Thursday, 12 January 2012

The first cut is the.... hardest

The story so far...
Yesterday we had our first viewing of our update to Pedigree Dogs Exposed with the BBC. The film is now at rough-cut stage - never a film's prettiest moment - and showing it to anyone at this stage in the production process is always a bit nerve-wracking. It's the moment of truth for the broadcaster, too.

Fortunately, I am lucky enough to have two wonderful execs - BBC commissioning editor Clare Paterson and executive producer Jane Merkin. Both have been a great support throughout a somewhat surreal production period and, to our relief, they were enthusiastic about the film so far.

Above is a tease screenshot of the film being edited, with the playhead parked on the opening shot of the film (right) after the title sequence. The picture in the middle is from a sequence towards the end of the film of a fascinating procedure we filmed at the University of Leipzig three weeks ago with world brachycephalic expert, Professor Gerhard Oechtering.  The film is a mix of reprise material from PDE, updates on those stories, plus some totally new sequences which we're excited about.

I see that some are claiming that there won't be any reprise material from the original film in PDE2 - not the case at all.. (if the "Let's Resolutely and Always Get the Wrong End of the Stick" Facebook group wants to double-check with the BBC, I am sure it will be more than happy to confirm.)

The Kennel Club told us before Christmas that it did not want to do a filmed interview for PDE2.  We were disappointed. If the KC was getting slightly more savvy media advice it would have realised that the amount of scrutiny the first film was subjected to meant it was in a strong position in terms of ensuring that its views were super-accurately represented in the sequel.  The broadcasting watchdog Ofcom found no overall unfairness to the Kennel Club in PDE,  but it did rule that we should have given the KC a better right of reply on certain points. No one on the team wants that to happen again and a great deal of care is being taken as a result.

Anyway, having turned us down for an interview, we then wrote to the KC offering them (as per BBC editorial guidelines) a written right of reply to certain points we are raising in the film - points that were sent over to them.  We were pretty confident the KC would accept this offer as it is usually seen by individuals and organisations as a very safe way of responding to allegations. (Editorial guidelines have very strict rules about the way these are handled.) But after mulling this over for a couple of weeks or so, the KC called on Monday to say that it had decided to not even offer any written statements to include in the film. No doubt this news will prompt a deluge from the Anons cheering the KC for its decisions - but, on the whole, this tactic tends not to play well in the general media or with the public.

I imagine the KC's tactic at the time of broadcast will be to try to make this about personalities rather than the issues. Or perhaps just to keep its head down.

I am not sure it can be very confident that either approach will work.

I feel genuinely sad that the KC - and others in the dog world - insist on seeing it as "them and us" and, particularly, for taking it all so very personally; for being offended that I and others have been so impertinent as to highlight breeding practices that are causing harm. For me it has always, and only ever, been about the dogs.

Actually, when I interviewed Sheila Crispin (Chair of the Dog Advisory Council) a few weeks ago, I told her (with, I admit, some small intention to provoke) that I was somewhat at a loss as to why the KC had not sent me a large bunch of flowers after Pedigree Dogs Exposed aired. (After all, didn't it give them an excuse to hasten reform they claimed was already in the pipeline?)

Sheila thought this was very funny. She has an infectious chuckle so it makes me smile every time I see it. As it's unlikely to be included in the film, here's the clip..

video

130 comments:

  1. No great surprise the Kennel Club would refuse an inteview for the film Jem, you're not exactly flavour of the month there, lol. But to not even issue a written statement is a real shocker - even the worst companies who are investigated by the BBC'S Watchdog program usually give some kind of statement to defend themselves. As you say, we the public don't like that kind of thing, it suggests they don't give a stuff. Is there enough time for you to ask them again, just in case they've seen sense? That would be 3 chances they've had to put their case forward, and nobody could say that this isn't ample.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Our door is open, Roger, and it's not quite too late for them to change their mind.

    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. isnt that what the Spider said to the Fly?

      Delete
  3. The problem with the KC staying silent is that it suggests to the public 'they're guilty as charged'. I know many (less-extreme) show people felt PDE1 was biased against them and I would imagine they'd have welcomed a rebuttal from the KC.

    For me the problem is line breeding; even those show breeders who appear to be responsible and have the best interests of the dogs in mind, will still breed litters with COIs of around 25%. They're doing this because they believe (rightly or wrongly, I don't know whether it's true or not), that out-bred dogs won't win in the show ring. It seems to me that breeding dogs that'll win in the show ring is at odds with breeding for vigour, i.e. low COIs (and I'm not talking about the breeds with conformation problems).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fran said "For me the problem is line breeding; even those show breeders who appear to be responsible and have the best interests of the dogs in mind, will still breed litters with COIs of around 25%" not sure where you get you figures from as a COI of 25% or more means the the dogs cannot be registered at the KC

      Delete
    2. "not sure where you get you figures from as a COI of 25% or more means the the dogs cannot be registered at the KC"

      No, this is not the case. The KC continues to register dogs with COIs much higher than this - not from actual first-degree relative matings but due to the cumulative effect of earlier generations of inbreeding.

      The Swedish Kennel Club has a recommended maximum 5-gen COI of 6.25% - the equivalent of first cousins. It is widely adhered to.

      Jemima

      Delete
    3. Annie Macfarlane14 January 2012 12:10

      I don't know if line breeding is done specifically to breed dogs that win in the show ring...but I would imagine that this is part of the reason ie to imprint a particular trait. I was always led to believe that line breeding is the best way to breed because....if there are any health problems lurking it will bring them to the surface and the breeder can then make decisions not to breed from that line again.... My problem with this way of thinking though is ....what about the puppies that are born with problems? I know there are some very high COIs in some breeds...for exactly the reason that Jemima states above... It's the cumulative effect that is the problem....breeding from the same bloodlines for years on end...you end up with a genetic bottleneck. But I'm always told I know nothing....so you better just disregard that comment....lol

      Delete
  4. Congratulations on getting the programme finished, and on time, and not allowing the distractions to get in the way.
    If the KC dont want to participate, its just another own goal. Why they dont want to use the opportunity to tell the public about the improvements they have implemented since 2008, and what they are still planning, is beyong my comprehension
    The one thing the opposition, typified by the anti PDE Facebook group, have succeeded in doing is drawing public attention to the nastier underworld of dog showing and dog breeding , which they represent. Their language and behaviour , and ad hominem attacks while avoiding real issues in dog breeding, have been an embarassment to decent breeders , including many of those who show their dogs
    I look forward to seeing the new programme on BBC4 later this year
    Margaret Sierakowski

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Annie Macfarlane14 January 2012 12:13

      I completely agree...and have rather encouraged people to watch PDE2. The ratings should be excellent due to their hard work. I would have preferred PDE2 to be shown on primetime BBC1 though - as a sequence to the original. I think you'll get pretty good exposure though as it stands. x

      Delete
  5. dalriach, I am not surprised that the KC have declined to comment on the PDE program considering the bias that was evident in the previous program - in stead of attacking the KC and pedigree breeders, (who seem to be an easy target) surely it would be better to do a program on Puppy Farming and Designer Dogs, whose breeders do not seem to concerned in the health of their dogs.

    ReplyDelete
  6. let's not have 'Puppy Farmers and Designer Dogs Exposed' instead....let's have it ASWELL! Followed up with,'Animal Hoarders Masquerading as Rescue Centres Exposed'! Highlighting poor practices in pedigree dog breeding and competition is important but it is only one little bit of the dog problem in this country.
    Vicky P

    ReplyDelete
  7. Corrine, I am very tired of reading unsubstantiated and mythical claims of bias directed towards Ms. Harrison. And to say that Jemima "attacked" anyone in the film is ridiculous. She didn't need to; the facts speak for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  8. SanDiegoDogMa - I did not say that Jemima "attacked" anyone in the film, all I said was that it seemed biased and this is not unsubstantiated, you only have to look at the report to see this. I would argue that there are a considerable number of pedigree breeders out there that are very devoted to their dogs and will do anything to ensure that they are "fit for purpose" and healthy. Yes there are a small minority of breeders that have poor breeding practice and that they only think of £££££'s and not the health of their dogs; it is these that should be stomped out, and I agree that there are a number of breeds out there that have suffered as a result of irresponsible breeding, GDS spring mind, however breeders are trying to sort the problem out, but it will take a while before a difference can be seen. However, attacking the pedigree breeders as a whole is not very constructive. It would be nice to see a program showing the good side of Pedigree breeding instead of the negitive.
    Anonymous, your comments are very sound and I agreed that we should be looking at the bigger problem

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Annie Macfarlane14 January 2012 12:20

      Only this week I heard about a CKCS breeder who is breeding without any health checks whatsoever and breeding back to back, one after the other.... People are being told that no breeders do the health tests as they're not worth the paper they are written on. KC register his litters and poor, unsuspecting people are buying them. KC registers lots of litters without health testing having been carried out. There are many problems in the world of dog breeding and dog welfare. Jemima doesnt have the time to concentrate on all of them... I personally think that she has done a fantastic job highlight what those at the top are doing..... If they're not getting it right...you can't expect others lower down the food chain to be doing it properly. As with any problem...you always start at the top. If you fix the problems there...the results permeate into all areas. If Jem gets the KC to do something about their practices then it will affect all dogs registered with them....not just show breeders. That is the first rule in sorting anything. It cannot be done from the bottom as these people have no clout. They need to have direction....and that comes from the KC in relation to dog breeding and KC registrations.

      Delete
  9. There needs to be prime time programming aimed at the sort of people who buy dogs but aren't going to look at the good advice on breed websites, KC website, rescue/charity websites and inernet forums to help them buy dogs from the good breeders or good rescue centres. I am sick of seeing poor quality dogs in my practice. Please use your clout to make a programme like that JH.

    Vicky P (only anon as my computer doesn't like this blog site!)
    PS, love the clip! Lots of good people at the KC but it's such a big organisation affecting chance is like turning a supertanker.....slow!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am curious. How much are you being paid to do this show or is that a secret? Are tax payer pounds used? Will you be shoving microphones in peoples faces at outdoor venues asking them if they would commit incest with their own children? Will you be showing the Nazi flag and photos of cruel looking men and deformed children and compare those images and statements with dog breeding? Will you be explaining the meaning of anthropomorphism and how it hurts all dogs? Just curious.. and you wonder why the KC did not respond? Good for them. Who wants to respond to "yellow journalism"?
    For those who might not know the term:
    Yellow Journalism

    Yellow journalism, in short, is biased opinion masquerading as objective fact. Moreover, the practice of yellow journalism involved sensationalism, distorted stories, and misleading images for the sole purpose of boosting newspaper sales and exciting public opinion. in short PDE..

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Are tax payer punds used?"
    If this new programme is as successful as PDE , neither the tax payer or the license payer will have anything to complain about. I believe the rights to show PDE were sold to around 30 countries, which probably paid for the programme several times over, the BBC must have been laughing all the way to the bank. Financially , I would guess PDE must have been one of the BBC's most successful and viewed documentaries ever

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thanks but that still does not answer my question.. how much was Jemima paid to do this sequel? and if taxpayers monies were used.. how many of them? The resulting "payback" is not relevant here. "Probably" is not an answer .. yes this is what we flied as income and what we spent of your money is.. I wonder if we will get a response.
      i am not sure of the BBC.. so if they spend taxpayers money on programming.. and then "laugh all of the way to the bank" how does that work?

      Delete
    2. Bestuvall, You should look more closely at how the BBC is funded. You will find that only a very small proportion, less than 8%, of the BBC's income is from the taxpayer via government grants. Most of that government grant is for the BBC's world service, and not for domestic TV programming. Nine tenths of the BBC's income is from license fees, supplemented by their own commercial activities , like the sale of the rights to show its own productions to other networks, and its publications department
      Although the BBC is required to maintain required standards in public broadcasting, it is an independent body, which should be free from political control by the government. Although the anti PDE group have tried to enlist support from MPs, I know (from personal communications) that the correct position of MPs is that they cannot and will not intervene or attempt to control the BBCs right to commission programmes and to determine what programmes they will show, although some will pass on concerns to the BBC if programmes contravene the BBC's own standards.
      Even though the BBC is funded by the license payer and to a small extent by the taxpayer, I do not want to see a public national broadcasting company subjected to censorship by small minorities and lobbies, or by politically motivated groups.
      My annual license fee goes to funding a lot of what I regard as garbage programming that I have no wish to watch, nor do I like much of the obscene language which is increasingly heard nowadays. However if millions of other people like watching this stuff, who am I to complain? I can switch off or turn to another channel or another network. And I suggest that if some people dont like PDE2 , they can do the same. Switch off or change channel, but they have no right to censor what I and others want to watch, as long as the programme adheres to the BBC's standards and editorial guidelines. Censoring broadcasting is the kind of thing that extreme, non democratic governments do, it has no place in a democratic society.

      Delete
    3. "Censoring broadcasting is the kind of thing that extreme, non democratic governments do, it has no place in a democratic society." but thats just what Ms Harrison does she censors anyone who vioews are differentto hers or twists them via editing to reflect her own agenda..........censorship or what, even the got at Ofcom noted that!

      Delete
    4. I certainly understand that Jemima get paid.. I asked how much she gets paid and is any tax payers funds are used to pay her .. shouldn't that be public knowledge..

      Delete
    5. Annie Macfarlane14 January 2012 12:28

      Absolutely not! Do you have to justify the wages you get for doing what you do? I think not! In relation to your first post Bestuvall.... There was a BBC1 series recently called "The Young Herriot"...based on the life of Yorkshire Vet James Herriot. It highlighted just what you are discussing here. It looked at a specific breeder of Gordon Setters and their allegiance to "eugenics". It showed how one of their dogs became ill with distemper and they refused to have the drug administered that would cure it - because the dog's blood would then not be "pure". I never heard any of the Anti PDE brigade shouting about that and it's biased connotations. Jemima has done sterling work bring to the fore the problems with pedigree dog breeding. If you don't agree with her work then you don't have to watch it....simples!

      Delete
  12. I recently went to a seminar on breeding for health and welfare. We care about our dogs and the breeds they are from and want the best for their offspring. What I personally didn't like in PDE1 was everyone was tared with the same brush. I care about health and welfare a hell of a lot! and this warranted a lot more than the 14 seconds it got it PDE1. This it feel got brushed under the carpet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree hole heartedly with you. I too want the best for my dogs and for their offspring and would do anything to ensure they are fit and healthy.

      We can only hope this new PDE2 shows us pedigree breeders in a better light, but somehow I don't think it will.

      Delete
    2. challenge for bestuvall13 January 2012 03:51

      For those breeders who do care about the welfare of their dogs why do they hang out with organizations that do not seem to acknowledge that stricter rules should be in place? Why not make your own breed club that puts the welfare of the animal first and foremost above what it looks like?

      Delete
    3. I presume you outcross regularly then?

      Delete
    4. @ Challenge for bestuvall. The Kennel Club & Breed clubs are different. Breed Clubs have the kc rules and also a breed club has extra codes of ethics e.g. no bitch is to be mated before the age of 2 (kc says 1), no mateing before health testing and these have to be a long with the average if not better than average. No bitch is to be mated within a year time span (i personally think this should be two).

      Delete
    5. Challenge for Bestuvall........

      Have you ever thought that breeders who care for the welfare of their dogs may not actually agree with the 'organisations' you refer to?

      Unfortunately, at least in the UK, the Kennel Club is the ruling body for dogs, overseeing showing, breeding etc.

      If you wish to show, or work your dog on the obedience circuit, you HAVE to abide by the KC regulations. No ifs, no but's. There are no alternatives. It has been tried to break out of the KC monopoly in the past, but each attempt has gone nowhere.

      So unfortunately, whilst I do agree with some of the criticisms raised in PDE 1, I find it unreasonable as what I consider a responsible breeder to be lumped in with those who appear less caring.

      I hope this answers your question.

      Delete
    6. Annie Macfarlane14 January 2012 15:38

      There is no way of differentiating between good and bad breeders Daz! Bad breeders can register their litters with the KC, just as good breeders register with the KC. Bad breeders can become Assured Breeders, just as good breeders can. At the moment there is no way to distinguish between the two and an hour long programme doesnt have the time. I'm hoping PDE2 will identify where the KC lets all puppy purchasers down. They have the Code of Ethics to use against bad breeders. They are a private members club so they can choose which litters to register and yet they keep registering litters - even when they know that previous combinations have produced very sick animals. It should really be the KC that everyone is lobbying for change....not getting at Jemima! If the KC had its house in order then there wouldn't be any need for Jemima to highlight the glaring faults in their system. 4 years on and the KC have still not introduced mandatory testing. That small introduction alone would separate the wheat from the chaffe.... Purchasers could then make real choices. Sadly, despite what you say, people still think that by buying a KC registered puppy they are getting a healthy puppy. The KC have done nothing to dispell this myth! They say by buying from an Assured Breeder you are "guaranteed" to be buying from an ethical breeder. That's absolutely wrong! Many breeders use the Assured Breeder scheme as a way of promoting their puppy sales and the KC are assisting them. What's the answer?

      Delete
    7. Annie,

      So what testing would you make mandatory?

      Delete
  13. challenge for bestuvall12 January 2012 20:45

    @ Bestuvall:

    I find it funny that you think it's ok to allow incest with dogs on a concentrated level but somehow find it offensive when humans would agree with the practice among humans. Isn't that what we would call a double standard?

    And, Bestuvall... we know what yellow journalism is. There's no yellow journalism in the health records and images of any pedigree dog inside or outside of the AKC and UKC that was documented by PDE.

    Think that there is? How about you get off the computer and do your own documentary of pedigree dogs showing health tests and the dogs actually functioning how their working counterparts. Show a bulldog hanging to a tether for long periods of time like their cousin the pit bull. Show the pedigree GSD doing police work with great accuracy like a working one. Show through fact and actual reports and evidence that PDE is wrong. Or is that something you know you cannot do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The practice of inbreeding i.e. mother with son, daughter with father is something that should not be allowed and the KC have advised against this. However, it is very difficult to police if breeders don't register their litters properly. The only way that this could be policed is if every breeder DNA's the parents and offspring so that they can tell the relationship between them. However, I know of a number of breeders who have several bitches allow the pups to mingle without marking them when they are born, therefore the breeder is unable to tell which pup belong to which bitch.

      I personally will alway ensure my pups are dna tested and have all the appropriate health test

      Delete
    2. The problem is on both ends it seems.

      The breeders are more than sinful in the fact that at least some of them are willing to lie about their dogs relations as long as their desired phenotype comes out from a close mating, and the AKC and UKC are in such a mess that to solve anything at this point would indeed take a lot of time and effort.

      Delete
    3. Annie Macfarlane14 January 2012 12:34

      I managed to highlight false pedigrees in my breed...and had one bitch DNA profiled to prove it. This person had already been under suspicion for doing the very same thing during his 30 year career in breeding KC registered dogs. I had to jump through hoops to get the KC to take any notice. When they did finally accept the DNA profile and the fact that the dog was sold as a named KC registered dog....I then hear nothing about what is happening to the "breeder". The registrations are accepted on "trust". In a money making industry such as dog breeding this really shouldn't be happening. Some form of permanent identification should be required when registering puppies...for the sake of the people who buy them and may want to breed in the future. I wonder just how many fake pedigrees are out there meshing around under the name of another KC registered dog?

      Delete
    4. Annie Macfarlane14 January 2012 15:40

      Let us not forget that as humans we make the choices...the dogs we breed have those choices made for them...

      Delete
  14. I guess if you think dogs are human then incest is wrong in any case for humans or dogs if that is your belief..however there are many incestuous groups of humans around the world.. and if you ask ( LOL) any dog if he would breed his sister, grandmother, mother or any other relative they would say SURE..ever been to a third world country.. dogs breed incestuously there all of the time.small towns and remote villages have groups of dogs that interbreed with close relatives frequently. People there do not "allow" incest in dogs.. it just happens. But the point is HUMANS ARE NOT DOGS.. so therefore the asking of a HUMAN of they would commit incest is not the same as asking a dog that would say "YES.. any chance I get"..it is called a small thing of social morals. Double standards are again moral/social standards. Anthropomorphism is rampant when you write comments like this. DOGS ARE NOT HUMANS.

    The use of the Nazi flag is certainly "yellow journalism" in most aspects..in fact Israel has a bill in front of them now to outlaw the use of the Nazi symbol, However PETA, a group that routinely kills any animals that come to their so called shelter and bemoans the breeding of ANY dogs but particularity pedigreed ones, commonly uses the Holocaust victims in their "advertising" Yellow journalism at its very best...hmm see any connection?

    and here.. I found these in two seconds.. why can't you?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2mz_oJyYQU
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2fQuycpznM

    I will let you do the GSD's.. all of the working dogs are also pedigreed.. do you think they just breed police dogs wily nily silly?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. challenge for bestuvall13 January 2012 03:47

      I can assure you that the working "purebred" dogs of almost any dog breed or type are genetically more varied than the show type. Form follows function, so you will more than less have dogs that look almost the same or are within the same type for a certain job and still be recognizable as that breed. Or are the below dogs not "purebred" working German Shepards based on form alone? Which is how most breeders recognize purebreds and what they go by?

      Shepard #1 sapphireshepherds.com
      Shepard #2 pcgermanshepherds.com
      Shepard #3 germandogtrainingcenter.com
      Shepard #4 klgsd.com
      Shepard #5 germandogtrainingcenter.com
      Shepard #6 thegermanshepherddogbreed.blogspot.com

      http://thegermanshepherddogbreed.blogspot.com/2010/09/german-shepherd-dog-breed-show-lines.html

      Remember, form follows function.

      Delete
    2. challenge for bestuvall13 January 2012 03:47

      "I guess if you think dogs are human then incest is wrong in any case for humans or dogs if that is your belief..however there are many incestuous groups of humans around the world.." Whoever said that I look down upon people who are in incestuous relationships? To me, there's nothing wrong with that as long as the relationship doesn't produce children if the genetic relation between the lovers is too close. Inbreeding does have it's benefits, you're the only one who doesn't seem to understand the differences when it is taken to far as it has been in dog . ( LOL )

      "and if you ask ( LOL) any dog if he would breed his sister, grandmother, mother or any other relative they would say SURE..ever been to a third world country.. dogs breed incestuously there all of the time.small towns and remote villages have groups of dogs that interbreed with close relatives frequently. People there do not "allow" incest in dogs.. it just happens." They do inbreed, every population has some level of inbreeding. But you're missing the point that not all of the members inbreed and that most canine members actually promote that their pups move as far as possible from closely related brood unless they are isolated in a very small remote island. Or do you not read up on animal behavior, evolution, and mating habits? Take the time and actually do it as you will see you're wrong on many of your points.

      "The use of the Nazi flag is certainly "yellow journalism" in most aspects..in fact Israel has a bill in front of them now to outlaw the use of the Nazi symbol, However PETA, a group that routinely kills any animals that come to their so called shelter and bemoans the breeding of ANY dogs but particularity pedigreed ones, commonly uses the Holocaust victims in their "advertising" Yellow journalism at its very best...hmm see any connection?" What does PETA have to do with any of this? We're talking about PDE, who are not affiliated with PDE as far as I know. The point PDE was making from my understanding is that the principals of NAZI eugenics (choosing on form) was applied to dogs which is morally and health wise corrupt compared with eugenics based on a genetic model (choosing for function). Eugenics in dogs isn't a bad thing in my opinion when it actually applied with sense and reason for the benefit of the animal.

      The working GSD are pedigree, I do not deny that; but do YOU know what pedigree means? You have pedigree charts document the line of a animal or person. This does not mean that it promotes inbreeding which is what is allowed in the AKC and UKC. Purebreds a more complex matter made more complex by the nitpicky AKC and UKC breeders.

      For example, you could have a purebred labrador retriever that has many various looks in terms of color, height, and structure. But the breeders want the form of the dog to be so precise that they concentrate those slight variances into other "purebred" breeds which lowers the gene pool of a dog. Did you know there's some talk in the AKC (at least among the breeders) of making chocolate, black, and golden labs three different breeds in their own?

      Delete
  15. you see not be allowed" just does not work..better to counsel against.. or educate against because if someone really wants to allow this mating.. they will,.. and accidents do happen when dogs live in close proximity.. after all dogs do not know about "incest' and will happily mate anything that comes their way..

    ReplyDelete
  16. where I live large bunches of flowers are usually sent for funerals so maybe this year.. better late than never.

    Blogger said:
    I was somewhat at a loss as to why the KC had not sent me a large bunch of flowers after Pedigree Dogs Exposed aired.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a disgusting comment

      Delete
    2. Kate whilst it is a digusting comment it is also very illuminating. The hard-core show people harbour many sentiments that can be called deluded, self-serving, and unsavoury at best. At worst, downright evil. This one is possibly illegal as it is threatening, not even vaguely so. You only have to read the comments often posted on the "always get the wrong end of the stick" facebook group to see a regular Gadarene rush to express delight at the thought of any harm coming to Jemima. They were afterall tripping over themselves to volunteer to get matches when one likened her to Joan of Arc. Maybe it was Bestuvall who volunteered. But the frightening thing is not that these people wish harm to their detractors, the really frightening thing is that people like this are part of the dog owning and breeding community. They actually own dogs. The dogs really do need saving.
      Philippa

      Delete
    3. Surely wishing someone dead for expressing their views (and those of many others)is both threatening and inciting hatred. Why would you do that?

      H

      Delete
    4. this comment was obviously about the SHOW having a quick demise.. not the person. duh. But leave it to the sycophants to toady up and claim all sorts of "cruel and evil intent" to the blogger.

      Delete
    5. Shows don't have funerals Bestuvall. The malicious intent of the comment is obvious. As is the malicious and evil intent of many of the threads on the anti-PDE FB group.

      But if you care to mix with and defend people like that....well it says a great deal about you. As does your obession with Jemima's fee.

      We understand that you are aggrieved that not only has she been granted another opportunity to reveal the institutionalised, systemic suffering that results from the KC/ show world model of breeding, she will be getting paid for it. Furthermore, she has a broad base of support for her work and efforts. I am afraid you are just going to have to accept all that as fact.

      Philippa

      Delete
    6. Annie Macfarlane14 January 2012 12:44

      It's finally been said then! I do hope you have the URL of this anonymous person Jemima and report them to the Police! I am absolutely appalled! We are all entitled to our differing opinions and to debate same. This is what I love about Jem's blog! Debating and having differing opinions is one thing....hatred towards a person for highlighting some of the very real problems in pedigree dogs - and wishing them dead - is quite another. I agree with Philippa....if these are the type of people that own dogs then the dogs definitely need saving. I really am shocked to the core with this post. So very sad that an hour long documentary can cause such hatred when it has done so much good for pedigree dogs generally....and I suspect will do even more good after PDE2.

      Delete
    7. Well Anon 12 Jan 1707, your comment is seriously offensive to me and I suspect also the majority of the law abiding general public who would choose to negotiate and debate their arguments rather than threaten or intimidate. For your information, people send flowers (certainly in my neck of the woods) for things other than funerals, but I accept that where you live maybe they don’t.

      Why can’t you come back with a constructive argument to back up your cause? I suspect the answer is that try as you might you really can’t justify it and therefore you only have two choices, lash out or keep quiet; you opted for the former. It’s your choice, freedom of speech etc, but let’s hope that after that outburst and statement NOTHING happens to Jemima, as I suspect you would be one of the first invited for an interview to answer a few pertinent questions.

      Delete
  17. i could show you "pit bulls' hanging from ropes as well but no need as they are routinely killed an outlawed in your country ( mine to but not on a national level) Breed specific legislation is the one place where I can compare dogs and humans.. bigotry and prejudice reign supreme in the area of BSL.. not by the dogs themselves but by the ignorance of humans..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm a pit bull advocate and actually support regulation of pit type dogs because there are too many who are being bred and killed in my country.

      Almost a million pit bulls are killed because the original owners get tired of the dogs too quickly, dump them, and there aren't enough people to adopt them. But in reality, most people don't need a pit bull because they can't handle one. Most are energetic and demanding dogs. No most are not bad dogs in terms of aggression, but in the wrong hands or with the wrong breeding they can become problematic and this is something most people on both sides seem to ignore. I think it does the dog a great disservice to try and paint them like any other dog because no breed of dog has the same needs or requirements as another.

      Not only that, but regulate who breeds and owns these dogs and I'm sure you would see better temperaments produced, less pits abused, neglected, and dumped, and more pits going into more homes because of the first two points as well as there being less for the dogs to compete.

      I view the interest of welfare from the rest of the pit bull community to be the same as the KC's interest in their dogs welfare, little to non existent. They resist self regulation and really doing what is right for the dog. Because of this, pedigree dogs and pit bulls suffer similar fates. Short suffering lives.

      Both care more about the titles, money, and their inflating their egos sadly...

      Delete
    2. no real "pit bull "advocate supports regulation of any type of dog based on breed alone. The reason "pit bulls' are killed is because of the media and press making them into some sort of mythical "devil dog " ( you can see it in any mag rag at the newsstand)
      Is I do not believe you are an advocate fo any breed of dog when you make the statements you have made.
      When you demean the rest of the "pit bull " community and put yourself on some sort of pedestal and an 'advocate' .. well.. that says it all.

      Delete
    3. Annie Macfarlane14 January 2012 12:48

      Sorry Bestuvall but you are barking up the wrong tree again here. You only have to look at rescues in the UK to see that the poor Staffordshire Bull Terrier is being overbred and sold to anybody that has the money to buy them. Pitties, just like Staffies, are often bought by the wrong people looking for a status symbol. After a while if the dog is too soft or they get fed up with it they just want rid. Too many bull type dogs are losing their lives because of over-breeding and selling to the wrong people. In my opinion, anybody who truly loves bull breeds should be fighting to have this changed. Sometimes I feel you don't live on the same planet as we do....your comments are often very bizarre!

      Delete
    4. @ bestuvall

      I can say with certainly that you're either someone who's purposefully trying to stir up trouble or someone who is truly ignorant on the matter that pit bulls face.

      "no real "pit bull "advocate supports regulation of any type of dog based on breed alone."

      There are almost a millions pit bulls who are killed where I live because the breeders refuse to stop breeding dogs, thus adding to the pit bull population, and fail to screen potential owners to ensure the dog will have a higher chance of not being dumped at a shelter.

      "The reason "pit bulls' are killed is because of the media and press making them into some sort of mythical "devil dog " ( you can see it in any mag rag at the newsstand)"

      Pit bulls are not devil dogs, but they are not angels either. They are powerful dogs, they are dogs with dog aggression, and where I live more and more are being bred with poor temperaments or as guard dogs, which is bad thing for a breed type who's purpose was to either grip, maim, or kill.

      In truth, pit bulls face both a nature and nurture problem. Most pit bulls are good dogs, but there's no denying that there are several if not many who are dangerous because of the poor breeding.

      "Is I do not believe you are an advocate fo any breed of dog when you make the statements you have made."

      You're the same person who seems to advocate for the english bulldog who's a genetic and health wreck instead of the healthier alternatives like the leavitt bulldog, olde bulldogge. So look in the mirror, who's really the breed advocate, you or I?

      "When you demean the rest of the "pit bull " community and put yourself on some sort of pedestal and an 'advocate' .. well.. that says it all."

      When you advocate the pit bull by ignoring the core problems, as well as excuse the practices that are poor breeding standards for the welfare of the dogs as you do, well... that says it all to.

      Delete
    5. @ Annie Macfarlane

      Bestuvall does not live in the same planet as we do sadly, Annie. They are in a world ruled by their own obsessions and views and unfortunately gravity in his world keeps his wacky ideals and principals cemented to the ground.

      He does not understand that pit bulls, more specifically the American and Staffordshires suffer a great deal due to the community's unwillingness to self regulate on both sides of the breed fence.

      Where I live almost a million pit bulls are killed each year mostly because the dog is no longer a puppy or because the nature of the dog proves too much to handle. The breeders where I live don't want regulation because pups here sell well over a grand. Imagine, producing two litters a year at least with 6 pups? That's a huge amount of money. Why would the breeders want to reduce their "stock" in order to give pit bulls who already are alive a higher chance at finding a home? Sad to say from what I've seen in my town and online, most wouldn't...

      Delete
    6. Annie Macfarlane14 January 2012 19:41

      The problem with Staffordshire Bull Terrier overbreeding is so bad here in the UK that the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament listened to evidence from breed enthusiasts and rescue. The briefing can be found below.

      http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/Petitions%20briefings%20S4/PB11-1396.pdf

      http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/article/17074/small-victory-for-staffie-campaign-at-holyrood.html

      It's heartbreaking!

      Delete
  18. The first rule of crisis management - say you're sorry and tell the media what is being done to correct the situation. It's written in stone. It doesn't matter whether it's an oil spill, a rail accident, or a product recall.

    An organisation doesn't bury its head in the sand and hope the problem goes away.

    Any commercial organisation concerned about its reputation would have had its public relations heavies and senior management team in front of your cameras after a couple of days of media training.

    No wonder our dogs are in such a mess.

    Keep going, H

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous, do you get "Our Dog" newspaper, well there is a item in there concerning the KC and their refusal to be interviewed as part of the PDE2. It goes on to say that of 2910 second interview given on what the KC was doing with regard to Health and Welbeing, DNA and their achievement, but despite this only 100 seconds of a 1hour program was devoted to positive data with the remaining 58 mins 20 second devoted to attacking the KC and pedigree breeders. How can this be unbiased. I can quite understand why the KC do not wish to put themselves in that position again.

      Delete
    2. Corrine, I'm sorry but we are living in the real world. The point of the programme was that our dogs aren't healthy - it was not a promotional programme for the KC. It would not have made the impact that it did if it hadn't focussed on the unhealthy genetics that our dogs carry. Most consumers understand that.

      The KC needs a professional public relations department, if they'd been doing their jobs properly, the fiasco that has tarnished it since the screening would instead have propelled change and could have worked in its favour.

      In any organisation I've worked for, the marketing team would have been fired within six months of the programme airing, it's not a time for the fluffy jumper brigade, it's a time for employees who can drive through change.

      H

      Delete
    3. Annie Macfarlane14 January 2012 12:53

      Our Dogs newspaper is very anti-Jemima...always have been and always will be. They have people writing for them that are on the anti-PDE group and allow them to write unsubstantiated nonsense every week. I cannot understand how anybody who says they love dogs can sit back and not realise that there are very serious problems in the world of pedigree dog breeding. Its not only at the show breeder level...its endemic. Starting at the top will make change throughout... I also agree that any PR team that was giving this type of advice would be fired in any of the organisations I have worked with in the past. The first rule is to say sorry.....the KC have never said sorry! Never said sorry for the thousands of puppies and dogs that are living each day in agony because of their lack of focus. Never said sorry to the thousands of people who live every day with dogs that fight for breath or can't walk.... At the end of the day it is always those at the top that are at fault. In every organisation the ethos of those at the top filters through to the grass roots. The KC owe that apology...and yet they are too arrogant or too blinkered to even consider it. Shame on them!

      Delete
    4. Why do the KC owe an apology? It is not the KC that actually breed the dogs, its the breeders that do that!

      Delete
    5. Annie Macfarlane16 January 2012 00:05

      the KC owe an apology for failing to implement stricter rules for registration. They owe an apology to every person who has bought a puppy from a breeder that is KC registered - thinking KC registration, as opposed to any type of registration, means health and quality. The breeders breed the dogs but the KC register them, and continue to register litters from parents known to have produced sick dogs previously. That is not an organisation that really works for the health and welfare of dogs....in my opinion of course...and I am entitled to it. Every organisation, whether they are right or wrong, always apologises for the situation they find themselves in. That is the first rule of crisis PR.

      Delete
  19. I agree with dalriach above - in the several years since I watched PDE I have attempted to research and inform myself better about the world of pedigree dog breeding and have come across some frankly disturbing personal levels of hostility on various social media from those who opposed PDE to the programme maker . I saw the programme as (at the time) the proud new owner of a pedigree Brussels Griffon from a top breeder and judge at dog shows including Crufts. I thought I had carried out some careful research on as many breeders as possible but it was only after seeing the programme that my eyes were significantly opened. My young dog was soon after diagnosed with the painful neurological disease of Syringomyelia at just over 12 months of age after I recognised some of the behaviour it was exhibiting from the programme. The idea that my dog will now have a shortened lifespan, is in pain and has to take very expensive painkillers daily and the huge amount of stress involved is shocking to us as owners. The PDE programme was long overdue in my opinion. I wish I had seen it before i purchased my poor dog and I welcome any follow-up programme. That the Kennel Club does not wish to participate makes me more suspicious of it than the programme makers and I had previously blindly trusted the KC as the protector of good health and breeding practice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry to hear that you had a problem with your lovely little dog. Have you been back to the breeder and advise him/her of the disease that has arisen in your dog? It might be that they didn't know that one of their dogs was a carrier? I'm not trying to defend them but unless owners advise breeders of the situation that has arisen the breeders cannot ensure that steps are taken to put matters right.

      I'm not sure if there is a test that can be carried out on dogs to see if the parents are carriers of the gene that cause this problem, if not not sure what can be done.

      Delete
    2. Hi Corrine,
      Yes I informed the breeder straight away - after putting the phone down on me during the first conversation as I was explaining the diagnosis, I called back and they then said they were surprised and unaware of any prior knowledge of the disease in their breeding programme. And that was it. Until two years later when I'd become friends with a lady in Denmark who was making a database of Griffons with SM and it was then that she informed me that several years earlier a Griffon with my breeders prefix had been sold to northern europe and that some of it's offspring had already died of SM.... I think there's been quite a lot of work done since the first PDE on setting up an MRI testing scheme (I think MRI is the only way of confirming if the disease is present?) but having subsequently read all about the prior many years of trauma with this disease in Cavaliers, I as a first time owner, was very surprised that I had come across no warning, no flagging up of the fact that this disease was also making its way through Brussels Griffons - it is hard for me now to believe that this fact was unknown amongst breeders of other small-headed brachycephalic dogs. It is at the consumer end where, before PDE, I had been extremely naive to not realise that by purchasing a pedigree dog I was not necessarily getting as healthy a dog as possible, but that the dogs were marketed on websites and literature more on their achievements in the show ring. I had wrongly assumed that to be a champion in the show ring would require the dog to be the best of the best in both health and looks, including screening before breeding. My dog is 3 and a half years old now, he seems to love life but scrabbles along like a crab with an arched spine, he scratches the air, licks the air rapidly & shrinks his head away from touch. About every couple of weeks or if we pick him up awkwardly, he cries out loudly and just recently he has stopped being able to jump up on the sofa. It's upsetting and worrying and although I love him to pieces, it's not quite the experience of dog ownership I had hoped for and if it hadn't been for PDE I might not have even known for ages what these quirks in him were.

      Delete
  20. bestuvall

    it is a well known fact that brachycephalics have stronger jaw strength than say a doliocephalics. It is however also a known fact that being brachycephalic predisposes them to respiratory problems and problems cooling down. I would say that being able to breathe, in terms of welfare, far out ways the ability to hang from a tree rope. However, I am guessing that having a rope permanently wedging open the mouth could actually assist in opening up the airways.

    Does showing jaw strength also mean than we can forget about the skin problems, screw tail problems, and dystocia?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone mentioned that the pit bull dogs have a better bite and I have to agree. They are the perfect muzzle length and structure that does not bastardize and compromise the bite or anatomical function of the skull like the english bulldogs.

      bestuvall still ignores that there are few if any english bulldogs that can perform like the original pit bull dog which the breed was formed from. This person ignores that the english bulldog is one of the sickest breeds on average than most others.

      So I can conclude that they're not interested in reading any logical point, but find great satisfaction blabbing out of the side of their mouth like a child screaming, "I'm right, you're wrong!"

      Delete
    2. someone asked.. I replied.. that's all ..Anon.. no use discussing "pit bulls' in this forum.. they are BANNED in the UK

      Delete
    3. "someone asked.. I replied.. that's all ..Anon.. no use discussing "pit bulls' in this forum.. they are BANNED in the UK"

      They are banned in the UK but are still all over the place. And this still ignores the fact that the english bulldogs' cousin, the pit bull, is still far healthier then they are. And this ignores that other molossar breeds that were of similar structure to the vintage bulldog that are legal in the UK such as the Rottweiler and Bullmastiff can run, fetch, and breathe a lot better than the english bulldog.

      Again, you're trying desperately to get around the fact that the english bulldog and many other breeds are a genetic nightmare and are in essence, you are supporting animal cruelty at it's finest.

      Delete
    4. "Does showing jaw strength also mean than we can forget about the skin problems, screw tail problems, and dystocia?"

      From what bestuvall is saying and supporting, it seems as though you can. :)

      Delete
    5. I would also like to add, bestuvall, the reason pit bulls were bought up is because they are related to the english bulldog and are healthier and perform much better than the english bulldog.

      In fact, the olde bulldogge was a pit bull type dog.... so they are significant in the debate of english bulldog welfare and health. The olde bulldog was pitted against bulls and for a short time; each other. So yes, they ancestor of the english bulldog who is now more pug than mollossar or pit was once a pit bull.

      Look at old photos of the original bulldog and look at images of the recreation.

      Bulldog #1
      Bulldog #2
      Bulldog #3
      Bulldog #4

      But you will, as it has been shown in your nature, debate that bulldogs that cannot breed, barely run, breathe, see, and have numerous health problems compared to the examples I've shown are far better. Yes, this is indeed the face of a winner in your eyes.

      Please. Close your mouth, and open you eyes and ears to the problem.

      Delete
    6. "They are banned in the UK but are still all over the place"

      really well than proves my point.. regulationa and legislation do not work


      "Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population"

      Albert Einstein

      Tolerance in the dog breeding world on this blog seems to be missing except for the oxymoron "zero tolerance"

      Delete
    7. can I please have the study that proves that "well known fact"? Thank you

      Delete
    8. @ anon 09:31 AM

      "can I please have the study that proves that "well known fact"? Thank you"

      You mean the PDE1 that showed the pug like dogs having extreme breathing problems and overcrowding of teeth?

      The english bulldog is plagued with so many issues that it's a breed that honestly needs to be extinct at this point. It has no room for teeth so it doesn't have a bite that could grip and hold. There's too much skin on the face that makes it prone to infection and that block head seems to hold less muscle mass that would make it have a strong bite coupled with the other things I've pointed out.

      Want a real dog that's not only healthy but can do a real bulldog's work the way a bulldog was meant to do? Invest in the American or Staffordshire terrier. Just look at these dogs. Long muzzle, strong jaw muscle And an acceptable sized head that has a good a bite.

      Delete
    9. Anon who posted on 9:28AM

      I think you're distorting Einstein's quote to apply to your theory why BSL doesn't work.

      Boston has a pretty good BSL law that allows people to keep pit bulls as long as they are proven to be responsible. People who are break the requirements of the law are heavily penalized. From what I remember researching a while back, less dogs have been abused and less attacks have occurred. They are doing something right.

      BSL does work when the right conditions are applied. Of course you're not going to get rid of every problem the dog faces or causes, but you will most certainly decrease the effects with he proper rules put into place.

      Because I am an advocate for pit bulls I do not support bans of any breed of any sort. But I do support restricting people who would otherwise breed poor pit bulls or who would abuse, neglect, or dump them. And the Boston law seems to be the closest I've seen that benefits the dog, responsible owners, and society. Even if it is a bit overkill in some areas.

      Owning a dog is NOT a right, it is a responsibility. A responsibility that should take the welfare of the dog and people who encounter it into great consideration. My community has failed those two things entirely and refuse to change the way they handle, promote, and educate people on the pit bull dog and the potential it has. Both good and bad as a pet in the right or wrong hands.

      The breeding world is a huge mess right now. I support the PDE films because they made me consider what I was advocating about my breeds of choice, one of them being pit type dogs. Am I doing all that I can to ensure that the breeders are producing sound dogs that are going to forever homes? Or am I turning a blind eye to the problem? Now that I've been further enlightened by both sides of the debate, I hope that I am not.

      Delete
    10. Anon, I should have made myself clearer.....as a dog increases in size, the more brachycephalic it is, the stronger biting force it has. A large brachy, lets say a mastiff type, will have a stronger biting force than say a greyhound. However, at the other end of the scale, the smaller brachys like a griffon or pug do not.

      Paedomorphosis, the selection of a big brain case relative to the rest of their facial bones has led to them having a much smaller masseter muscle that medium and larger brachys have.

      Dog food companies design dog food based on these findings.

      Delete
  21. Look forward to seeing PDE 2 (and I don't mean the second semester of partial differential equations). I'm sure dealing with the KC is frustrating to you. But, please remember, dealing with various KC's, and competition from designer dog X-breeders -- often with no pedigrees and no health testing -- is frustrating to breeders who put health and temperament above show results. Your beef is with excessive focus on purity in the purebred world, and with the show ring as a decider of a dog's value. The PEDIGREE is NOT the problem. Please give fair time to breeders who use the pedigree as a tool for breeding healthy, well-adapted dogs!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Pardon the question, but what´s wrong with some of you?

    Did Jemima get paid for PDE1 and will she get paid for the sequel? I should hope so - she´s a professional journalist, right?
    Did she make a TV programme designed to cover the entirety of pedigree dog breeding from all angles? If so, you could certainly argue that PDE1 was biased.
    But that was not what she set out to do. She wanted to point out some things that have been allowed to go horribly wrong in pedigree breeding, with the results too often being loss of health and enjoyment of life for dogs, and grief for their owners.
    She did that to great effect - thanks, Jemima! - and set off changes that should have been initiated long ago BY THE VERY PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT SAID NOTHING UNTIL THAT FILM WAS AIRED AND FTER IT HAVE COME UP WITH NOTHING BETTER THAN DENIALS AND CRIES FOR CENSORSHIP.

    So, you think Jemima´s film was not right? Was not fair? Was not accurate?
    Christ, just for once - prove her wrong!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly,

      The problem is simple - pedigree/none pedigree / designer cross breed / puppy farmer / back yard breeder / show breeder etc. Anyone who enters into breeding without health and the long term physical and behavioural welfare of their dogs as the utmost priority is doing harm. Where money, looks, personal goals etc become first priority there is a problem. There is no excuse for seeing breeding as a personal hobby to be 'played at' requiring no real knowledge - it is a position of responsibility whoever you are.

      Jemima has chosen to focus on the pedigree dog world which quite rightly is has real issues that need addressing - the fact that she is not focusing on every bad element of dog breeding is not the problem ( the show is only 1 hour!). Sensasionalist - well yes it is - she has chosen to focus on the most shocking area of dog breeding which is the poor practice of some pedigree breeders who, to make it worse, actually put themselves forward as experts, guardians of the breed, etc. (to me that makes them far worse than any backyard breeder).

      Yet those that continue to say 'well we are not that bad compared to the puppy farmers or backyard breeders' is just tit for tat - you can argue who is worse until you are blue in the face but that is no excuse. Man up, take responsibility, educate yourselves and do the best you possibly can without expecting a medal or a whole new documentary praising you for what you should be doing anyway.

      Delete
    2. Annie Macfarlane14 January 2012 13:02

      Hear hear! Very well said.

      Delete
    3. Annie Macfarlane14 January 2012 13:05

      Let us not forget, however, that an appeal went out during the week on Facebook for people who had dealings with puppy farmers for a TV production. The anti PDE facebook group - who are always telling us that things are worse in puppy farms, with BYBs and designer cross breed breeders, sent out a message to their members advising them not to speak to anybody involved and that it was for PDE2. You cannot win with these people. If Jemima ever steps into the world of puppy farming and BYB with a documentary....she'll be wrong for doing that too! It's not about the dogs.....it's about ego! Jemima has only ever spoken out for dogs...nothing else...and yet, as you can see from the post above, these people want her dead! I will leave everybody to make up their own minds about their agenda!.....

      Delete
    4. No question, JH is a professional journalist and deserves a salary. Those questioning must have their heads up some place where the sun don't shine.
      JH is something of a muckraker ... a proud tradition that has done more good than harm, but is better known for attack on bad guys than balanced approach.

      [extract from Wikilinks: "After World War I, the term "muckraker" was used to refer in a general sense to a writer who investigates and publishes truthful reports to perform an auditing or watchdog function. In contemporary use, the term describes either a journalist who writes in the adversarial or alternative tradition or a non-journalist whose purpose in publication is to advocate reform and change."]

      My background is science, and if I wear my science hat, I'm offended by the sorts of evidence presented on PDE (photos prove little) and biased development of arguments. But damn it, there's a lot in need of reform in the dog world. You can't get things to change with a calm, neutral approach.

      Delete
    5. "There is no excuse for seeing breeding as a personal hobby to be 'played at' requiring no real knowledge - it is a position of responsibility whoever you are."
      So then who is "allowed" to breed dogs in your world?
      and actually you can get things to change with a calm neutral approach. We do in dog training all of the time..in fact it works much better than any other.

      I like "muckraking: as an approach but the use of the words "truthful reports" negates the term as used in this blog or TV program

      Delete
  23. I'm not against all that Jemima is saying, but it's more the way she is going about it which I dislike.

    I am fully aware that there are problems in pedigree dogs-as there are in crossbreeds along with all other animals, but I'm also aware of the people who have worked for years pioneering research that helps eliminate those problems.

    As it is though, i think that PDE did more harm than good. I frequently see people who have brought crossbreeds from puppy farmers or byb's and paid £1000+ for them just because they are not pedigrees (and if they are, because they are not from show breeders) so they MUST be healthy. If i ask them why, most of them say it's because they saw "that tv program a few years ago about pedigree dogs"

    If you wanted to make a real difference for the health of dogs-pedigree and crossbreeds alike-then I think aiming the attack at puppy farmers, byb's and irresponsible show breeders, would have made a much more positive impact than basically saying that all people with a pedigree dog-especially show people- are cruel, only breed for beauty and couldn't care less about the health of their dogs. (yes I did see the original program, where show breeders and the KC were compared to Nazi's)
    Now though, many people are disregarding responsible breeders and only looking for so called "designer dogs" no matter where their from. And no, I don't hate crossbreeds, just the way some people are breeding them with known health problems but ignoring it because they are crosses.

    For example, I have nothing against people breeding and wanting to make Labrador/poodle crosses a breed IF they fully use the resources available to ensure the best possible health and future of that breed. If they know exactly where parents came from and know of any problems specific to that line, and If they health test both parents and do not breed from dogs that might be affected with any hereditary disease. As it is, so many people are just breeding un health tested pedigrees because they have been told that crossbreeds are always healthier.

    I think what people should keep in mind is that most of the pedigree breeds now were created over 100 years ago. And back then, there were no health tests, no DNA tests and a very limited knowledge of hereditary disease. Most of this new technology have only come about in the past 30 years or so and only readily available in the past decade. By the time people could tell whether a puppy was carrying or could pass on disease, there very all ready so many hereditary problems, sometimes lying unseen for generations. I mean, this technology is still developing, and it takes years and generations to eliminate even 1 disease from 1 breed. Progress is being made, and unfortunately it was completely overlooked in PDE.

    Finally, in case it should affect my credibility in some way (and it shouldn't but reading some of the comments on here, it probably would do) I own BOTH pedigree AND crossbreeds. Yes i do show my pedigrees, and both my "mutants" and rescue crosses compete in Agility, even though the pedigree breed is on the "unfit 15" list.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There have been programs about puppy farms in the past. Sensationalism may have played a part but what made Jemina's program stand out to people... First the refusal to admit wrong by the powers that be but mostly because the KC and the pedigree label had the reputation for doing the "best" for registered breeds. That is why prices were higher, you were getting a "better" dog. People were hit by a major sense of betrayal which considering the feelings even 4 years later hasn't been repaired when it could have been,not just from side of the KC but individuals supporting the KC on general on the web. Counter attacks based on attacks on an individual do not work. Complaints of bias also doesn't work. Admitting the KC community got some things wrong and showing/proving progress would have repaired most of the wounds and enable people to simply trust again. As it is I do not think people do which is a shame considering there are KC affiliated breeders who do put breed physical/mental health as their first consideration.

      Mention Jemina on some pet forums and you immediately get the attacks coming in ignoring issues raised.

      Delete
  24. Annie Macfarlane14 January 2012 13:11

    Jemima, those of us that know you are aware that you have only ever been interested in the welfare of dogs. Those that don't know you just make things up.

    I have been appalled at some of the comments on this blog today...especially the "funeral" jibe!

    In all the time you have been operating this blog you have behaved in a very professional manner; answered questions and given advice to those of us that really care about dogs.

    I have seen a steep increase in the numbers of people joining my Facebook group which supports PDE2 and ethical dog breeding....over the last week or so. I believe that this will increase even further in the months leading up to the airing of PDE2 and thereafter.

    There are lots of us that support what you do and deal with real people every day in life that are suffering due to the actions of breeders.....show breeders, BYBs, PFs and the like. We know that you care about all areas but there is only one of you.....and too many areas that need addressing.

    I'm sure I speak for everybody that supports your work (and there are many!) when I wish you every success in your your production. I, for one, can't wait until it's aired.

    Keep up the good work....you know it makes sense!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thank you Annie.

    And a small "ask" from me to all: could you be just a bit nicer? There have been a lot of rude comments (from all "sides") on the blog recently. I've published most of them, but the purpose of the Comments section is to encourage debate, not create an arena for a boring slanging match.

    As I've said before - witty-rude is fine; breathtakingly rude is probably OK, too. It's the sulky-just-plain-unncessarily-rude that are depressing.

    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
  26. The KC may not feel it necessary to be involved in PDE 2 and can be safe in the knowledge the work undertaken to date will be accurately and fairly reported another way in due course. If you are the kind of person always highlighting negative issues you will forever view things in the dog world or anywhere else as a glass half empty. Im sure this will always be the case with many of the regular same opinionated 'bloggers' I see here constantly shouting from the rooftops the same self rightgeous rhetoric towards the KC and pedigree dog breeders whilst doing very little else of value to make any improvement at all. Dont you get sick of reading the same old stuff Jemima? Its a bit like 'Agadoo' playing constantly on a holiday in Magaluf and will drive you mad in the end! LOL

    ReplyDelete
  27. Jemima,
    Some of the people here are so incredibly rude and malicious. It's quite shocking to read some of the remarks. I just want to say that there must be hundreds of ordinary dog owners like me who, having much appreciated PDE1, can't wait to see PDE2. Well done for standing up for dogs.
    The good thing is that, although you have so many enemies here who wish you ill, many more people agree with you. The tide of opinion is turning - not just here, but all over the world.
    I'm really disappointed the KC is so backward looking and unenlightened. It does itself no favours by not responding. But eventually it will change.
    Julia Lewis

    ReplyDelete
  28. "There are lots of us that support what you do and deal with real people every day in life that are suffering due to the actions of breeders.....show breeders, BYBs, PFs and the like."

    and that would leave who to breed dogs? Seems as if you want no one to breed any dogs at all except for those that you sanction. That would leave very few dogs on the planet so that only the wealthy and elite would be able to afford a dog. A typical viewpoint from someone who could care less about people and sit on the throne of "I know what is best for YOU"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Annie Macfarlane14 January 2012 19:24

      You're very wrong Bestuvall. What I am trying to say is that there are serious problems in pedigree dog breeding and only when breeders accept this can things change for the better. There is no point in banging on about how many good breeders there are out there if scientific evidence tells us that there are huge problems. 3 independent reports have confirmed the findings of PDE...one commissioned by the KC themselves. I don't think there is any point in being rude or offensive when we can debate these issues professionally. I don't think I know what is best for you....and I have never ever insinuated that I do. I am saying that it is us....the higher primate...that chooses to breed our dogs; we choose their partners...and therefore it is us....the higher primates....that are wholly responsible for the health issues in some pedigree dogs. I would go as far as to say that every pedigree dog breed will have problems related to the small gene pool and closed registry systems. It is the system that is wrong...and that needs to be changed. If you feel it is OK to continue to breed dogs that suffer on a daily basis then feel free to continue...but don't expect us to agree with you...and don't expect us to sit back and do nothing. Jemima has come under fierce attack for PDE...almost 4 years on we are still hearing the same arguments. They were feeble then...and they are feeble now. Something needs to change for the sake of pedigree dogs. That is not coming from a place in my heart that doesn't like pedigree dogs....that's coming from a place in my heart that fears for their future if this doesn't happen.

      Delete
  29. The Jewish Chronicle has an article up regarding PDE2.
    very interesting

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed.

      And here's an equally interesting response to it:

      http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2012/01/jessica-elgot-is-racialist-not-reporter.html

      Jemima

      Delete
    2. Brilliant, Mr Burns!

      Delete
    3. Mmmmm as Her Majesty The Queen has now been breeding Pedigree Dogs and Horses for over 70 year, will PDE2 label her as a Nazi follower to? afterall she is the Patron of the Kennel Club so you could have a crack at two things at the same time?

      Delete
    4. As the Queen also has several Corgi/Dachshund crosses (which she calls "dorgis") will the anti PDE group be lauching a vitriolic attack on her as a cross-breeder?

      Delete
    5. Not quite sure how often I have to say it, but I am not against pedigree dogs - in fact the opposite. I am only against breeding practices which are doing them harm.

      The Queen keeps and breeds working gundogs: Labradors and Cockers - in other words, not show dogs. I was told by a good source shortly after Pedigree Dogs Exposed that she had seen the programme and was supportive (but of course have no way of verifying that).

      The Corgis? Well, although they all descend from her beloved Susan, the COIs of the Queen's dogs are respectable and she would surely approve of recent attempts to maintain/resurrect the Corgi's working abilities.

      Finally, don't forget she has Dorgis. There's a great story about how she insisted on one being in the portrait of her that hangs at the Kennel Club. I always liked that.

      Jemima

      Delete
    6. I think the Queen would get on very well with Jemima if they were to meet. Both are enthusiasts for working retrievers. The Queen breeds some excellent working Labradors, who are definitely fit, healthy and very functional. When she was younger she used to pick up with her own Labs on the shoots at Sandringham, and she still attends the occasional field trial, I've seen her at field trials at Balmoral, very interested and knowledgable about the dogs. And Jemima picks up on shoots with her flatcoat. Yes, I think they would get on just fine

      Delete
    7. Oh and do not forget the Queen is the Royal Patron of the RSPCA.

      Delete
    8. And she no longer has her black Labs from Sandringham entered in the Gamekeepers' Classes at Crufts, as she used to do. Not sure why they are no longer entered?

      Delete
    9. Maybe it's just that she's winding down - she recently announced that she wouldn't be breeding any more Corgis due to getting older.

      When was the last time they were entered?

      Jemima

      Delete
    10. Jemima, if you are not against pedigree dogs then why don't you give the good breeders a chance and not tar all breeders of pedigree dogs with the same feather. There are an alot of breeders out there that are trying to do their very best for their dogs. I agree that there are some disreputable breeders out there that only see £ signs and as a result some breed of dogs do suffer, but most breeders who love their animals are trying to do something about stamping out any inheritant problems but, this will take time, as it is not something that can be achieved over night. Please give them a chance.

      Obviously, in journalistic terms, doing good is not as senationlist as bad and therefore would not draw as much attention to the program.

      Delete
    11. Annie Macfarlane15 January 2012 23:45

      I have met some lovely people at dog shows and some excellent breeders too. Everybody knows what goes on within their breed so my question is this. Why do those that know what's going on keep their mouths closed about it? Is it because they fear reprisals or because they don't want to cause trouble? If any of us who support the breeding of healthier dogs were against pedigree dogs...we wouldn't spend as much of our spare time as we do fighting for them!

      The sad fact is that most people will talk about the bad breeders behind their backs but hardly anybody has the guts to confront them and try to make change within their breeds. When you do confront them and ask questions, it's amazing how all of those people that were happy to talk about them behind their backs, suddenly come out of the shadows to support the person being questioned.

      I don't think it should be Jemima that people get at...I think it's the breeders that make it possible for Jemima to make such successful documentaries. If there wasn't a problem and if things were being done properly there wouldn't be a need for PDE or, indeed, PDE2.

      Delete
    12. Corrine, you do realize that there are many, many who watched PDE that would disagree with the statement that, through it, Jemima tarred all pedigree breeders with the same feather?

      Some of those are pedigree breeders and they have stated just such in these comments.

      I am not a pedigree breeder, just a pet owner, but I found it easy to watch the full program and come out of it knowing that it was not about all pedigree breeders.

      I actually find it quite insulting that some breeders think us 'pet owners' and the 'general public' are so dumb that that is what their perception must have been after watching PDE.

      Kary

      Delete
    13. Kary, the idea, as I see it, behind the PDE1 program was to highlight the plite of pedigree dogs, therefore the inferance is the way some pedigree breeders are breeding unhealthy dogs. In no way are the comments in this blog suggesting that pet owners and the general public are dumb, on the contrary, in my dealings with them I have found them to be well informed and I would say that if it wasn't for the general public and pet owners buying puppies, breeders would go out of business. However, the program is quite damning to the pedigree breeder, suggesting that all breeders do not care what they are breeding, and what happens to their dogs. On the contrary, it is only a minority of breeders that are involved and spoil it for all the others breeders who care about the health and welbeing of their animals.

      As Annie has said "most people will talk about the bad breeders behind their back but do nothing about it". What I would say to that comment is "What can be done?". 1.You know it goes on, and approach the breeders about it, but they denigh it, what have you achieved then? Probably pushing the probleem under ground. 2.You can approach your governing KC but unless you can offer real proof of what you purceive is going on they can do nothing about it if the breeder is not registered with them. If the breeder is registered with them all they can do,investigate, but again the breeder can denigh wrong doings. The only way that I can see any progress is for responsible breeders to join a scheme where a minimum standard of health care and good breeding practice is required and then these breeders must be policed by the KC to ensure that standards are met. However, again disreputable breeders will not join this scheme, so again I say what can be done.

      I would love to see all dogs being bred in healthy and happy conditions and it greaves me to see dogs being bred just for looks, but the KC are trying to curb this practice. As I have previous stated, it takes time to stamp out inherited diseases but it is happening. You only have to look at GSD to see the results. Yes the older dogs do have poor sloping backs but I see in compeitions the correct posture returning to the breed, which is really hartening. I only hope, in due course, all the inherant health problems with CKC Pugs etc are stamped out as well.

      So please give us breeders who really care about our dogs time we are trying our best, and as someone once said "Rome wasn't built in a day"

      Delete
    14. Corrine said again - "However, the program is quite damning to the pedigree breeder, suggesting that all breeders do not care what they are breeding, and what happens to their dogs."

      . . . . and as I said in my post above, I strongly disagree that this is what the program suggested or inferred. I am not that dumb, nor do I believe are most pet owners.

      It is quite easy to see the program highlighted the worst, as it well should have, and it is well understood by most grown ups in this world that there are good and bad in all facets, so the suggestion that the inference carried to all breeders is coming from an odd angle. I find this lament to be quite ridiculous, probably from a point of hurt, I understand, but I would also think it would be time to get past the defensiveness and on with thinking clearly.

      Kary

      Delete
  30. Well Bestuvall, maybe - just maybe - if all those show breeders, BYB´s and PF´s who breed dogs to augment either the size of their ego or the size of their wallet went out of business, it would leave decent, knowledgeable people who actually just like dogs a lot?

    Now if that did happen, it would leave Jemima without cause for a PDE3 - I think that would make her happy! So Bestuvall and others, why not join up?
    Help clear up the mess, and there need never be a PDE3; the labs cashing in on detecting defective genes in dogs will close down, or switch to doing the same job for humans - not a bad way to handle finite lab resources, eh? Public confidence in pedigree dogs restored - future for pedigree dogs with their differing behavioural traits looking brighter...
    What is holding you back?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Excellent radio investigation on puppy farming in Australia: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/puppy-farming/3089468

    I am looking forward to PDE2 screening here in Australia and hope more journalists take an interest in all aspects of canine welfare like JH has done. Keep up the good work Jemima!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Jemima says "I was told by a good source shortly after Pedigree Dogs Exposed that she had seen the programme and was supportive (but of course have no way of verifying that). " so your normal hearsay is proof for you and nothing to back up your claims....go figure no change there then! The Queens dogs have a mix of working AND show lines in them indeed she often goes to show kennels to improve her lines, as for the Dorgi inthe portrait it was Princess Margaret who thought those up, and the are no longer bred as they proved to have bad tempers, or wouldyou just call that hybred vigour hight spirits?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. retorting hearsay with ....hearsay! i can but laugh - would you care to reference your sources re: the queens dogs

      Delete
    2. Since I have seen Sandringham lines in some show labradors pedigrees, I can vouch for the fact that the Queens labs must at some point get to mix with show stock.

      Is that good enough?

      Delete
    3. You may have seen Sandringham dogs in the pedigrees of show Labradors (but there is also an American Labrador kennel with the affix Sandringham) but I will be surprised if you can find any show Labradors in the pedigrees of the Queen's dogs. I had a quick look at the pedigrees as far back as the 1950s and they look solidly like top class FT Labradors. But I wouldnt claim to know as much about retrievers as I do about spaniels or setters. And I'm sure if you know better you will quick to tell me :))

      Delete
    4. The dogs are registered with the UK Kennel club as UK bred. You work it out.......

      Delete
    5. I see Jan Dykema thinks that the Terrierman Blog is "not read by many people". Well, only 2.5 million. And how many dog breeders do you think read the Jewish Chronicle? Maybe a dozen or so?

      Delete
  33. "just like dogs a lot?" really is that all it will take. Bodil I don't understand you.. join up to what? what are "labs cashing in on defective gens in canines"? Huh you mean if all show breeders stopped breeding and all what you call BYB's and PF's stopped breeding there would be no need for scientific work in the field of canine genetics. and that the laboratories would not longer be need just by what you are saying.. that is if"decent, knowledgeable people who actually just like dogs a lot" did all of the breeding that no more science would be necessary and we could then concentrate on humans? Are lab sources finite? who knew
    What a concept.. one you should probably write a paper on at some time in the future..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It doesnt surprise me that some geneticists and vets are very happy to work together with the KC on promoting DNA testing as the way to produce healthier breeds. They are making lucrative careers out of developing more and more new tests , carrying out testing and issuing certificates. One cant help noticing that although geneticists also understand perfectly well that lower COIs, breeding for diversity and less rigid rules about "purity" will also produce healthier dogs, there is no money to be made from advocating a changed approach to breeding. Much as I admire the work of the AHT in developing DNA testing, and the BVA hip scoring and eye testing panels, I wish some of the vets and geneticists involved would also promote better breeding practices. Maybe some pressure could be put on the AHT to also promote breeding for diversity on their website, as well as selling DNA testing? And on the BVA hip scoring panel to actively promote the breeding of dogs with lower hip scores, as well as actually scoring them?

      Delete
  34. Bestuvall, you make me wonder seriously at times as to what planet you´re inhabiting. Not this one, surely, where ALL resources are finite? Where everybody with the minutest interest can see genetic research groups trawling the genomes of humans and dogs for comparison, looking for some illness-making human gene and finding the canine counterpart and, so, quickly devising a commercial test for a bit of personal funding?
    No, dear me, I was not saying that if only people interested in dog behaviour and health (good working dogs, good companion dogs) did the breeding, there would be no scientific work on dogs. I was only saying there would be less of a gold mine to harvest. As with ourselves: yes, defective genes, any number of them, only spread out thinly across our populations, occasionally meeting to cause unexpected illness.
    Not, Bestuvall, frequent in unnatural numbers following generations of ignorant (or purposeful) inbreeding, closed stud books, and founder effects. Or, for that matter, intentional choice of genetic problems for the looks of them - ever heard of the shar-pei, the basset, the ridgeback, or the double merle of various breeds? Heard of the bulldog?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "closed stud books" the stud book is a different record to the register, why cant people get that FACT right. The Stud book is a lostof awards be they in the show ring, field trial or working ring, the register despite the common belief is not a closed one, and never has been, new dogs and lines have always have and still are added, indeed the Kennel Clubs of the world have been quite open about this, its just those with closed minds who would like to believe such things as it make them feel they have weight to their own ideas on a subject they know little about but feel free comment on wide and far.

      Delete
  35. Dear Anonymous of Jan 15 05.17, Are you participating in a trial for Besides-the-point remark of the year?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bodil C so if someone corect another with Fact you choose to belittle them.................. I wonders if thats why Miss Harrison has no one from the show world or pedigree dog worl on film, as they know she would do the same to! If you think that is a beside the point remark to, well I think that says far more about you than anything else you have typed on here.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous, I think that there are alot of Pedigree Breeders who would love to have their say on film but would decline as they would feel the JH would not accurately record it.

      Delete
  36. Anonymous of Jan 15 09:17, I did not to belittle you. I suppose you´re British? In Sweden, where I live, and as I understand it in most other countries with a national kennel club, the registry is the stud book - they´re synonymous. All dogs born in a breed are registered and the registry is referred to as the stud book. It is the book that records the pedigrees of every puppy born, not the merits of a few.
    So if you prefer, I could change the sentence from "closed studbook" to "closed studbooks in all countries but Britain and closed registries in Britain", but it would not change my meaning. Nor would it change the fact that closed studbooks/registries have caused, and are causing, harm to breeds, as the real COI would go up generation by generation with growing loss of genetic diversity.
    And that is why your comment seemed besides the point to me. Again, I did not mean to belittle, but what you say is not correcting with fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well in Norway the NKK describe the following on their website "The Norwegian Kennel Club promotes responsible breeding of healthy dogs and keeps a registry of all pure bred dogs in Norway.A registry for all mixed breed dogs is also operational." so nothing about a Stud book there!? also in Sweden as in many other countries I have known dogs of native stock or working packs be allowed to be introduced onto the registers (they may be limited in there use as they are clearly marked of their back ground) but they are accepted, so to say all such registers are closed I must contest is a false statement. You might want to remember (and being British I dont like to raise it as we dont by our nature brag of such things)that The Kennel Club was founded here first (A fact that the FCI dont like to recognise, but even they still refer to the it as THE Kennel Club and not attach a countries name to it), the breed register was established FIRST and a few years latter the Stud Book was compiled.

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous of Jan 15 06:26, I am glad to hear that the British by nature are unable to boast. Genetic, is it?
      The nationalist groups in this country have long had it that Scandinavians by nature are honest and truthful. Therefore, let me say that I honestly and in truth can´t make head or tails of what you write.

      No, there is no studbook here separate from the national KC register, where ALL pedigrees and all pedigree dogs are kept record of.
      Yes indeed, it has happened very occasionally that some breed was formally made up/introduced from old native local stock, such as lately the white elkhound; and once constituted and designated a breed...the stud book = registry is closed. Right?

      And yes, the KC of England was indeed the first of its kind, and the first to intitute the practice of closed registries for dogs nationwide. I think you know as well as I do that e g the formal breed now called Rough Collie was founded from rather few dogs out of an ocean of working dogs just called "common Collies".
      There are still dogs, in Ireland and in Wales, that are working "common Collies". Would you take a chance on succeeding in getting them KC registered for breeding purposes?
      If your answer is no, then the registry/studbook is closed. And therein lieth the problem.

      Delete
    3. To Anon Jan 15, 6:26PM: I think that nitpicking whether you call it stud book or registry especially with persons writing with English as not their native language is rather beside the point (I am making the assumption here that Bodil Carlsson's native language is Swedish). Also it seems that it is possible to use words register and stud book as meaning the same thing and a different thing so re-defining what another has said to suit your definition and not theirs is bound to lead to disagreements.

      Both of these quotes are from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed_registry
      "A breed registry, also known as a stud book or register, in animal husbandry and the hobby of animal fancy, is an official list of animals within a specific breed whose parents are known."
      "The terms "stud book" and "register" are also used to refer to lists of male animals "standing at stud", that is, those animals actively breeding, as opposed to every known specimen of that breed."

      In light of these quotes it is quite possible that NKK just does not use the word stud book but prefers registry. Kennel Clubs in Nordic countries do work similarly and I don't know of any that kept separate studbook but the register doubles as a studbook.

      If there is one thing that I would promote to all KCs is open register databases. Not limited to only members but open to all. I can still remember how hard it was to get information about who was breeding what and how much before the the Finnish KC's pedigree database KoiraNet (http://jalostus.kennelliitto.fi/frmEtusivu.aspx) was operational. I would argue that KoiraNet has made a difference in the level of awareness in Finland as anyone (puppy buyers) can scrutinise the breeding decisions of any breeder.

      Swedish pedigree database is also open to all even though half of it requires registration: Hunddata (open to all http://kennet.skk.se/hunddata/) and Avelsdata (requires registration http://kennet.skk.se/avelsdata/). Estonian Kennel Club also has open pedigree database (http://register.kennelliit.ee/reg/index.php?lang=EN).

      Delete
    4. As to the open and closed registry issue: In fact all of the FCI countries have the _technical_ possibility in their rules to include dogs from outside of FCI/nationally approved registries into their registries. This rule applies to all breeds. So in that way they are open registries.

      In Finland there are just couple of breeds (out of more than 300 registered yearly) into which dogs have been taken from outside of registries in the past couple of decades. The number of these dogs and their impact upon their respective breeds in Finland have been minmal. (The Jack Russell Terrier (FCI breed number 345) is anomaly as it only has been FCI recognised breed since 2001 but even in it the number of dogs included from outside has dwindled as the years have gone by.) Also Finnish KC approved crossbreedings between two registered dogs of different breeds have been limited to just a few.

      So if we are concerned with actual gene flows rather than just the rules I would say most registries for vast majority of breeds in Western countries are effectively closed. For a register to be actually open there would have to be gene flow into the breed (from outside) and this is just no happening.

      Delete
    5. Thanks, Maija, you say it so much better than I did.

      Delete
    6. Were any of the comments made on this blog directed at any other Kennel Club, other than the one in the UK? so to use the correct terminolgy should be used, and confusing the subject with other Registers does not help debate

      Delete
  37. AnonymousJan 16, 2012 11:59 AM

    In response to your reply I would say to you Anonymous, What do you think PDE stands for, it stands for "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" - so there is the inference that it is to do with all pedigree dogs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That does not follow. An expose on poor veterinary practices . . . is not as expose on ALL vets. Most are well aware of this. I couldn't imagine anybody not. The ALL, therefore, is the part that you are inserting.

      Kary

      Delete
  38. Jennifer Jones1 March 2012 17:03

    This programme was incredible. I have sent e-mails to everyone I know telling them to watch it. Unfortunately I missed the first one (the 2008 one), can someone tell me where I can get a copy from or view it?
    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete