Thursday, 22 March 2012

"For the benefit of pedigree dogs"


Last week, in an interview with DogWorld, judge Andrew Brace claimed the new Canine Alliance represented the "grass roots of dogdom"

Well not really, obviously. The new Alliance actually represents the grass roots of dogshowdom.

Last week, this is what Mr Brace had to say:

"The way in which 15 breeds were targeted and humilated at Crufts is unacceptable... We are not against health-testing; far from it. We are for health testing but on a level playing field. We want every single dog that goes to a KC licensed show to be fit and healthy and we want that fact established before it goes in the ring, not after it's won a CC or BOB. 

"Our wish is to have a KC that fosters the interests of the breeders, exhibitors and judges who support it. We are their customers. This is not about the demise of the KC; not about trying to set up some alternative organisation... what we want is a Kennel Club that cares for us."
The language, as others have already noted, is telling.  That first sentence, for instance,  tells us that the "breeds" to people like Andrew Brace are not the dogs themselves but their breeders. Because, of course, the DQd Peke, Bulldog, Mastiff, Neapolitan Mastiff, Clumber and Basset Hound can feel no humiliation. (Otherwise, surely, Poodles would have voted en masse by now to boycott the show-ring on the grounds that the grooming makes them look embarrassingly ridiculous.)

And what's with the level playing field idea? Sounds OK superficially but the 15 highlighted breeds have, after all, been highlighted for good reasons and it made sense to start with them. 

And, oops, Mr Brace forgot to mention the dog in the second paragraph. 

Now I'm all for dogs having to prove their health before they enter the show-ring but I believe the notion of vet-checking all dogs given the numbers at UK shows is impractical and therefore a red herring. What's more, can you imagine the uproar, anyway, should vets DQ some top dog de jour that's just arrived after a 300 mile journey to compete?

But, today,  I am greatly heartened. Because here's the statement following the first meeting of Canine Alliance' steering committee last night:

"The Canine Alliance was formed to represent everyone involved with pedigree dogs, and to negotiate when necessary with any related organisations in the interest of all breeds. Its aims are to protect and support the well-being of pedigree dogs, to uphold the ethics of responsible dog breeding, to encourage health checking of all dogs and to allow the exhibition of pedigree dogs without bias or discrimination.... It pledges to be fair and totally transparent, always working to the benefit of pedigree dogs.

At last! An organisation that I can sign up to! After all,  I'm involved with pedigree dogs and I can sign up to most of those aims. I also protect and support the well-being of pedigree dogs; I am happy to uphold the ethics of responsible dog breeding and to encourage health checking of all dogs. And if I can't quite sign up to the last one, it's only because I don't think that vet-checks for breeds known to have specific problems as a result of their conformation is being biased or discriminatory. I  think it's being fair and commensurate (even if the finer detail of the principle of independent scrutiny is not yet quite right).

So what shall we do first, CA?

• Limits on popular sires and inbreeding?
• KC registrations dependent on taking and actually passing breed specific tests?
• Health reps educated in rudimentary genetics?
• Proper breed health surveys?
• Ban dog shows in their current form (I mean, didn't you say you were working to the benefit of pedigree dogs?)

It's so exciting, isn't it? Together, we can achieve so much!

The Canine Alliance now has its own, open Facebook page.  Enjoy...

Incidentally, is it just me that thinks that the paw on the CA logo looks like it's slamming shut the lid of a coffin?

99 comments:

  1. Isn't Screen Capture a marvellous invention?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well done, anonymous. I doubt that the sad apology below would have otherwise appeared.

      At least now we understand the calibre of Ms Harrison's wit. Cheap - like her journalism.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous - Strange how this "Cheap journalism" still has You reading it !!!!???!! .......and commenting too ;) !!!??

      I totally support Jemima and her efforts, resolve, beliefs and drive - Total Respect Jemima X

      Delete
    3. Same here and I am NOT anonymous!!

      Delete
    4. Stephen Charlton22 March 2012 16:46

      Same here - sorry but I posted above without logging in (hence my Anonymous status) - I posted the one above showing as 08:45AM (?)

      Stephen X

      Delete
    5. Is Jemima related to Rush Limbaugh?

      Delete
  2. Should you add an "Oops, " Jemima? Slip of the pen perhaps? Why do you feel that personal comments and downright nasty sarcasm will further your cause?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, don't ever let it be said that I don't do requests...
    I don't get everything right, Anon; no one does; and it's not the first time I've edited or removed something because someone found something offensive.

    It was intended as a witty observation rather than a homophobic jibe (for those wondering what I am referring to, in the first draft of the above I had called the Canine Alliance the Gaynine Alliance), but after three comments complaining - including from someone I respect - I decided to remove it (and the comments because having edited the copy they made no sense).

    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The old Empress kept her Pekingese out of sight behind the drapes in the Palace. She has advised mine to stay in the castle & pull up the drawbridge.

      Time solves all problems.
      From one of the Campbell Clan

      Delete
    2. homophobic? of course not, but someone who isn't homophobic wouldn't have written it. Its removed because of the complaints, not because its wrong?
      New shockumentary on its way, Homophobia in the film industry.
      Any comments available?

      Close sources last night begged not be identified but reluctantly admitted "it is an issue but you shouldn't live a lie"

      Delete
  4. Have I got it wrong here - but:

    "Canine" = Dog and Wikipedia starts of with "Domestic Dog".

    "Alliance" = an agreement or friendship between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests (Wikipedia).

    So in the truest sense of the title - The "Canine Alliance" should represent ALL dogs and ALL people for the advancement of common goals such as Health Testing, Welfare and even "Pet'ability" - now that is what I would see as the "grass roots of Dogdom" !!!

    Why oh why start with the promise of something so great and good add a hugely restrictive and blinkered caveat with the word "Pedigree" ????

    Who has the right to stand at the door of Dogdom and say "Sorry mate You can't come in here with those genes" ???????"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a question.

      Why and how much do you have to pay and what happens to the money?

      Delete
    2. Why are you asking here, Dorothea? Why not ask the Alliance?

      Delete
    3. The finer aspects of breeding for show stock and imperial propagation are the only true dogs (canines) and anything other are but rough impressions..'seconds' if you will and not appropriate classes or worthy of true canine fore-fronts..There is first 'Pedigree' and then there is 'wannabee'. But this is all quite trivial as the real perspective is that of the people of contention, the ruling class, the overlords of all that is canine and what should be.
      So in this regard 'Canine Alliance' is proper as proper is..my dears.

      Delete
    4. I am asking here as I am FB challenged and cannot find a button which says "contact".

      Do you know?

      Delete
    5. Stephen Charlton.22 March 2012 22:30

      Barry - If you truly represent the archetypal blinkered "DogSnob" then I'm soooooooo glad Jemima stood up to be counted.

      If We were to breed responsibly on-going then the world would soon be populated with so many more "Jemimas" than "Barrys".

      "Pedigree" has more in common with "Pedestal" than is does "Dog" !

      "Pedigree" has been created by Man and also being destroyed by Man too !

      I'd sooner have a "second" as you put it - as a friend, as a companion, as a pet but most of all ....as a Dog X

      Delete
    6. @Stephen Charlton .. in response to your response on my SARCASM .. I couldn't agree more as my comments were purely satirical .. but I can see how it could be envisioned as one's perspective from the 'show circuit' ..

      Delete
  5. "Our wish is to have a KC that fosters the interests of the breeders, exhibitors and judges who support it. We are their customers. This is not about the demise of the KC; not about trying to set up some alternative organisation... what we want is a Kennel Club that cares for us."


    I thought the Kennel Club was in the interest of dogs, all dogs, and not breeders, exhibitors and judges?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are no breed clubs.

      There are only breeders' clubs.

      Delete
    2. That is the absolute truth. Well said.

      Delete
  6. http://www.gossipdogblog.blogspot.co.uk/

    ReplyDelete
  7. As a dog lover and owner of both pedigree and non pedigree dogs I fail to understand why there is so much discussion about what, where and how. Surely any organisation that works to 'improve' dogs should primarily have the welfare of the dog upmost in their mind be it the Canine alliance, the Kennel Club or any other organisation. Jemima has shown that this is not always the case and that in spite of this being pointed out there still seems to be a resistance to improving the health of breeds in favour of a 'breed standard' based on looks. If, as has been shown this causes unneccesary suffering to the animal surely there is a case of cruelty to answer in the same way that neglect is? I am not sure how to publish my name on this but am happy to do so if someone can tell me how to do this

    ReplyDelete
  8. Who is this gossipdog ? They're pretty funny - I had to laugh at "astringent Alan"
    Just a bit worried though that jokes and name calling might damage the serious message

    ReplyDelete
  9. I thought the Kennel Club was in the interest of dogs, all dogs, and not breeders, exhibitors and judges?
    says one poster..

    How do you produce dogs and NOT be a breeder?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same way you got produced!

      Doing what comes naturally.....

      Delete
  10. Human psychology is fascinating sometimes. I am genuinely curious as to how representatives of show dog breeders can cry discrimination of 15 high profile breeds when it seems discrimination is part & parcel of that world? Rhodesians without a ridge, Boxers more than 1/3 white, Blue GSD, Sable Cockers etc etc are discriminated against by these very same people. So is discrimination acceptable or is it not?

    Although I do actually agree with CA that vet checks should (eventually) be rolled out across other breeds, I understand that it is normal to run a 'pilot scheme' of change and expand from there. Therefore it seems to make sense that the most 'at risk' breeds would be selected for the pilot scheme.

    "we want a kennel club that cares about us'. If one wanted to narrow the pet-owner/show-breeder divide; driving people away from puppy farmers and towards professional breeders, I'd say potentially that is one of the most damaging statements you could make :(

    I can only hope the Canine Alliance will start to think about how they are perceived by the world outside of showing, before the reputations of those good, caring breeders are damaged by statements like Mr Brace's....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Conformation showing is already rife with discrimination and bias. Each judge will interpret the standard in their own way, in light of their own view of what a proper Whateverhound should look like, and their own experience with Whateverhounds. Judge shopping is common and accepted, to show under judges more likely to put your dog up. Most people do not want to waste money or driving time on a judge that isn't going give their dog more than a cursory look.

      These people would have bitched incessantly even if the dogs had undergone health checks before judging. They knew when they entered what the deal was, the fact that they are pissing and moaning after the fact is telling and typical of people who do not really want to see change, but only pay it lip service so the public won't question their practices.

      Judges, exhibitors and breed clubs alike have been given plenty of opportunity to adjust to the changes implemented by the KC:

      http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/3671

      Delete
    2. The CA do not want post judging vet-checks in all breeds, they don't want them in any breed. Most of them are judges and the thing that's rsttled their gage the most is the vets overturning judges decisions...how dare they!
      My best guess is the CA will propose something similar to what happens in parts of Europe;- a friendly vet giving dogs a quick look before judging.
      Either that or a vet "who knows the breed" (code for let's welfare issues go) giving the dog what is more or less a one off licence to show.

      Delete
    3. There is a vet like that already in the employ of the KC---I have seen him in action here with pugs!!

      I will not name names......

      The bad picture that would give was one of the reasons the KC wisely chose independent vets.

      Delete
    4. i show 2 breeds that are not any of the 15 breeds under fire and i think we should all have a vet check on our dogs before we show them not just for eyes ect why can we bring in a standard heath sheet for all breeds thats sign off by our vets before we enter there simple and before you all decided im the devil incarnate my breeds that i own 1 requires eye tests and one breed that dont require any tests at all,but i have always and will continue to do eye, hips, knees on the putnum scale even though the BVA refuses to take it on(its grades patellas) on both my breeds not because the breed clubs want it, its because i want my pups to live long healthy happy lives, most of us our like this and i think its bloody unfair you have tar all of us with the same brush

      Delete
    5. Not the devil incarnate, just with an unreasonably optimistic view of human nature.

      The problem with having it signed off by people's own vets is that it's not repeatable: one vet will say 'that dog's fine' where another might be stricter. People will get to know the vets who are less strict, and will go to visit them if they think their dog might otherwise fail.

      I know if I was a vet and someone came in to me with their top show dog, someone I liked, someone I'd had a long working relationship with, someone who's been my neighbour for a decade or more, it might be very hard to write 'unsuitable conformation' on the sheet (particularly if I wasn't up on these things anyway: "it looks like a normal pug, pugs have breathing problems"). It's not unreasonable to imagine that might affect it.

      People could be dishonest about the results as well: look at the clumber spaniel owner using eye tests that didn't look for ectropion to prove the dog doesn't have it.

      She's not tarring everyone with the same brush. Breeders of healthy dogs have been repeatedly praised on this blog.

      If you health test, breed for less exaggerated conformation (because as we saw recently health tests don't cover everything), breed for long-lived and healthy dogs in preference to 'good examples of the breed', then these posts are not about you.

      Delete
  11. Dear Jemima

    I have followed very closley with my family and friend your programes and blogs etc and as a family that have lost a dog through an inherited problem we have complete understanding and have given wholehearted support on this drive to improve things.
    I have followed your advice and looked at the new groups fb page etc and we have come to the conclusion that we must give them a chance!! it would be completly wrong to dismiss people who are trying and I would think from what we have learned over the years about the dog show/breeding scene have potentially put there heads on the chopping block!!

    In all areas of life there comes a time where fighting and point scoring etc must stop ! otherwise inteligent and constructive dialogue cannot occur.

    I would hope that you offer an olive branch at least! nothing ventured nothing gained! if it is thrown back, well!! we continue.

    kindest regards The Molineaux Family including Hamish the westie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I fail to comprehend the logic behind your thought processes. The Kennel Club institutes changes to protect the health of dogs and the Canine Alliance is born to protest these changes. Why should we give them a chance. If these people honestly wanted to prioritise the health and welfare of pedigree dogs, all they had to do is support the Kennel Club measures. Or do nothing at all.

      By opposing the Kennel Club on this front they have shown that their priorities have more to do with maintaining their rights to do whatever the heck they please regardless of the implications for their dogs. It's a bit like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

      Delete
    2. I agree with all you say.
      However, as far as I know, the KC will talk with these Canine Alliance people and see if anything positive can result.

      In view of Brace's initial statement asking for a breeder, judge and exhibitor orientated KC I personally do not believe there is any future in talking with people with a similar mind set....he never even mentioned DOGS!

      Delete
    3. And, just as pertinently, not a single person on that steering committee has been engaged publicly in the debate on health since Pedigree Dogs Exposed. And not one has ever contacted me (whereas an awful lot of others in the dog world have - not always to agree with me, of course, but at least to have a sensible discussion about inbreeding or popular sires or extreme brachycephalia or the role dog shows have had in shaping breeds).

      This group is a protest group campaigning against outside interference; no more and no less. Moreover, the claim to represent all pedigree dogs is clearly just nonsense.

      Delete
    4. And you Jemima when specifically asked by the GSD community to help actively did nothing to assist - based on that how does that make you better than the CA just a journalist turned campaigner who actually would not in any way to try and assist one breed you specifically targeted even when formally requested to do so !

      Delete
    5. Why feel upset that that asking for assistance didn't come to anything ??
      Have no one within the GSD community got the "balls" to take a stand and tackle anything themselves ??

      Delete
    6. yes indeed they have balls however when you are banging your head against a brick wall what are those whom have those balls supposed to do.

      They ( the GSD folks) had a very high profile meeting with the KC to make health testing mandatory and those whom failed those health tests to be unregistered...... the kc's response was to say no 'bog off' basically............... so they asked for all relevant specimins to have at the very least a breed survey prior to being 'shown'........... then answer I think you might be able to guess that!

      So JH was asked to 'publicise' through her access to media in an attempt in the same way she had done with PDE to force the issue.... if that's the right way of seeing it............. then answer............... well ask Jemima......

      Delete
  12. she doesnt want to give us a chance otherwise she would be out of a job and pennyless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And who are you????

      To whom does the "us" refer???

      Delete
    2. who are you Dorothea Jemima mother you have a lot of mouth and little knowledge, another dole scrounger i expect as your on here all day answering everything people are asking Jemima,

      Delete
    3. You're making no sense, really, just kind of embarrassing yourself by making personal attacks based off of assumptions, which you made with zero evidence. I can infer from your word choice, however, that you yourself, are involved with the CA. Too bad for them, to have such a volunteer - neither sensible nor articulate!

      Delete
  13. Nearly wet myself laughing at the gossipdog blog. Hysterical! Nice to have some light relief with everyone taking themselves so seriously!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Three points...1) The CA membership, or at least leadership, are long established dog breeders, exhibitors and judges. They might have personally bred dogs to high welfare standards but were complicit in a system that allowed gross excesses to go unchallenged for decades. Why weren't they jumping up and down demanding changes long before Jemima?
    2) Ask the simple question, "does health and welfare come first always above any consideration of purity, type or beauty?" and I don't think many supporters of the CA could bring themselves to say a simple "yes".
    3) When the CA defend issues like "some haw" in evidence in the eyes of certain breeds they are really asking us to accept that their narrow view of breed type means dogs deliberately bred to live in discomfort.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm posting on here as a dog lover and a dog breeder. I beieve that these two things can and do co-exist with eachother. I am so angry with the war that has broken out in the dog world. Jemima - alot of what you say is not fair and the way you portray people like me is not fair. Similarly alot of what the CA is wrong. BUT both parties do speak some sense. YES there are many breeds that are unhealthy, their quality of life is suffering for it. I for one cannot continue to see the species that i hold so dear fall apart like it is falling now. but...You never mention the many many breeds who are very healthy, the countless breeders who have worked tirelessly to elliminate conditions! One prime example is MLS in beagles most people have never even heard of it...and that is because beagle breeders spent hundreds of pounds testing all their dogs and eliminating carriers of the gene from their breeding programmes. As soon as we caught wind of this condition all our beagles were tested - the swabs had to be sent to california as at the time this was the only place that could do it. One of our bitches carried the gene and she was spayed immediately! we now only breed MLS clear dogs and our studs only go to mls clear bitches and the same can be said for beagle breeders up and down the country. We as a community of people decided to stop it before it took over our breed. BUT you will still find beagles with MLS if you look...you will find carriers..but they dont come from the show ring. They come from the puppy farms and 'the nice lady down the road who fancied letting her doggy have some babies' these people have no interest in health tests, they are either too greedy or too niave... when will these people get their judgement day? when will you make a programme about them? Where's the film about the thousands of people breeding mutts that go to poorly chosen homes and end up in rescue centres? I am proud to breed my dogs. I am proud to see them go to loving homes. I love hearing how they are doing and getting photos back of happy dogs with happy owners. I welcome these people back when they want another puppy to add to their family because they are so happy with the one they got first time around. The dogs that i have bred will never see the inside of a rescue centre. They will never be without the things they need. AND they are healthy. I know there are people that put CC's before health but the majority of pedigree dog breeders don't. I do not in-breed my dogs I'm not full of money but i have spent alot of money on smooth collies with foriegn lines to help increase the gene pool. I have used a KC registered strain of working foot beagle in my breeding programme to do the same thing and ALL puppies born here have COI far lower than the breed average. I will not have idiot people who take everything you say as gosple treating me like an animal abusing monster just because i breed and show pedigree dogs. I will not have people who breed dogs like this https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ba+shar+puppies&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=1aFrT8eVJsTu8AOU-5XuBg&ved=0CDIQsAQ&biw=1326&bih=579 tell me that they are breeding something that will live a longer and happier life than what im breeding because mine are pedigree. And although i agree with the fact that certain breeds are disgustingly unhealthy I do not agree with the way that you have portrayed it to the general public. and i blame you for the attitude that some people have developed about two of britains finest working breeds and of myself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Abby that is one of the most sensible posts I have read for a long time. I thoroughly agree with you. Jemima, please carry on your campaign but make sure it is aimed at the right people.

      Delete
    2. Obviously not worthy of a comment from the great Jemima harrison herself though

      Delete
    3. Well I try (although don't always succeed...) to leave the Comments section for other people to have their say.

      Abby, it sounds like you're doing everything right and that's terrific.

      It may well be that everyone in show Beagles is doing the right thing but I'm afraid that cannot be said for every other breed.

      You clearly love your dogs and you have two unexaggerated breeds (although one with an artificially-small gene pool that could probably do with an influx of new genes) - and it's great to see that you do agility with your dogs.

      But there are a lot of problems out there and I'm afraid it is not all coming from the breeders of Basset x Shar-pei crosses (a terrible idea for a cross, I agree, but that's because I think the parent breeds are too often a mess).

      Jemima

      Delete
    4. Fab post. Every responsible breeder of fit for function dogs will be in agreement with you.

      Delete
    5. Thanks for the reply. I dont think i mentioned my agility on that post. I think someone has been doing their research. Seeing if i walk the walk? Glad to see i didnt get a link like the unfortunate basset breeder. I guess this can only be a good thing.

      Small gene pool, are you referring to the smooths? If you are then I agree, but we can only work with what we have. And despite our limited numbers we still have a COI average lower than most other breeds and less health issues than the rough coated cousins =)

      If you mean beagles....then i also agree....hence our outcross. but again still healthier than most other pedigrees and alot of crosses too.

      Delete
  16. I am SO joining! I have a whole rescue kennel full of pedigree dogs and will truly appreciate the support of an alliance that works for me. In fact, I have bits of paper here with family trees on that range from the sublime to the ridiculous.

    I can say with my hand on my heart that every trace I've ever managed to do via every 'champ' in the paperwork has turned up a breeder who no longer has interest in their stock once it's on the dogpile, my favourite response being "Well, you just don't know what they're going to do with the dog once you've sold it to them do you?".

    I never really have to deal with the good breeders because their stock doesn't appear in rescue:

    They know where their stock is, they support owners through health and temperament problems for life and they take back dogs when circumstances for owners change beyond recognition and rehome them safely and sanely.

    They also abandon seemingly perfect physical lines when genetic problems appear because they care more for their breed than their kennel, purse or pride.

    Anyone on here wanting to purchase a 'pedigree' dog, choose your breeder, then ring a rescue who specialises in your chosen breed and mention their name. If the rescue makes a sharp intake of breath and pauses to make the sign of the cross - move on.

    We pay for shoddy breeding, the cruciates, epilepsy, spine twists, eye problems, hips, elbows and brain issues that breeders and showers pretend aren't that big a deal. We do it because we genuinely adore the breed, not because we benefit from it in any way - and we'd do the same for any mongrel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same Here. was told my breed did not end up in rescue and if they did they where certainly puppyfarm dogs with health and behaviour problems.
      Most dogs where given up simply because the owner lost interest. the amount they paid didnt matter ( so no breeders , charging 900 for a pup does NOT garauntee it will be kept)
      I've rescued dogs from top breeders who where dumb enough to think we actually believed the half dead dog they wanted out of their kennels fast was perfectly normal. " No thats not a seizure , they just like doing that in this breed" Here take him and oh you wont mention where you got him from will you.

      Delete
  17. The Guido Fawkes of "dogdom".... not me but I rather wish I had had the idea first! Mind you if it was me I would say that;- wouldn't I!Seriously though, not me;-you can tell because there are so few, if any, sentences constructed with multiple clauses that sort of, as you will, trail off rather than...

    Kevin Colwill

    Plus, if it were me, there'd be loads more "I".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm. Guy Fawkes plotted to blow up the Houses of Parliament, failed and ended up being executed. Could turn out to be a better analogy for Andrew Brace than for the anonymous dog gossip columnist!

      Delete
  18. Abby - you are the sort of dog breeder and owner that the pedigree world needs. You are obviously passionate about your dogs and prepared to spend time and money making sure they are happy and healthy as well as beautiful examples of their type.
    The huge problem is with the people who are not like you and although PDE and the subsequent blogs are provocative I cant think of any other way to shake things up and alert everyone to the issues with inbred/badly bred dogs.
    I inherited a Cavalier two years ago from my late mother-in-law. I knew little of the breed at the time but became concerned at his chronic eye problems and general lethargy compared to my much older Jack Russell and Golden Retriever. Vet checks have confirmed heart disease, dry eye and are unsure as yet whether the new tremors and head wobbles are SM or epilepsy or some other horror.
    This dog was bought (at a premium considering he was 6 months old)in good faith by her and my husband, who thought that going to a reputable show breeder was the best thing. Looking at his pedigree I can see the same dog over and over and its not to difficult to guess where all these problems originate.
    The worry and heartache this dogs health is causing is enormous and I feel furious with the arrogance and complacency of breeders who refuse to acknowledge this. For the sake of my husband and his sorry little dog I will continue to support this campaign.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dixyblue - I sympathise with people who, like you, have had these horrible experiences with their dogs and I cannot feel more sad for the poor little dog in question.
      But (and this comment does not apply to you because you inherited the dog) i cannot understand why people continue to buy dogs that they know are unhealthy...I used to be a big Boxer fan, never bred or showed them but I would have 4 or 5 at a time. But the breed is not the same as it was 10yrs ago they are not healthy and I refuse to put myself through the heartache. I'm sure that when you look for anothr dog in the future you will not be turning to the cavalier? There were people on PDE and PDE 3yrs on that had a breed with a million breed specific health problems and when that poor thing went they got another one! Where as here i am sat with two of the healthiest breeds (in my opinion) and one, the smooth collie, had only 75 puppies registered in 2011 (which is considered a healthy crop!) compare this to the 7445 cavaliers!!! If people didnt buy them...they wouldnt exist.

      Delete
    2. If you look at the cavalier registrations they have dropped from over 11 thousand a few years ago. Possibly because of PDE but people where turning away from the breed before that. the Heart issues are becoming too well known to the general public. The price has also halved.

      I've had cavaliers for nearly 30 years and wont have another , aswell as the health problems the temperment is not the same.

      Delete
    3. Abby, you answered your own question - if people didn't buy them then the breed in question would simply die out. Personally I think that would be a sad thing. I don't pretend to know everything there is to know about breeding for better heath, but I know that for the huge majority of breeds in the UK it isn't too late to save them. Some need to be outcrossed, some need to widen the gene pool internationally. Some need simply to stop using popular sires. It can be done - you yourself are evidence of this. But I feel that the CA is not in it to better the health of different breeds, they were set up as a protest group because the KC introduced health testing. Go figure.

      I've often been critical of the KC, but they get my full support on this issue. I know it seems unfair to those who have travelled from far afield to have their dog disqualified for a condition they might not have known about, but surely it's better to know, even if it does cost you a rosette? There were bound to be teething troubles, and I agree the way the health checks are currently carried out is less than ideal, but give the KC a chance to get it right. Isn't this what the fancy have wanted Jemima to do for the last three years?

      Delete
    4. Roger - I know it sounds like i'm up for making certain breds 'extinct' but my point was that without demand there will be no supply. I'm glad that PDE has made 'pet people' (for want of a better phrase) more aware of certain breeds. But people continue to invest whilst others have gone overboard and spend their time attacking breeders who actual do give a damn about their dogs.

      Delete
  19. Well put Jemima .I'm sure the dogs think that PDE and testing at shows is spot on .

    ReplyDelete
  20. Oh dear, Jemima. Your homophobic jibe hasn't gone down too well here at the Corporation. This on top of the technical and content concerns, it looks like it will be More4 for you in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Oh giveover. Even Andrew Brace said he laughed.

    Technical and content concerns? Pray, do tell. Specifically now.

    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And Jemima was addressed as "pig" and "scum" by Exhibitors Voice and Choice supporters yesterday. Where are their apologies?

      Delete
    2. Goodness. Was I? I missed that.

      But, hey, sticks and stones and all that.

      Jemima

      Delete
    3. I think the KC has already quietly abandoned one policy...the one that says everyone must play nice on the internet.

      Delete
  22. Is this new Canine Alliance going to support the health-oriented revisions of breed standards that the KC implemented a few years ago? Or are they going to encourage their judges to continue rewarding extreme conformation that undermines health?
    If they are "totally transparent", they had better clarify what standards they are backing.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think it's all talk to be honest, obviously only time will tell whether they DO indeed have pedigree dogs interests at heart, or whether they're simply wanting to benefit themselves in some way.

    Jennifer asked the question i was thinking....

    are they going to encourage their judges to continue rewarding extreme conformation that undermines health?

    That to me, is exactly the reason why they started this whole "Canine Alliance" thing in the first place. Why didn't they start this Alliance years ago if they had pedigree dogs welfare at heart? Why all of a sudden, in the year the KC implement vet checks to certain breeds would they come together to start this group? Hmm.

    Smells fishy to me.

    Louise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree it sounds odd , especially the amount of support they are getting.
      when have this amount of breeders ever been pro health test ?
      Usually you mention voluntary testing and they start complaining , if this canine alliance actually wants compulsory testing for all show dogs you'd think the usual reaction from breeders would be to start having a fit about shrinking the gene pool ( though using popular sires and discarding dogs for being mismarked reduces the gene pool and thats ok) and their human rights to breed from dogs with problems.

      Delete
  24. I think people are missing the point. Under the current Kennel Club system only a tiny minority make ALL of the decisions which impact dogs and their people. The General Committee is basically calling all of the shots with NO input from breeders, owners dog show exhibitors, and the like.

    It seems that this group is calling for a say in how things are done. In fact it appears to be calling for the Kennel Club to do MORE.

    Answer this: if the Kennel Club is truly concerned about welfare/health etc then WHY do the disqualified dogs from Crufts get to retain their CC awards?

    Will the Kennel Club register progeny from dogs who have been deemed not healthy enough to walk in the ring?

    The Kennel Club is all about smoke and mirrors...they fumble clumsily trying to create positive pr for themselves with things like the ABS.

    Tell me...can an ABS breeder test both parents of a litter for a hereditary disease...have them fail...still breed them....and will the Kennel Club accept the registrations?

    In a word, YES.

    The Canine Alliance is calling for standardised testing for ALL breeds of dog, not a few....and not just the winners.....ALL dogs in competition.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anon, I certainly support the idea of a more democratic kennel club. And if the Exhbitors' Alliance really does call for registration under the ABS to be dependent on the passing, not just taking, of health tests, well I shall be first in line applauding them.

    As for standardised testing, that depends on the quality of the test and who's doing it.

    So yep, let's see.

    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
  26. Looks like the KC is no longer just paying lip service to healthy dog breeds, but actually enforcing binding rules instead of merely making suggestions we are free to ignore.

    Shocking!

    Quick, let's make an organisation that will let us keep our rights to ignore its lip service to health while still getting the benefits of its ad power.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Jemmima said "As for standardised testing, that depends on the quality of the test and who's doing it."

    Which pretty much brings us back round to one of the reasons so many have got on board with the Canine Alliance - the quality of the vet tests and who is doing them - most of us feel that a comprehensive test by a specialist should bear more weight than an exam at a show by a general practitioner who was chosen on grounds of availability.

    And 1 more thing we have in common, as the passing of health tests is certainly important, not just the fact of being tested, Another item on the agenda, certainly.

    ReplyDelete
  28. And, just as pertinently, not a single person on that steering committee .has ever contacted me (whereas an awful lot of others in the dog world have - not always to agree with me, of course, but at least to have a sensible discussion about inbreeding or popular sires or extreme brachycephalia or the role dog shows have had in shaping breeds).

    says the blogger
    And the reason they would talk to you is??? are you a breeder? an exhibitor? a veterinarian? a geneticist? have you ever bred a dog? raised a litter? why would having a discussion with you about any of things you mention be any more enlightening that discussing the same with a little old lady on the bus who sits down next to you and wants to chat?
    you might take it that just don't like you or that they know they will be quoted incorrectly or have their sexual preferences mentioned here but it it probably a combination of all three and more

    ReplyDelete
  29. Jemmima said "As for standardised testing, that depends on the quality of the test and who's doing it."

    another animal rights agenda..
    move the middle.
    ok now we have tests..now let's question the tests.. are they "good enough".. and the testers.. "are they honest enough"? This is typical of an agenda.. one side really has nothing to give up.. the other wants the power.. so they start something like PDE.. then they push for "change".JQP buys into it. and the side with nothing to gain says OH WELL THEN we need change... then when the change occurs the AR"s push for MORE CHANGE.. tell me Jemima.. when will it be enough "change" for you and yours? When will you feel comfortable enough with the state of the pedigreed dog to shut down this blog?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Everyone is now using very similar language about health and welfare but we all know the same words can have very different meanings depending on who is using them and the context they’re used in. We need get beneath the rhetoric and ask questions about what drives the Canine Alliance.
    Take testing as an example. We all support health tests as a way of ensuring only healthy dogs are used in breeding programmes. That can only be a good thing...can’t it? I’d argue it depends on what is driving your desire to test. At least a few CA types advocate testing to preserve exaggerated breed type. Rather than the plainly obvious path of breeding out exaggeration and possibly outcrossing to related breeds they cling to the idea that testing can be used to cut more and more dogs from the breeding population until you reach a core of “healthy” dogs that continue to display the exaggerated breed type. If one on ten can have the exaggerations without apparent clinical disease they’ll try to get that up to one in five and call it being focused on health....bonkers and tantamount to an abuse of testing.
    Looking at the video of the CA meeting there was a very telling section when those present were genuinely shocked as the Bassett exhibitor whose dog failed its Crufts vet-check stated the vet had told her he was judging the Bassett as a dog not as a Bassett! It was clear from the video that the CA’s commitment to health didn’t extend to trying to find and reward healthy Basset hounds.
    The CA adopts the language of health but the biggest cheers are always when the mask slips a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This is my first comment here, and I want to start by saying I am a lover and owner of pedigreed dogs. My current breed of choice is the Pembroke Welsh Corgi. One is a retired show dog (shown by someone else), the other a show-bred dog we've had as a puppy. Of all the many, many dogs my family has had over the decades, all save one were purebreds. They have come from show breeders, working breeders, and backyard breeders. I tend to think that your best chance for getting a happy, healthy, stable dog is to carefully choose the breed best for your needs and then find a breeder who competes with or works dogs in some way, tests, and offers guarantees and demands returns on dogs you can't keep. I feel the need to say that to make clear I am not in the "animal rights" group. Having a breed that is still docked here in the States, one cannot even mention quietly that it might be nice if the standard was changed to VOLUNTARILY allow undocked dogs without someone shouting that you must be in the AR crowd. Now to move on:

    If I am a lover of purebred dogs, and own show-bred dogs, what has gone so wrong that I can't watch a dog show because they make me cry? With so many happy, healthy, functional breeds to choose from, why do the judges so often put up the freakish ones in Group and BIS?

    If the goal of breed clubs is to maintain and "improve" the breed, I ask the following questions:

    How is a dog incapable of whelping on its own an "improvement" over its ancestors who could free-whelp?

    How is a dog with eyelids that turn so far in or out as to cause constant eye irritation an improvement over a dog with normal lids?

    How is a dog who has so much rear angulation that it can't stand without trembling (the GSD's are what finally made me turn off the last show I watched in disgusted tears) an improvement over proud ancestors who herded and served as police and war dogs? If you breed a working breed and not one single working dog handler EVER comes to you for a puppy, perhaps you should wonder what you are doing wrong?

    How is a dog whose muzzle is so short it can't regulate its own temperature an improvement over a dog who can actually walk a block in the heat without getting heat stroke?

    How is a gun dog whose coat is so long that it takes hours to groom and needs to be CLIPPED just to do its "job" an improvement over a dog whose coat comes naturally made for the field? And again, if you breed a gun dog and not a single serious hunter ever comes to you for a pup, do you ever ask what you are doing wrong?

    The antics of a few breeds threaten to bring down the whole house, because these extreme breeds make regular pet owners side with the AR crowd against their own interests.

    The whole thing is sad. As a dog lover, I can't just sit by and keep my mouth shut while people intentionally breed thousands of dogs that are so deformed that they have health problems by design.

    However, I can see a bit of the other side too. Perhaps, Jemima, you might devote a show to all those breeds who DO breed for health and function to highlight the differences between the two groups and show how it can be done. Take some time showcasing the breeds who have carefully written their standards to ensure lots of dual purpose dogs continue to succeed in the ring. Highlight some of the successes of breeding away from health problems, or in the great improvement in temperament in some of the breeds now compared to years gone by.

    If you are to call out the faults (and I think that is a good thing) you might find that then showing the successes makes the extremists look that much worse in comparison. There is a reason you see lots of dual champion Chessies and no dual champion English Springer Spaniels here in the states. There is a reason that you don't see crazy coat on the Brittany like you do on the Irish Setter. There is a reason that the dwarf Corgi has not gotten massive and heavy and the dwarf Basset has.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great post, Beth. Thank you.

      Jemima

      Delete
    2. Good post Beth!
      I agree there are some breeds, notably in the gundog/sporting group, where the show type have not moved too far away from the type of the working dogs, and at least have avoided extremes of conformation and coat. But it isnt easy for the breeders who really try to stay close to working type to compete in the show ring with those who are there only to win with a show dog who stands out because it is just a little more extreme than the others.
      In my breed, Irish Red and White Setters, it was an exceptional day at Crufts 2012 for those who want to keep the breed close to its working roots in Ireland. The bitch CC and BOB is the granddaughter of a great Irish FT dog, litter sister to a dog used only by his owner for shooting, and half sister to two IRWS who are gamekeeper's dogs working on Scottish grouse moors , and half sister to other dogs who work with falcons. The dog CC winner has the same ancestry, and is also closely related to working IRWS . The BPIB was the son of the two CC winners. The winner of the Field Trial class at Crufts is from the same family and this week is competing in field trials in Scotland. The winner of the working class is half brother to the bitch who was CC and BOB.
      The same weekend as Crufts, another related dog was winning an Open Stake on grouse in Ireland
      The only Sh Ch from any of the setter breeds to have won a field trial in Ireland since 1983 is also from the same family
      So it can be done, but believe me , it is an uphill struggle to keep a breed on the middle course where dogs can compete in the show ring AND work as well. It is hard to find the right dogs to breed from, as the show dogs and the working dogs drift apart, it is hard to persuade show exhibitors that a dog with even a little working ancestry has the conformation for the show ring, and hard to persuade men who shootover and field trial their dogs that even a little show breeding wont undermine the working ability and instincts. Show judges tend to be wary of dogs who dont have generations of show champions (and nothing else) in their pedigrees, and owners on the end of the lead who dont have a history of devotion to the show ring and breeding show dogs. Any criticism of the show system or the way successful show dogs are bred is likely to make you an automatic outsider
      One good day at Crufts this year however doesnt mean the breed is now set on a different course, only that the drift towards a show/working split has been slowed a little. We still face the problems of a small gene pool, high COIs , very small effective breeding population size, and the potential for health problems that result from close breeding.
      To come back to the topic, yes, I too would like to see Jemima acknowledge the existence of more "good" breeders whose dogs are still moderate type, and healthy, fit and functional. Not all of them are 100% working dogs, or cross breeds. And I would like to see the KC promoting some of the breeders who are really producing this type of dog, which is still genuinely functional, not just paying lip service to the notion that a show dog with a couple of certificates for DNA testing is a healthy dog

      Delete
    3. Beth & Dalriach; people have been asking Jemima to acknowledge and highlight 'the other side of the coin' - the good breeders who breed for physical and mental health and moderation as well as beauty and brains - for years with no success. Not only would it emphasise the bad by showing that it's not impossible to be good, but it would also help educate the public as to where they should seek a healthy pet.

      Unfortunately by focussing purely on one extreme she's lumped all show-bred pedigree dogs together in the minds of the public, sending them in their droves to the puppy farmers, BYBs and breeders of designer crosses.

      Delete
    4. It is not just Jemima and the PDE programs that do this. It is also those involved in the show ring who are doing something different, but who will not speak out publicly against the system, that give the impression that the whole of the showing world is marching in solidarity down the same wrong-headed path.

      It is really hard, even for an educated buyer, to find a good breeder because relevant information is not disclosed. If you are on the inside, you might know that a top winning line is known to produce a given defect - which breeders accept because some desired trait is also there - but even someone willing to do the research is unlikely to find it. Other things which the general public would find difficult to accept become so widespread that to those on the inside, they stop being noticed and are just accepted as "how the breed is."

      I have been glad that the PDE programs brought some of these issues to light, but in a way they have also become an unfortunate scapegoat. It is too easy to blame them, and other negative stories that have appeared in recent decades, for the decline in popularity of purebred dogs. That overlooks the fact that, for many, it is the unhealthy dogs themselves that have carried the message to the public.

      I think many breeders underestimate how effectively the message was given that responsible pet owners do their research and get a puppy from a good breeder. Certainly among my own middle class, educated friends and neighbors, that was pretty well understood. But that message has been undermined by the results. Next door to me are three pugs. All have a laundry list of health problems. The third was purchased last, and came from a "good breeder" in an attempt to get a healthier pet. She is no better than the previous two. My neighbor on the other side has a Labrador, obtained from a very reputable breeder after much research, who is now had two expensive surgeries for orthopedic issues. These were both people who did it "the right way" and were no better off.

      How often is this being repeated? How many have had well-bred dogs that required expensive surgeries, or drugs for chronic issues? How many have been losing dogs at younger and younger ages? My own observations, drawn from from the experiences of a wide pool of dog-loving friends, is that that number is higher than many breeders realize.

      Unfortunately when someone from the outside - someone who does not breed or exhibit show dogs - says these things, they are insulted and told they are in league with the "animal rights" movement. If they continue to speak, they will further the goal of outlawing pet dogs entirely. And underneath this all is a note of condescension that John Q Public is ignorant. They don't know dogs. They don't know The Breed. Meanwhile, that same public is getting the distinct impression that some portion of the show world is, at best, out of touch, or at worse, deranged, when they accuse everyone who says anything remotely critical of being a closet animal rights activist.

      Delete
    5. Its funny... I seem to remember quite a chunk of one of the Pedigree Dogs Exposed programmes talked about the LUA (or NUA) Dalmations as an example of what can be done in breeding. She hasn't ignored the good side at all.

      Pamela

      Delete
  32. That's the median from which to base the situation...awesome.
    May I re-post, with proper citation of author and venue, to a dog board that I frequent? Perhaps it is time for clemency. A portrayal of successes would be brilliant as Beth suggests..bringing a broader perspective and further isolating the 'freakish' aspect of breeding from the rationale. I sense there is a strong contrast among the breeding community, bringing it to light would go well for the cause. And what is it about extreme wrinkles and folds and folds of skin?? And like you Beth, specifically the GSD - but not exclusively, my mouth drops in sad awe..seeing but not wanting to believe such a disgrace and the most distasteful validation from the so called breed wardens. Fortunately there is representation of 'working' breeders sustaining normalcy. Great thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  33. http://time4dogs.blogspot.com/2012/03/down-path-toward-extinction.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Time4Dogs+%28Time+4+Dogs%29

    good blog..

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dog World has given pretty good coverage to the issues this week, without going to extremes one way or the other. Any chance they would publish a piece from you , Jemima? Would you want to be published in DW?

    ReplyDelete
  35. "We want every single dog that goes to a KC licensed show to be fit and healthy and we want that fact established before it goes in the ring, not after it's won a CC or BOB"

    Laudible....but as a dogs health can differ from day to day this would mean vetting in every single exhibit at every dog show (or at least every Champ show). How would enough volunteer vets be found? If the vets asked for a fee for their time who would pay that?
    No amount of health testing or prior certification can say a dog ill be fit on show day.....
    VP

    ReplyDelete
  36. I like this article. Perhaps he is the kind of person the CA committee really needs? http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/67440

    ReplyDelete
  37. I'm having trouble determining who some questions are directed to, but if anyone wants to quote anything I posted above you can feel free to do so, assuming of course you acknowledge it's someone else's post....

    I do realize that high levels of inbreeding are still a problem even if the obvious physical extremes are bred away from. I know just enough about genetics to realize I don't know enough to really discuss it. For instance, I know that animals tend to end up with the "mitochondrial Eve" from which all descend.... over time, one founder's genes tend to overshadow everyone else's, even in large populations. But obviously then other mutations and random changes occur over time to keep a gene pool viable. How much line-breeding, back-breeding and inbreeding is ok, for how long, and how often do we need to let outcrosses occur to maintain genetic health? I'm not sure we have totally solid answers. I fear even if we outcross now, as long as we have such narrow descriptions of what constitutes a good specimen of a breed we will eventually create other bottlenecks again. Specialists tend to have tiny gene pools--- look at Cheetahs as an example. And the more extreme the specialty (be it behavioral or conformational), the less likely it is to occur in the general population and the more likely you are to end up with another narrowing down the road. On the other hand, when people are buying purebreds there is little tolerance for an individual who falls outside a certain range of expectations (if you bought a dog expecting it to top off at 25 pounds and it grew to 50, you and your condo board might not be happy). So that whole line of argument is quite complex.

    I do believe that responsible breeders of healthy breeds should be speaking up. Most breeders would cry if one of their dogs stacked like a GSD, so why defend it? But I think there is a certain fear that "they'll come for us next." If I criticize a dwarf Basset, will they come for my dwarf Pems (even though the Pems can run agility with the best of them). If I criticize a massive Mastiff, will someone go after the massive Newfie next? I think that type of fear is largely unfounded, but there is enough of a legitimate concern for it to keep well-meaning people quiet. HSUS would probably prefer no one ever breed a dog again, and that sentiment has people on edge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Beth, I really enjoyed your posts as you seem to be a typical good and responsible breeder, which is exactly what vets and owners want.

      Just wanted to point out that species that do come under low numbers like the cheetah don't cope well either. A lot of conservationists actually believe that they are heading for extinction as the level of inbreeding in them (which is not even close to the levels seen in some dogs) has led to decreased fertility and genetic defects. Although I would like to point out that the loss of habitat seems to have sped this up somewhat.

      Working Basset Hound breeders (at least the one I spoke to) seem to outcross once every 10-15 generations, as this maintains the short height, but stops it from getting too extreme.

      The LUA Dalmatian is a great example, and I think it was an outcross of 10 generations ago once with a Pointer. But I do feel that one outcrossed dog is not enough for the breed and I really wish that the club would repeat this to produce a lot more studs and bitches that have this normal gene.

      As a lover of this breed, I would imagine that anyone who wants to own a Dally would prefer to have an LUA dog, so feel frustrated that there's currently only one owner in the whole country who has imported this healthy dog.

      If there is a large number of dogs within a breed, then an outcross can be avoided. Although I would still encourage any breeders to think about it if they feel it can help the breed out, such as reducing wrinkles, altering leg lengths etc. I also think importing dogs from other countries is a fantastic idea.

      But if there aren't a lot of them, like the Clumber Spaniel, then yes, I think instead of trying to improve the breed slowly over decades (and that's if they really really try hard), why not start outcrossing and speeding things up?

      Delete
    2. "As a lover of this breed, I would imagine that anyone who wants to own a Dally would prefer to have an LUA dog, so feel frustrated that there's currently only one owner in the whole country who has imported this healthy dog."
      Not so. There are two bitches owned by one person and a dog owned by another, who has already sired several litters both in the UK and overseas.

      Delete
    3. Sorry Mary, I meant I can only find one breeder in the UK on the LUA website, and I imagine it's quite hard to get a hold of a pup?

      Do you know if more breeders are setting up, and if so, what's the best way to find them? My family are quite interested in getting a Dalmatian again, so would appreciate any info.

      Many thanks

      Delete
    4. Grace, I'm sorry if I misled but I am not a breeder, just an owner and lover of purebred dogs. I try to inform myself as much as I can. I have two Corgis but both are spayed/neutered, though one was a show dog and bred before I got her. Thank you for your kind compliments.

      I agree Cheetah's are in trouble in part due to their lack of genetic diversity. I think my point was that even in natural selection, when you highly specialize you almost by default get genetic narrowing. And so if we are to avoid genetic bottlenecks, we may have to give something up in terms of the concept of breeding only "the best examples of the breed." If they are all going to be super-specialists, even if you broaden the gene pool you will probably breed it right back down again in a few generations.

      Like I said, I know just enough to realize I don't know enough to have a really informed discussion on genetics. :)

      Delete
  38. As a breeder I have recently watched with interest as the new CA unfolds and to get both view points have watched various blogs both for and against it. My initial reaction to the CA was one of hope. Hope that our dogs were finally going to get a voice (a loud one at that) and that issues such as breeding and showing were going to be seriously looked and changes made.
    I am now looking on with doubt that any significant chances can or will be made :(
    I have worried over issues such as over use of sires and the lack of compulsory health tests for some time.
    The whole thing seems quite simple (in theory) to me. Make breed specific health testing compulsory to all breeds and only register dogs/puppies from litters whose parents have been tested and have the required results. I am not so blind to see though that this in itself could narrow some breed gene pools to a point of almost extiction and could be as damaging as doing nothing at all. (Perhaps the answer would be to gradually increase the level of test results over time?)
    As for studs, in the show kennels this relies an awful lot on the judges. I see it where the same dog is BoB time and time again and is it purely on merit? I fear not. There will always be a degree of you sctach my back but if only health tested dogs whose results were to a standard suitable for breeding were allowed to compete (AT ALL) then surely this would at least start to eliminate some of the issues as at least those "super studs" would be proven as healthy unlike at the moment where some of the most prolific examples are most certainly not and are going on to produce puppies who don't even make their first birthdays.
    Bodies like the CA can call for change, but as so many people have said, are they even sure that this is truely what they want?!
    I feel that the breeders/owners/exhibitors who have always cared for their dogs/breeds have done everything they can anyway with or without the need for the KC (or anyone else) to make what SHOULD be obvious anyway, compulsory. They also have nothing to fear by going under ANY VET, ANYWHERE as they should be safe in the knowledge they have done everything they could to ensure health. Who cares if its only 15 breeds. I own one of the 15 and having seen the ammount of debate since Crufts I strongly believe that if a lot of the breeders put as much effort into breeding healthier examples as they have into fighting the KC most of the 15 would only be on the list for a matter of a few years anyway!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do find it hard to fathom how you breeders/owners and exhibitors of "Pure Bred" "Pedigree" dogs have actually managed to get to a point where the likes of Jemima say something out loud and expose "the rot" that has set into so many "breeds" (a rot imposed and implemented purely by human hand)........and it is then Jemima who is shot-down in flames !!!!! Unless Jemima said something - where would You all be now ? How bad would the actual Health and Welfare of you precious "breeds" have had to have got before a change was made ????

      The CA are only standing behind "Pedigree" dogs - as does the KC - what about all the happy, healthy 0% COI Cross-breeds that enjoy so much less genetic health issues, enjoy Families and Walkies (unlike some highly prized winning Show Pure Breed Plinth Dogs) and are in actual fact still classed as "Dogs" ???

      Delete
    2. The thing to remember is, Jemima hasn't been shot down in flames. She's produced two successful, ground-breaking documentaries which have got the public on the her side. It's the breeders, who have indulged themselves for so long in mutual back-patting and who are unable to see what science and the public are saying - that genetic diversity is too small in many breeds, and that health problems are resulting - it's they who are being forced from their tiny gilded pedestals.

      Breed clubs are governed by people who are not used to change, and change is happening. It's tough for them.

      Thank goodness for Jemima Harrison!

      Delete
  39. Incidentally, is it just me that thinks that the paw on the CA logo looks like it's slamming shut the lid of a coffin?

    Nope--that's just you, Jemima--open-minded as ever.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Interesting to see comments on here from someone who produces a popular cross breed, apparently endorsed by JH when they contacted her, and yet they produce ten litters at a time, and have only just started to test their bitches as well as dogs for PRA. Why? Because of peer pressure, who did that? One of those pesky pedigree owners, to name just one, and many others thankfully, who believe that no matter what dog you're producing, you need to think further than the litter on the ground, or ten as it might be in their case. So, away with the pedigree breeders, let's all support puppy farmers, is that the message? Someone who *rehomes* bitches, to then breed from them, and sell them on when they're done with breeding. Or sells on bitches that produce unpopular colours? Apparently, all their bitches are sourced from top game keeping stock, not that I'm aware of. I'll stick with my mutant pedigrees and work towards a good future for all dogs, and, btw, just in case people think the pesky old KC excludes everyone who doesn't have one, they really don't, feel free to join the activity register with your dog even if it isn't a pedigree, you can also register health test results.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joanne, You'd get more respect by having visited that breeder and then pass judgement from first hand experience as opposed to listening to others' tittle-tatter.
      Sharpen your felt-tips....theres a portrait due soon of one of those delightful popular crosses coming your way.........perhaps one of that breeders' ??

      Delete
    2. Although that said breeder/puppy farmer likes to think they own the monopoly on churning out poodle crosses, there are in fact many others doing the same and also with out much in the way of health testing. So there is every chance it will not be one of your dogs having the portrait, it could be anyones. Hopefully a responsibly bred puppy but like you say it could be one of that breeders!!!

      Delete
  41. Whatever people think about the KC or CA the good thing is it is getting people talking and anything which gets people to talk or debate about dogs welfare is only a good thing IMO.

    More and more I see these topics being discussed that are now becoming more inclusive so the general public are now taking more notice and beginning to express opinions on dog breeding, KC and dog shows which I feel can only hopefully lead to changes which will benefit the dogs.

    As for the crossbreeder on here, I am somewhat amazed that you come across anti KC/pedigree- yet you own breeding dogs which some are KC registered and are pedigrees and without them your puppies would not be here for you to sell??? It seems somewhat of a contradiction............ or are your views only aimed at specific breeds? or the Show world?

    ReplyDelete