave, brave Anons.
ReplyDeleteRight after you provide real names and addresses, you can come to my private place of work and run videos to your black little cowards' hearts' content.
But I get to come to YOUR place of employment and perch on the sink and videotape you swabbing out the toilets all day.
Fair is fair.
I apologize for that last comment.
ReplyDeleteScrubbing toilets is an honorable and necessary job, performed by truly hard-working people.
I'm sure none of the invertebrate culvert trolls here are employed in any vocation that is so useful.
Shame that Heather Hulbert has to resort to such petty and small minded langauage, I fear it says more about herself than anyone else
ReplyDeleteAnon 31 December 2011 19:15 wrote: Shame that Heather Hulbert has to resort to such petty and small minded langauage, I fear it says more about herself than anyone else.
ReplyDeleteOh my, yes, Anon, leave it to you to always take the high road. -- Rod Russsell, Orlando, Florida USA
I do love being lectured on diction by something oozing out from under its rock that, contrary to that bossy ol' spellchecker on blogger, thinks that "langauage" is a word.
ReplyDeleteI propose that for 2012, all the priceless contributions to discourse offered by "Anonymous" be regarded as coming from one discrete entity. Anon of Borg, as it were.
The anonymous folks are correct in only some respects.
ReplyDeleteNo UK LAW exists that requires that release (model or property) be obtained (save for the case of minors when they must work through a registered agency). But where a photo is used other than for editorial (which Jemima may be able to claim her program lies) or news there is a risk of civil action. The ASA is not civil action. By civil action I mean a case in a Court of Law (County or High). My own dogs have been used for modelling assignments for advertising purposes, so I would argue that a precedence has been set. They (or I suppose I) have been paid for the use of their images in advertising brochures. Consequently I can establish a day rate for their 'employment'. So anyone who takes their photographs and sells them without a release can look forward to my claim for that day rate for their services I guess. So Anonymous 18:01 you are clearly wrong.
Happy New Year Folks
Rod Russell as they say "Get Off the Cross, We Need the Wood for the Fire"
ReplyDeleteDaz wrote: "So anyone who takes their photographs and sells them without a release can look forward to my claim for that day rate for their services I guess."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, if they use those photographs to sell a product. But not if the photographs were, for instance, of your dogs leaping in the air with joy at midnight last night and were sold by the photographer to appear in the Mail on Sunday today. Same applies if someone snapped you whacking them at Crufts. (Although of course if you hadn't really been whacking them you would have every right to sue.)
Remember the pix of William hitting his dog when out shooting?
The fact that they may help sell the publication (or the footage) that they appear in does not count.
Jemima
Jemima get it wrong AGAIN !! The photos used in the press a couple of year ago were of Prince Edward who is aledged hitting his dog with a stick when he said two of them were fighting, NOT Prince William, when will ever check your "facts" before publishing them, but in a way isnt that the reason why the KC not allowing commercial companies who have not been approved to take photos there for the very same reason, once false/incorrect information has been linked to a published photo the damage is dones and cannot be corrected.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the correction - you are quite right. It was Prince Edward. And I should have added "allegedly" as he did, indeed, dispute it.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the point remains the same - yes, the burden is on the paper or broadcaster to ensure that the allegations are correct and/or those charged are given a right to reply, but given that caveat, the publisher does not need a release form.
Jemima
Whenever I have had professional photographs taken of me, my dogs or me and the dogs I have always had to sign a contract with the photographer. I would imagine that the photographs taken at dog shows by, say, Dog World or Our Dogs operate under the same rules with their photographers. Basically you are signing away your rights and the photographer can use them for whatever purpose they so wish and sell them on at profit if they so wish. They hold the copyright and you are agreeing to that.
ReplyDeleteI would say though that I think I would be very upset if a photograph of my dog was used in a car sticker and I saw it every time I went to a dog show - especially if he was now dead! That must be terrible but, unfortunately, at some time during his life he must have been photographed by a professional photographer and the contract signed. If not, then you do have cause for complaint with the company that is using his image.
I have never known vet checks to be carried out on any dog when entering a show. That's not to say that it hasn't happened in the past but I have never experienced it at shows I have attended. Perhaps this was many years ago? I would be interested to learn more about this ie where the tests happened, what shows etc., I think that's a fantastic idea. There have been times when I have heard dogs coughing in the show ground and their owners being asked to remove them. By that time though the damage has been done and others have been infected with kennel cough. I worry that breeders who exhibit their dogs would then take home the virus on their clothes and could, perhaps, infect any puppies they have. Some people are very irresponsible and thoughtless!
Another thing that really annoys me is when exhibitors bring their bitches to shows when they are in season. This is not allowed in any form of working/field trial and it can really affect the performance of a dog on the day - especially in mixed classes! Can they not miss one show for the sake of others?
I just think a little courtesy from fellow exhibitors would go a long way too!
Happy New Year!
Dogs were always checked upon entry at shows. Anyone who has not experienced this is a comparative newcomer to the hobby.
ReplyDeleteAs for Jemima saying that any dog of a certain breed that does not pass the examination will not be represented in the group is wrong. The BOB will pass to the reserve who will go into the ring instead - like any other comp when the prize is removed.
I have to agree with the previous person that those who cant remember or were not aware of a vet being on the door to check exhibits when they come in are either very new to showing or have little idea of shows history, the fact that vet checks still take place at many other shows abroad(dogs are chosen at random) again shows how little people know on the subject!
ReplyDeleteOK.
ReplyDeleteThe checks that I experienced took place at the door or the show. It was mainly breed club shows where this happened.
Yes there were queues, but not that bad.
The vet gave a quick check over, looked in the eyes, mouth etc. He did not by my recollection use a stethoscope as a matter of routine, but I do recall seeing one at least once available to him.
As intimated above, I do think the main aim was prevention of spread of infectious disease, but strangely the vet didn't seem to wash his hands between exams.
Certainly I think it would/should serve as an incentive not to take a dog on poor health to shows.
I guess the big reason for stopping vet checks is the cost of having a vet on site all day. With current entry fee's to the north of £20 for most Ch. Shows, a further cost would push these even higher. The last time I can remember such a check was in the mid '90's
And when the cost is so high, I can understand why people wouldn't want to not show a bitch in season.
So why did the checks stop happening?
ReplyDeleteI never knew I could be considered a comparative newcomer? Quite rejuvenating.
ReplyDeleteI started showing cavaliers in 1976, and although I know that at one time all exhibits had to be vet checked before being allowed into a show, it was not something that ever happened to my dogs.
I think it stopped because of the enormous queues that built up & the delays caused by the need to check every exhibit.
And the cost of having a vet there for the day maybe?
ReplyDeleteMargaret Carter I thought you showed snakes as it is a subject you know only too well.
ReplyDeleteHey Daz, there is a requirement to have a vet on duty at a dog show so the vet's there anyway but it is a huge job to adequately check every dog that's entered and, let's face it, not all dogs will need to be checked as most dogs are perfectly healthy..
ReplyDeleteAs for being relatively new to dog showing....I wouldnt dispute that but, really, what is there to learn? Once you know what classes to enter; how to handle your dog to show it off to its best advantage (which I never truly was interested in but tried all the same!! lol)- and then the politics - you're really left with a hobby that is not worth the money as most of the top slots go to those that are applying the "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine!" technique of climbing the ladder.
I actually had somebody say to me "I know everything about dogs - and you know nothing!" Oh dear!! They may know more than me about dog showing, but that is only a small part of "knowing everything" about dogs.
I am the first to admit that I don't handle my dog around the show ring the way others think she should be handled.....but that doesnt mean that they know everything about dogs and I know nothing.
In all the 10 years I have been visiting shows I have never witnessed a dog being health checked when they go in. 10 years is a relatively long time so it must have stopped before then....
I wonder if some breeds of dog were healthier then?
There is not a duty to have a dog at the show. The duty is to have a vet on call if I my knowledge is correct, there is a difference.
ReplyDeleteI did think I had made a post about the vet checks.
The last time I can recall having a check was around 1996 or 97.
The check was pretty much a cursory look over the dog, check in its mouth, look in its eyes etc. No stethoscope usually used. I think the main aim was prevention of spread of Kennel Cough etc, But define 'adequate'
Yes it took a while, and yes queues developed, but it was a case of if you wanted to enter the show, you put up with it. But if most are healthy, why worry about dogs being checked. If you don't check every one, its Murphy's law the one not checked will be the unhealthy one.
Ah I see, so the vet doesn't have to be there? OK that answers that question then.
ReplyDeleteThinking about the spread of kennel cough...perhaps that's the reason they stopped the checking. Think about the vet with their hands in all those dogs mouths, transferring to another etc., etc., - and we all know how kennel cough spreads. Perhaps that's the reason!
You'd think that exhibitors wouldn't take their dogs to shows with KC though and also if they were in season. It's just manners after all! One day it could be their dog that's not performing well in the ring or their dog that takes home KC to infect a household of dogs!
I think it would be difficult to argue that Crufts is in fact a private event rather than a public one as in previous years it has been shown on television. I'm not sure which channel it is on this year but when it was on BBC, for example, I think the KC would find it difficult to argue it was a private event and that people attending could assume no one would photograph/film them as surely everyone in attendance would have known there was a possibility they would feature on tv at some point?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how this works in law, but surely at a large, well-known event with thousands of people attending you would be unlikely to succeed in a court action if you based your arguement on the event being private?
Does anyone know the law in these terms? I'd be interested to know.
That should say no duty to have a vet at the show, not dog, sorry.
ReplyDeleteBestuvall said:
ReplyDelete"of course the model could have had a severe cold or been in an accident and the other could have had food poisoning and needed to clear her stomach but no let's jump to the ridiculous conclusion stated above.. one is a junkie.. the other mentally ill.. why see something simple when you can see something sensational?"
Firstly, a common cold, even a particularly bad dose, wouldn't cause the kind of tissue damage that cocaine does.
Secondly, if she had been in any kind of accident there's a better than average chance the press would already know about it.
Thirdly if she had food poisoning, would she even be doing a fashion show? I'd say it's doubtful. And lets just assume for a moment that she took ill while on the shoot. The back stage areas at such events are full of P.A's, make-up artists, designers, dressers, managers etc. do you think that no-one would have noticed? Is it not reasonable to assume that that at least one of the people (perhaps her own P.A - they've all got one) would accompany her to make sure she was ok? Also, in my experience when you have food poisoning or even a stomach bug, you do not need to make yourself vomit - it just happens.
But by the by, it was intended as an analogy, to illustrate that sometimes it is in the best interest of the public to know things that the people involved might not want made public. In the case of super models, these women are held as role models for many impressionable young women the world over, so if one is a drug user or had an eating disorder then yes the public need to know, and so do the companies that give multi-million dollar advertising contracts to them. Similarly, if a dog is suffering at Crufts then damn right we need to know about it, especially as breeders, the KC and show people keep telling us that it's not happening. This point seems to be lost on you.
I took a puppy to the vet yesterday. I was sure she had entropian.. I could see it..every "lay' person could see it, after all we are the "experts" are we not when comes to "seeing what we want to see"..Guess what.. the dogs eyes are fine.. just fine.. examined by the specialist.. and passed with flying colors.
ReplyDeleteas for your model comparison.. you cannot always believe your eyes.. I refer you to the very funny scene in Austin Powers..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCZZxq2FN4I&feature=related
I have been to Crufts. I did not see one single dog "suffering".. not one
Let's not forget that the KC has previous form on the censorship issue.Remember that they banned the press from the AGM last year because one of the dog papers dared to report matters which did not please them.People need to think about some of these issues as a matter of principle rather than getting emotional and personal.The KC needs to remember that they can make all the rules they like but UK law is the one that counts.If they want Crufts to be a private invitation only event that's different.
ReplyDeleteIMO if you use any dog pictures which was snapped at a dog show to use on a public forum or to publish you have to have the written permission of the dog owner. You are not allowed to use any pictures of any dogs publicly or as an example without concent.
ReplyDeleteI hate to break it to you uneducated fools, but it is perfectly within an event organiser's rights to implement regulations such as this. It is called the 'control of park principle' and is widely used in almost every large event (think music concerts, sporting events etc). It seems to me as though this has nothing to do with bad PR (on the contrary, it is a widely used move by most organisations that run events, so you'd better check yourselves before you wreck yourselves.
ReplyDeleteI am impartial on this whole situation, but common sense tells me that this is just barrel-scraping. Poor dear.
Anonymous(5 Jan 2012) : you are allowed to use pictures of dogs 'publicly or as an example' without consent.
ReplyDeleteIn some people's opinion it's wrong, but that doesn't mean it's 'not allowed'. Same as plenty of other things.
You are missing the point. Concerts have restrictions because of commercial/pirating concerns and/or exclusivity is given to a certain outlet/s. If, for instance, the KC was giving exclusive coverage rights to, for instance, the Daily Telegraph or Sky News then of course, restricting others would be fair enough. But the Kennel Club in fact allows dozens of news photographers/film crews into Crufts every year (the only exclusive bit being the events in the Arena).
ReplyDeleteNow of course the KC is is within its rights to try to ensure that the coverage is positive (confiscating cameras aside); the point I am making is that such censorship is a poor move PR-wise.
Jemima
and we should trust You PR wise because???? you only show balanced and even handed films do you?! The Kennel Club abd Crufts are under and obligation to protect those who enter there and their dogs from being exploted by those who want to seel theri own agenda, or are you saying all you have published/reported has been the truth ?
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that Jemima considers herself the person at whom this regulation is aimed - perhaps a case of an over inflated sense of self importance? I don't have a very high opinion of the KC nor of it's PR capabilities, but there are other problems which have been caused by unauthorised commercial photography/recording. There have been cases over the last few years of "independent" video recordings of breed judging being commercially released for sale. The one I saw was extremely poor quality, and contained only 50% of the judging, although this was not stated in the sales literature. The KC are keen to crack down on this kind of scam.
ReplyDeleteSome unknown commented:
ReplyDelete"Hmm last time i was at the theater in London ( not so long ago) it was stated very clearly .. NO PHOTOS ALLOWED.. NONE ZERO NADA.. if you did take a picture your camera was taken from you.. and the pictures deleted or destroyed. No flashes were allowed and certainly no "filming". One person violated the rule and was quickly escorted out of the theater..so I guess the theater has boundaries in the UK while dog shows do not.."
There is no parallel here, rudimentary thinker. The product in this case that you use is media and direct replication of such is infringement on copyright laws. By photographing dogs, how are you stealing value or revenue directly as to breeding, studding, accreditation or replicating anything of the such..you can't breed or win title, sell puppies or perform trials with a resulting photograph or video. Instead stick to simple statements like: "the moon is far" and feel absolutely, undeniably righteous.
"I have yet to see one without ectropion" so just how many classes of Neapolitan Mastiffs have you judged then to make such a bold claim?
ReplyDeleteSeriously Anon? If you don't mind... find us a picture of one adult mastino without it where the dog hasn't been surgically altered. I've certainly seen a couple with eyes tighter than others but every single one had exposed haw.
ReplyDeleteNow that said - some certainly handle this exposure better than others. I've seen some where the dog was in obvious need of medical care and others where the haw still appeared healthy somehow.
Wow!
ReplyDeleteOver half a million visits to your blog.
Thank you for providing a platform for interesting and educational discussions on different pedigree dog subjects.
Keep up the great work :)
I agree with Kate. Well done, Jemima! Keep fighting the good fight.
ReplyDeleteSweet Anonymous of Jan 7th 17.24, it is not necessary to be a judge in order to see painful conditions caused by breed standards in dogs. Indeed, some of us believe being a conformation judge makes that extremely difficult.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/MastinoHealth/
ReplyDeleteI have just spent an interesting couple of hours reading this Facebook page on Neapolitan Mastiff Health. It gives one a good idea of the range of health problems in the breed
A@ B Carlson, well Mrs Harrison makes the statement on here so shouldnt she tell us just how many of that breed she has seen to make such a statement? be they at shows or any other place, or is this another throw away line just to grab attention that cannot be backed upi with proof?
ReplyDeleteWell, I dont go to many shows nowadays, and when I do it is always on Gundog Day, so I rarely get to see a Neapolitan Mastiff. But after the debates about the breed on this list, I was interested enough to start reading breed websites, like the US Mastino Health website and the UK Neapolitan Mastiff Health Facebook group. These are sites run by people in the breed, not by critical outsiders looking in, and it is fairly obvious from their posts this is a breed with a lot of problems (structural, skin, eyes, bloat) and one cant help noticing the number of reports of early and premature death, and a lot of eye and skin problems, also indications or poorly functioning autoimmune systems. Clearly there are people in the breed who are both concerned and knowledgable about the problems and trying to do something about them, and this has to be acknowledged positively , but still leaves me , as a complete outsider looking in, wondering how the breed got to this state in the first place, and how long it will take to breed healthier dogs from what they have now. I was encouraged to see that there are NM owners and breeders who are able to discuss possible outcrossing fairly rationally (not many breeds where one can have a civilized discussion on this topic). But concerned to see more discussion of how to "fix" cherry eye than about breeding away from it. And until show judges stop putting up dogs with obvious and visible defects (like ectropion ) , what incentive is there for real change?
ReplyDeleteI'm quite impressed after reading the UK Facebook page by the NM owners who are willing to discuss the health problems in their dogs fairly openly. Just hope they are typical of owners/breeders and not the exception
Back on the subject of photography.
ReplyDeleteThe following link is interesting....
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ukphotographersrights-v2.pdf
In that it seems to suggest that if you enter a private property (e.g. NEC) knowing the rules about photography, and breach the rules, you become guilty of trespass.
I don't suppose this will be published but I often read this blog and wonder why Jemima has such an issue with the Kennel Club and the highly visible world of show dogs when there are far worse things going on in the dog world. With her influence and access to the media, dogs would be better served if she took a trip to Wales and went after ignorant councillors like Hazel Evans at Carmarthanshire who thinks dogs bred in barns on puppy farms is the way forward for modern dog breeders. 'Minimum effort for maximum profit' http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Defiant-campaigners-vow-continue-puppy-farm/story-13280410-detail/story.html
ReplyDeleteDaz, you continue to miss the point. You're right in saying the KC can set rules re photography. The point I was making is that they're being selective. And, yes, you can be asked to leave - but they cannot confiscate your camera or film. As the pdf you link to above says:
ReplyDelete"Neither the property owner nor his employees have any right to confiscate or damage a photographer's camera or other equipment, or to demand film or the deletion of memory cards."
Jemima
Pedigree Dogs Exposed was about serious health and genetic problems in pedigree (ie KC registered) dogs. Puppy farming in Wales is another and different problem. There have been other programmes exposing puppy farming on television, most recently the very disturbing film about Irish puppy farming. Different people active in the world of dogs have different interests and different priorities, and one cant hope to keep up with ALL aspects of dogs and dog breeding . Trying to divert attention from the very real health and genetic problems in pedigree dogs by demanding that Jemima (or anybody else) focuses on a different topic isnt helpful. If you want to see yet another programme about puppy farming on television, find a sympathetic journalist/producer who finds the topic more compelling and has the time and funding to make the programme. PDE was the FIRST programme to draw attention to the issues around health and genetics in pedigree dogs, therefore a very important documentary
ReplyDeleteAnd one more thing to think about , it seems in the whole of Wales there are less than 200 licensed breeders, of whom most are not problematic. How many breeders of pedigree dogs are knowingly breeding dogs with serious health problems - dogs who cannot even breathe, move or reproduce normally? Dogs with epilepsy, bloat, painful skin and eye problems? Dogs who die prematurely from cancers and other inherited diseases? Go figure who produces more dogs annually.
I can be as distressed and angry as anybody about disturbing photos and films of conditions in puppy farms, but I dont lose sight of the fact that where actual numbers are concerned, there are far more pedigree dogs with health problems in the UK than dogs bred in puppy farms.
How are they being selective?
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing that they are deriving an income from 'commercial photographers' to whom they issue passes (i.e. they are charging them for the priviledge).
So surely they are within their rights to rule as they have.
As for the confiscation issue, while they cannot confiscate equipment etc on a permanent basis, I think they could have a darn good case for seizing equipment pending Police attendance if they thought anything illegal had occurred. Deletion of images is of course yet anbother issue.
Actually, we do have a sequence on puppy farms in PDE2...
ReplyDeleteAs I am crunching these figures right now... there are around 90 licensed breeders in Carmarthenshire, and around 72 in neighbouring Ceredigion - so there are probably more than 200 in total throughout Wales. Between them, they are churning out thousands of puppies.
I am not sure that puppy farm campaigners would agree that "most are not problematic". Checks are often cursory; some are licensed for 50 or more breeding bitches (several over 100 and one for 196), and staffing levels can be very low - hence the current moves to improve the legislation.
Jemima
Daz wrote: "I'm guessing that they are deriving an income from 'commercial photographers' to whom they issue passes (i.e. they are charging them for the priviledge)."
ReplyDeleteI'm referring to news media accreditation, Daz. The KC does not make money out of them.
"As for the confiscation issue, while they cannot confiscate equipment etc on a permanent basis, I think they could have a darn good case for seizing equipment pending Police attendance"
No, I don't think so.
Jemima
JH says she "A" sequence on puppy farming, is that all you could fit in a 30 minute film?!? as for Dalraich saying "Pedigree Dogs Exposed was about serious health and genetic problems in pedigree (ie KC registered) dogs." that is the very point that was NOT MADE CLEAR, the vast majority of pedigree dogs ARE NOT KC registered and there is NO public health records (even if they are tested) but was this made clear no, the target was just the KC dogs. So now Ms Harrison complains the KC wont play ball and let her use film/images from their own show, but that is just one show, surly she can use pictures she has been allowed to take at all the other shows.....or wont they play ball either?
ReplyDeleteI think the figure of around 200 licensed dog breeders was from the Welsh Government's report on dog breeding from around 2008 (have tried without success to track it down again this morning). And yes, I think they were concentrated in a couple of counties, with some other Welsh counties having very few licensed breeders. I remember being very surprised by the low number, from the level of campaigning on Welsh puppy farms I had expected the number to be in the thousands
ReplyDeleteI suspect the number of dogs bred in really bad puppy farms in the UK is often wildly exaggerated, but stand to be corrected if somebody can find a reliable number! I cant find any real figures. But apart from the Welsh counties, there is no central collection of figures for the number of licensed breeders in the UK, and only wild guesses at the number of puppies bred in puppy farms. One pretty sensible SSPCA worker said to me recently, there are more puppies coming in from Irish puppy farms than are bred in UK puppy farms nowadays
I know this will probably draw howls from some of the anti puppy farming lobby. All I can say is, please produce some hard figures. Meanwhile I still think there are more dogs with serious health problems registered with the KC than dogs bred in UK puppy farms
I think targeting KC registered dogs are just going to open doors for more puppy farming. Who wants to buy a KC registered dog when I can buy a pure bred dog of my choice from a backyard breeder. This campaign IMO will have a reverse effect. Who is going to enforse laws an control puppy farming??
ReplyDelete"I think targeting KC registered dogs are just going to open doors for more puppy farming. Who wants to buy a KC registered dog when I can buy a pure bred dog of my choice from a backyard breeder."
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be saying that PDE has had far more effects than all the campaigning on puppy farms? There seems to be a total lack of logic in the belief that prospective puppy buyers will be put off buying KC registered dogs because of they are perceived, rightly or wrongly, to have health and genetic problems, but the same people will remain deaf to all the campaigning about puppy farms and buy a puppy from a BYB or a puppy farm with no questions asked about the health of the puppy or its parents. It seems to me , if puppy buyers are really concerned about buying a healthy puppy they will be asking the same questions , whoever they buy their puppy from. That argument just doesnt make sense
"Who is going to enforse laws an control puppy farming?"
The same people who do now. Local authorities, with the RSPCA/SSPCA involved in cases of severe neglect and cruelty. The legal framework is there , although waiting for an overhaul. DEFRA could be taking more of a leading role, at the moment they dont even keep any central statistics on the number of licensed breeders, how many puppies they produce, or the number of premises which are unsatisfactory , under investigation or prosecution, or closed down, let alone actively promoting changes in legislation or improvements in resources to police the implementation of legislation and regulation
I find it worrying how many people are attacking the RSPCA for not intervening enough in puppy farming (they cant unless conditions are so bad that they constitute cruelty or extreme neglect) but absolutely nobody seems to question the lack of leadership or action by DEFRA where dog breeding is concerned
Dalriach The puppy farms are churning out thousands of "Pedigree Pups" No wonder there is so many unhealthy pups/dogs in the UK as they are not interested in health just bank balances. So imo PDE should have focused more time on puppyfarms as they are the main big producers of sick animals
ReplyDelete" So imo PDE should have focused more time on puppyfarms as they are the main big producers of sick animals "
ReplyDeleteEvidence , please. Actual numbers of puppies bred by puppy farms in the UK?
And how do these numbers compare with the 257,062 new registrations with the KC in 2010?
dalriach said...
ReplyDeletePedigree Dogs Exposed was about serious health and genetic problems in pedigree (ie KC registered) dogs. Puppy farming in Wales is another and different problem.
Dalriach - The Programme is PEDIGREE Dogs Exposed. Not all pedigree dogs are registered with the Kennel Club. Not all Pedigree dogs are bred by people that show their dogs. KC registered dogs are an easy target for the simple fact they are on a register! Unregistered/untraceable dogs from Puppy Farms, Back Yard Breeders and Designer Cross breeders, breed the majority of dogs in this country with little regard for health. Puppy Farmers will breed from any dog that crosses their path. Mother/son/father/daughter/deaf/blind...... Then some of them sell them to pets shops or the likes of Harrods where they are told on at huge profit to unsuspecting public.
On another topic raised on here about health checks before entering a show ring - I've been showing dogs for nearly 40 years and have never seen this. That's not to say it hasn't happened!
dalriach said...
ReplyDeleteEvidence , please. Actual numbers of puppies bred by puppy farms in the UK?
And how do these numbers compare with the 257,062 new registrations with the KC in 2010?
That's the problem - KC registered dogs are a known quantity - BVA tested dogs are a known quantity and results are available to the general public to view on the KC website. No-one knows exactly how many dogs come from puppy farms, or how many dogs are bred by 'Bob down the pub'
or how many oodles, poos, morkies, shcnoodles there are because there is no official record of them. They are untraceable and therfore it is difficult to do an exposee on them without a great deal of time and effort. Easier to target the KC and dogs on a known register!
And easy to make unsubstantiated claims that huge numbers of the dog owning public are turning to buying sick puppies from pet shops and puppy farms instead of KC registered dogs as a result of PDE. When you think about, that claim is quite illogical - people who have had their awareness raised by PDE about about health problems in dogs are not going to buy a puppy farm product from parents with no health testing and raised in poor conditions. My own experience as a breeder is that puppy buyers are now asking far more questions before buying a KC registered dog (and quite rightly), doing more research, and exercising a lot more caution. And that's fine with me. Although I'm in a breed where registrations have gone down since around 2000, and some breeds with real health problems have experienced a drop in numbers (boxers, dobermanns, rottweilers), overall KC registrations have not changed much since since 2008, no more than one would expect in a period of economic recession. I see no genuine evidence that dog owners are buying puppies from puppy farms instead of KC registered purebreds, or that the number of dogs from really bad puppy farms is as high as some people seem to believe
ReplyDeleteBut if you can provide some genuine evidence , I'm open to being convinced . Until then, I will keep an open mind :))
And on the whole I would prefer Jemima to carry on focussing on health and genetic problems in pedigree dogs, and not see her giving in to pressure to divert her from those issues. She was commissioned to make PDE2 as a follow up to PDE, but if the BBC wants Jemima to do ANOTHER completely new film in the future about puppy farms or the work she does rescuing dogs from Irish pounds, I'm sure she would do it with just as much thorough research, and the same professional journalistic skill to get people talking again. But puppy farms and rescue are DIFFERENT issues, they deserve their own programmes
Anon 14:47 said "That's the problem - KC registered dogs are a known quantity"
ReplyDeleteNot entirely true, only the ones who have had their health tests published are a known quantity. And in most cases there is no requirement to have ANY health tests done - your dog will be no less registered than it would be if you'd have spent the money and had the tests done. Compulsory tests are usually only required under the rules of the ABS, and even then only in a few cases. Many of the tests are only recommended, not compulsory. So even those bred by ABS breeders aren't always a fully known quantity.
You say it's easier to target the KC dogs, I say it's right to target the KC. Why? Simple: the KC promotes itself as THE guardians of pedigree dogs, putting dog health first and foremost. But at the same time it allows registration of dogs that have never been tested, even in breeds where health problems are rife. It allows registration even if the parent dogs are known to be suffering from or carriers of genetic health problems. It allows registration by puppy farmers. It is not the dogs being targeted, it is the Kennel Club itself and those irresponsible breeders that hide behind the veil of respectability that KC registration gives them.
If the KC made a statement that said that by say 2018 ALL breeders MUST comply with the requirements of the ABS in order for their litters to be registered, then I'd be happier with them. That would give breeders 6 years to get their house in order. I'd be happier still if the health tests were made compulsory rather than just recommended. That way, KC dogs WOULD be a known quantity, and the KC could add its considerable clout in shutting down irresponsible breeders.
Barry O ( my) says:
ReplyDeleteThere is no parallel here, rudimentary thinker. The product in this case that you use is media and direct replication of such is infringement on copyright laws. By photographing dogs, how are you stealing value or revenue directly as to breeding, studding, accreditation or replicating anything of the such..you can't breed or win title, sell puppies or perform trials with a resulting photograph or video. Instead stick to simple statements like: "the moon is far" and feel absolutely, undeniably righteous.
Barry .. the moon is not that far..not compared to your thinking.. you must be an actor afraid of someone "stealing your aura"
By photographing dogs and then claiming they have something wrong with them without proof you are certainty "stealing their value" either as stud dogs or as brood bitches or just the libel of your kennel name. get a clue would you?:
Libel, on the other hand, is the written "publication" of a defamatory remark that has the tendency to injure another's reputation or character. Libel also includes a publication on radio, audio or video. Even though this would be considered oral, or verbal, communication to someone it is actually considered to be libel because it is published in a transfixed form.
What are the elements of a cause of action for libel or slander?
The elements of a defamation suit; whether slander or libel, are:
1. A defamatory statement;
2. Published to a third party;
3. Which the speaker knew or should have known was false;
4. That causes injury to the subject of the communication
well Roger anything to make you happy.after all it is all about YOU..get a rescue dog.. that way you can have a dog you know nothing about.. health wise, temperament wise or any other wise.. then you can stop complaining
ReplyDeleteYAWN
I take it the call out that Beverley Cuddy is making today for puppy farm/pedigree dog stories is for your next Pedigree Dogs Exposed documentary?
ReplyDeleteNo, Anon, it is not.
ReplyDeleteJemima
Just a question - KC registered dogs are targeted. The same breeders can still breed pure bred dogs without papers and sell them without being forced to do any tests and still make a profit on the puppy. The more money KC breeders have to fork out for health tests the more expensive a KC puppy will become and the more puppies will be on demand from the cheaper puppy farmers. Lets face it - 99% of dog owners are the normal pet owners. Pet owners does not want to fork out thousands of dollars for a dog unless you are in the 1% wealthy bracket.
ReplyDeleteI see that someone who writes a small bit in Our dogs every week is warning people on facebook, quote...
ReplyDelete"Show dog folk. Please don't get sucked in by the request for information on puppy farms from Dogs Today and Beverley Cuddy. We have been reliably informed that she is doing it for Pedigree Dogs Exposed 2."
Errrrrr?
For some weird reason I seem to recall the majority saying they WANTED puppy farm coverage.
You see you just cannot win Jemima.
Isnt it a bit late to try and push a bit in about puppy farming now, if the programe is due to air in the next couple of months, sounds more like the producers want to "seen" to be doing the right thing and kid the BBC they have balance in it, if it is stuck inthe programme out of context we can see that is the case, if not why not say before that this was to be a major chunk?
ReplyDeleteTo people who are bringing up the puppy farms I honestly think that they are trying to deflect their level of responsibility to the welfare of pedigree dogs.
ReplyDeleteUnlike puppy farms, which have been covered numerous times by reporters and documentaries in both America and the UK, pedigree dogs are less regulated and less documented and people are less aware of the welfare of these dogs.
@ Anonymous who said:
"JH says she 'A' sequence on puppy farming, is that all you could fit in a 30 minute film?!? as for Dalraich saying 'Pedigree Dogs Exposed was about serious health and genetic problems in pedigree (ie KC registered) dogs.' that is the very point that was NOT MADE CLEAR, the vast majority of pedigree dogs ARE NOT KC registered and there is NO public health records (even if they are tested) but was this made clear no, the target was just the KC dogs."
She made it very clear that the program was about pedigree dogs. It doesn't take common sense to see that, it's even in the title.
Yes, there are many dogs who are not KC registered but many of those breeders still follow the breed standards set forth by the KC, do they not? There are few breeders I've met of any registered breed of dog that deviate from the purported AKC or UKC breed standard.
But that does not mean PDE does not target dogs who are not registered. Her point as I see it is this, if you want to breed a dog for a certain look, you must put it's physical and mental health and welfare before your skin deep vanity.
"Yes, there are many dogs who are not KC registered but many of those breeders still follow the breed standards set forth by the KC,W well sickpup you cant argue it both ways that THE SHOWSs are the problem beacuse they means the standards are all that dogs are judged against (which is not true) if you then make the claim that those who do not register their dogs follow the same standards, so to make the former claim the prime cause is a daft one. The FACT that less than 2% of any breed is shown proves why the RSPCA current struggle for more media coverage is the waste of money it been proved to be.
ReplyDeletethe KC are guilty of registering puppies - not only from puppy farmers but from breeders who breed their bitches back to back each and every season. Under the current rules they can breed 6 litters between the ages of 12 months to 6 years (inclusive meaning up until they are 7 years old!). A bitch can have one litter after the other and the KC will register them - no questions asked. The bitch can then go on and keep having litters but without them being registered. This is not a "licensed" breeder we are talking about....but a BYB or hobby breeder who does not require to be licensed because they do not breed 5 litters or more a year. They can however seriously put the health of their bitch at risk by overbreeding and yet the KC, the guardian of dogs, the governing body for dogs in the UK - will still register each and every litter. One only has to look at the BRS to see this happening every single quarter. Bitches having 6 litters; the last one 6 months ago. I'm only taking about gundogs here! Every single breed that breeds a pedigree or purebred dog breeds to a standard - by that I mean that every dog bred that is a specific breed will have to look like that specific breed and the looks are set down by the breed standard. They may not look entirely like the breed standard to be able to go up against champions in the show ring but they still look like the breed. How many of us have seen Westies, Cavs, Bichon - that we know are the breed but we say they have been "badly bred". Pugs, Bulldogs, Frenchies that are badly bred, still look like the breed and still suffer from the same problems. The KC argument is flawed in relation to breed standards only affecting show dogs. Piffle! What makes me think that PDE was one of the best documentaries ever to be made about dogs...is the fact that it highlighted that this type of abuse happens at the very top......and we know it happens at the very bottom - of dog breeding. How can we ever trust breeders who constantly tell us they are "experts" if they are breeding dogs that suffer so horrendously because of their features; who admit to killing puppies because they don't "look" a certain way! There are huge problems in every area of dog breeding and dog welfare. The KC are supposed to be at the top of the tree; promoting themselves as this high and mighty organisation that oversees all that is good about dogs. From what you can see above, nothing is further from the truth. The Breed Record Supplements hold a lot of information that is a damning reminder about everything the KC is not!!! The KC don't care! They used to have a rule that only one litter could be registered per annum. They did away with that - one can only assume to increase revenue. The KC is not an animal welfare organisation; the KC is a private members club and it can add rules and remove rules at will.
ReplyDeleteWhat saddens me about overbreeding is that you see a certain bitch start off her breeding career having quite large litters and then with each one she gets weaker and weaker and, at her sixth, she is having perhaps one puppy - because she is worn out. I'm sure everybody would agree that this is not the life for a dog. Interestingly, licensed breeders are only supposed to have one litter per year from any bitch. I'm sure they have more but they are only supposed to have one. The KC openly reports that they allow 6 litters one after the other over a 3 year period. Simply shocking. That is reducing to 4 - but even that one after the other is too much for a bitch. Shocking really! How can a dog be "fit for function" when they are knackered? This is the organisation that fights puppy farming! I think not!
Jemima, Curious if the Dog shows are open to the public on your side of the pond. AKC events in the USA are technically supposed to be a venue for the public to be educated on the facts about the dog breeds they are seeing at the shows. So whenever possible my family attends with dogs available to be petted and allowing access for the spectators to ask about the breeds we represent. Its supposed to be fun and therefore pictures and video should be a welcomed thing at these events. Especially if the breeders with their specimens are actually confident they are doing a good thing. If inbreeding and really close line-breeding are working somehow to improve these dogs represented at these shows... then well.... A prof of concept is certainly something that should be immediately visible. Unless of course none of their breeding practices really work to do more than maintain a look from the lines they breed from. ;-)
ReplyDeleteOh Sickpup you defo are confusing yourself now. Have a look at advertising sites and count how many pups being sold are actually from Show breeders. IMO At least Show breeders know about health testing etc..
ReplyDeleteIn fact try phoning a few of the BYB's adverts and ask about health tests lol You will hear "Oh My bitch has been to a Vet and she is healthy" Try it---its sad really that the majority of Show Breeders are trying there damnest to breed healthy pups and the majorety of BYB's and Puppyfarmers do not even know what a health test is let alone what is behind the lines that they are breeding from
Annie Macfarlane said...
ReplyDeletethe KC are guilty of registering puppies - not only from puppy farmers but from breeders who breed their bitches back to back each and every season. Under the current rules they can breed 6 litters between the ages of 12 months to 6 years (inclusive meaning up until they are 7 years old!). .......
why oh why dont people get their fact STRAIGHT!!! from the 1st January 2012 only FOUR litter can be registered from any bitch.
Very easy for puppy farmers who register with the KC to circumvent the rules. Each time they register a litter, they can register one more bitch puppy than they actually had. Gradually they acquire registration documents for several non existent bitches, who can be "bred" from a year or two later. That way they can breed more than four litters from the real bitches they own, but register them to the fictitious bitches. The Kennel Club is unlikely to ask any questions or do any checks.
ReplyDeleteI beg your pardon!!!! So, let me get my facts straight now. Prior to 1st january 2012 - 10 days ago....the KC are guilty of registering puppies - not only from puppy farmers but from breeders who breed their bitches back to back each and every season. Under the previous rules they can breed 6 litters between the ages of 12 months to 6 years (inclusive meaning up until they are 7 years old!). The new rules from 1st January 2012 (according to anonymous!) means that the KC will now only register 4 litters back to back, one after the other from the age of 12 months to 6 years. Thereafter the bitch can still have puppies but not registered with the KC...but can still be registered with DLRC or any of the other registries. Reducing litters by 2 in total, does not make what they do ethical or moral. 4 litters back to back will still cause serious stress on a bitch.
ReplyDeleteAnd to think until the 1st January 2012 they were allowing 6 litters back to back....pardon me for being a few days late with my facts!
Whatever....it's still not an organisation that is actively fighting puppy farming or dog welfare. Why not reduce to 4 and add that only 1 litter can be registered per annum?
I do apologise to anybody who read my post with such inaccurate information. I have now corrected this. Still quite sad though....for an organisation at the top of it's game!
I wish people would be brave enough to give their names when posting. It's very rude.
ReplyDeleteDalriach - I think you are quite correct. Nothing is stopping anyone from breeding fictitiously under false doggie papers. The problems are far more serious for puppy farmers. The problem would be that the KC will not be able to verify each birth as the are 1000's per breed per year. KC funding comes from members - the more involved and regulated things become the more man power is needed to enforse the laws, the more money is needed to run the orginsation the more expensive fees and registrations will become, the less people will be members, the less dogs will be registered. This will mean breed clubs will have to keep their own registries.. MMM
ReplyDeleteAnon said "KC funding comes from members"
ReplyDeleteCertainly not. The KC has only around 1500 members, whose contributions are only a drop in the ocean of the KC's total income, and who enjoy the use of the KC facilities as a private club that are heavily subsidised by the likes of you and me, through our puppy registrations
The last KC income figures I can find are from 2009, when the KC's total income was £12.2 million. Of this around £10.9 million was from registrations, KC pet insurance and the PetLog scheme. Registrations alone provided around £8 million of the total, so are by far the KC's main source of income.
Hard to find the income from Crufts , last figure I saw was that the KC made a profit of around half a million
Interesting to see how much goes on things like "external relations", travel expenses etc. I cannot find any figure for the upkeep of the the prestigious building in Clarges Street, or the amount of capital tied up in that building. It baffles me why the KC couldn't function equally well from the industrial estate in Aylesbury where the registration department is based and which provides the bulk of the KC income. When I suggested that on the KC website , the polite reply was that "our members wouldnt like that". Well, if they closed down Clarges Street, opened up membership to any repectable dog breeder who wants to join, they could raise a lot more in subscriptions, save the cost of Clarges Street, have a democratically run organisation, and still have increased income to finance more more effective control of dog breeding
The KC funding does not only come from members...what about registrations, show entries, breed club affiliation fees, affix registrations which are renewed each year, assured breeder schemes.
ReplyDeleteThe funding to the KC is mainly from non-members. the KC carry out no "due diligence" when registering puppies. They could do a lot more and they could restrict litters bred to one per year per bitch.
I just heard this morning of a CKCS breeder (BYB) who is breeding back to back, no health tests - and registering puppies with the KC each time....no questions asked.
This really does need to change. Until change happens the KC cannot say they are there for dogs - because they clearly are not.
Annie Macfarlane said...
ReplyDeleteI wish people would be brave enough to give their names when posting. It's very rude.
but then again who are you what is your "Pedigree" in dogs.....or is that a dirty word on this site?!?
The point being made by Annie dear anonymous12:32 is that by putting your name to your comments allows people to get to know you and understand your point of view. I am sure that like me Annie fears that so many of you continue to hide behind anonymity because you are in fact ashamed of the weaknesses in your arguments. Though possibly not shamed by much of the ad hominem abuse, sadly.
ReplyDeleteBecause Annie like many others always uses her name we can get to know her. She does not have to justify herself to you here. For many of us she is a stalwart campaigner on behalf of pedigree dogs (as well as non-pedigree). And of course pedigree is not a "dirty" word. We are campaigning because we love pedigree dogs (and yes non-pedigree). What we hate are those who persist in anonymity and those who persist in deluded beliefs around poor breeding strategies.
So please start to use your names.
Philippa Robinson
This is an official reply to an email sent to the Kennel Club regarding photography at KC licensed events.
ReplyDelete"Photography at Events
We write with reference to your enquiry and complaint about photography at a licensed event.
There is some confusion (even within the law) about the rights to photograph and privacy so called.
There are no specific Kennel Club Rules or Regulations covering the issue of photography or video recording. Some Show Societies do restrict the use of photography or video recording by the inclusion of provisions within the Show Schedule. The use of notices at the show itself may also help but the restrictions need to be specific. In the absence of any specific notices then it must be a matter of common sense and courtesy as to what is acceptable. It is always helpful if Societies set out the expectations and provisions for photography at shows so that everyone is clear at the outset.
Whilst it may be unreasonable to prevent people taking photographs of the performance of their own dogs, the rights of others should be respected and should the use of the photography become invasive and unwelcome then the user should abide by any request or direction to cease.
We would suggest that it is acceptable to be entitled to photograph the general overview of the show and photograph the performance of one’s own dogs. It would also be acceptable to photograph other exhibitors and their dogs provided that consent is given.
It is however not so easy to police or enforce this position.
As we understand it the legal position is that there is no exclusive right of action for breach of privacy within our laws. The right to privacy enshrined in the Human Rights Act is as against public authorities only. In any event it is likely that a dog show would be considered to be a sufficiently public event with no immediate expectation of privacy.
The courtesy aspect should extend to use of photographs and uploading to the Internet.
If this is done without consent and is a problem then we suggest that a request is made directly for the removal of the photographs – and to keep asking until this is done.
If there is no co-operation in this regard then to report the matter to the Show Society who might want to consider either the future appointment of the photographer or future entries in the case of an exhibitor.
Yours sincerely,
Hayley Swann-Ross
Breed Shows Team
Canine Activities Department
THE KENNEL CLUB"
Philippa Robinson now wpuld that be the one who take the ambush pictures of the CKCS meeting and other ones of dogs, sent to DT and Ms Harrison which allowes them to peddle their commercial views?
ReplyDeleteSorry, Annie, if I dont sign my name to every post but use my KC affix which I perhaps mistakenly assume people are more likely to recognize than my name. Its an affix associated with both show and working gundogs, all unashamedly KC registered dogs with long pedigrees :)). I have absolutely no problems with being a supporter of Jemima AND a breeder of pedigree dogs, four of mine will be at Crufts this year and one will be running in field trials under KC rules. I have absolutely no problem with anybody else owning, breeding, exhibiting or competing with KC registered pedigree dogs as long as the dogs are fit, healthy and functional. But I also have no problem with anybody who wants to breed non KC registered dogs, as long as they are also fit , healthy and functional. I'm quite happy to start adding my own name at the end of my posts to this blog, I have nothing to hide.
ReplyDeleteOK , Anon, why dont you post under your own name?
Margaret Sierakowski
Annie: you need a very quick lesson on the anatomy of the bitch and breeding of dogs. Your statement of them being "knackered" is completely false. Bitches were meant to be bred.. It is natural for them to reproduce. Many vets recommend back to back breeding to protect the bitch from deadly pyometria and them spaying them. How do you know what is "too much for a bitch"? again stop generalizing and please stop the anthropomorphism
ReplyDeleteAnnie MacfarlaneJan 10, 2012 11:16 AM wrote:
ReplyDelete"Under the current rules they can breed 6 litters between the ages of 12 months to 6 years (inclusive meaning up until they are 7 years old!)."
Good grief, what a stupid policy. Some breeds have long reproductive lives. One of my Afghan bitches had her first litter at age seven (eight pups) and her second at age nine (six pups.) I have a litter planned for this year from a seven year old bitch. That's not uncommon in the large sighthounds.
"What saddens me about overbreeding is that you see a certain bitch start off her breeding career having quite large litters and then with each one she gets weaker and weaker and, at her sixth, she is having perhaps one puppy - because she is worn out."
A reduction in litter size is quite normal no matter how many litters a bitch has. The first litter is usually smaller, then there is an increase, then a reduction; the age at which this reduction starts varies with the breed, and even within lines. Reproductive competence must be selected for, or you chance losing it, and that includes litter size and fertility. Each litter produces scarring on the inside of the uterus at the placental attachment sites as well, which makes implantation at that site more difficult on the next litter, reducing litter size.
I have never done back to back litters myself but know many people that do and as long as the bitch stays in good condition it's not a problem. Again, this is something that needs to be bred for.
Breeds, lines and individual dogs vary; to say this, that or the other thing is always wrong is misleading.
So how many back-to-back litters do your bull terrier bitches endure, Ms. Dykema? From what age to what age are they producing puppies for you every six months?
ReplyDeleteJust want to be clear here.
And you evaluate the results of each breeding how, exactly?
Or are show dog folk such inerrant judges of health and temperament and function that they know exactly what they have by the time a litter is four months old?
Silly question, in the world where people brag about their six-month-old "champions." Who cares if they are clinically dysplastic by eight months, seizing at fourteen months, and allergic to everything by two years? By that time, Momma has three more litters on the ground, and Daddy, who can say?
well Heather..since most of my bitches come in every nine months and none of them seem to be "eduring" motherhood but rather seem to enjoy it so your points are moot to me. But thanks for asking.
DeleteI do not own any dogs named "Momma" or "Daddy" although I did enjoy watching Cesar Milans dog named Daddy..he was quite a dog
Jan
Wow Heather how the ugly climbs out of you when someone has an opinion. It says a lot of your Character and is not very nice to attack and generalise people. Please do your research more properly and actualy get involved with some breeds, breeders and people involved before making very biased comments like above. Thank you for posting under your name, so that we can judge your personality and character and so that we can form a picture of the kind of cold person you are.
ReplyDeleteJacqui Emmerson (maltese poodles)
Ossum. Keep it coming. Since you are a lawyer, you know all about the ad hominem.
DeleteStill don't have an answer about how many back-to-back litters those bitches have produced.
But what would I know? Anyone with a Googles can tell that I'm not a dog breeder, right?