The first "German PDE" aired in Germany in August 2011 - a film by Phillip Hampl. Rather memorably, it kicked off with the mating of a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever to an Australian Shepherd, triggering swathes of German breeders to hyperventilate in horror.
Last night, Hampl returned to German screens with his sequel, which ended with a gathering of the now-adult offspring of that union trotting attractively around a beautiful field of wild-flowers - the not-so subliminal message: crossbreeding is one way out of the mess.
Hampl's original film did not provoke the reform in Germany that Pedigree Dogs Exposed triggered here in the UK. In his sequel, Hampl urges the German Kennel Club - the VDH - to do more, and holds up the UK Kennel Club as something of an exemplar.
You can watch Hampl's sequel here. It features a fair bit of Crufts footage, including the ghastly-looking guppy-Pug above and something I had missed when I was there - which is that the Best of Breed Bulldog was wheeled to her vet check. I mean, really!
Hopefully Hampl's film will increase pressure on the VDH to do more - and the timing is pretty good. The 2nd International Workshop on Enhancement of Genetic Health in Pedigree Dogs is being held in Düsseldorf next year. If Hampl is right in his assessment of the situation in Germany, there's a very real danger of it being a whitewash - despite the Swedes' best efforts to secure reform.
The 1st workshop, in Sweden last year, managed to get a lot of Kennel Clubs - and other key stakeholders in canine genetic health - round the table for the first time. Progress report on that to come shortly...
Shame he didn't hold up the Swedish Kennel Club as an example.
ReplyDeleteHave a look at "Making assessments of dogs' respiration" on youtube.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the suggestion. Excellent video made by the Swedish KC to instruct judges about how to recognize breathing problems and how to take them into account when judging.
Deletehttp://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ_3f4bLkME&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DkQ_3f4bLkME
The 2nd International Workshop on Enhancement Genetic Health in Pedigree Dogs will hopefully watch this programme and finally understand that globally something has to be done without further shilly-shallying political cow tailing. I am not surprised that there has been little response to this programme, I think, myself included, dog lovers are so shocked to see the actual head shapes exposing the true physical deformities and why the dogs must suffer all of their lives. No part of any body is an island is it, from the tip of the nose to the tip of the tail means that any one part is going to affect the whole doesn't it? Will you be attending the meeting Jemima?
ReplyDeleteThe impetus behind the Dog Health Workshops originated with the Swedish Kennel Club/Ake Hedhammer. They are well aware of the problems - and also that Sweden is in many ways ahead of the rest. (Finland good too).
DeleteI attended the 1st and, yes, will be attending the 2nd in Germany.
Georgina, I expect there's been quite a big response to Hampl's film in Germany. Will ask.
Jemima
Have you collaborated at all with Hempl Jemima?
ReplyDeleteI'm baffled as to why he thinks the UK KC is exemplar when Sweden is clearly leading the way. Or at least to my mind. Am I missing something?
Not collaborated. Spent a day with him at Crufts and we've exchanged some emails.
DeleteDon't forget that the UK Kennel Club is the grand-daddy of them all. I expect Hampl's reasoning was...if the grandaddy of all the KCs has initiated reform... time the VDH did, too.
Hampl's film does point out, btw, that the reforms in the UK don't go far enough.
Interestingly, although I was keen to include more about Sweden/Finland in both PDE and PDE2, we ran out of space/time to do much more than a brief mention.
Jemima
Thanks Jemima - it's a fair comment about the KC in that regard and good to know that Hampl has a balanced approach - the UK KC still has a lot of work to do, despite their gradual move towards reform.
DeleteI just wish there was more collaboration between organisiatsions that clearly exist for the same purpose, such as the European KCs. It concerns me that there still is also a long way to go for the UK KC in recognising that they could adopt a much more professional attitude in their approach - benchmarking against other similar organisations for example, so that they can share, learn and improve their practices and policies. They still seem a bit immature, as an organisation, in that regard.
Has the KC ever been audited? If so, by whom?
I'm hoping you will address the Scandinavian club practices in PDE3. Interesting that those countries don't seem to experience the problems with unwanted rescue or shelter dogs that the USA and UK experience....We could learn so much from their approach to dog policy and attitude to caring better in society in general I feel. The USA has the equivalent of ten times the world's total estimated wolf poulation in its dog shelters alone...(Patronek and Rowan 1995).
It's one of the wonders of dogs. People who love dogs and want the best for them are true humanitarians. Even though I don't understand German the presentation is professional, sincere, unsensational and informative. It will have some effect because of the symposium being held in Germany so there is a strong likeliehood, I assume, that a large number of attendees will have seen it. If Hempl attends it would be interesting for us if he would be able to let you know how he felt the symposium went and what the general consensus of opinion is about the way forward.
ReplyDeleteCrossing an English or Welsh Springer or Field or Cocker with a Flat Coated Retriever might cause a lot of stir. Ya think?
ReplyDeleteIf the established fancy can just admit to themselves that the breeds they love so much and defend so passionately were begat from mixing in the first place. It would make the journey towards correcting all of the mistakes we forced upon them in the first place a much easier task. Its just unfortunate that so many in the fancy have been brainwashed into their eugenics philosophies.
The world is watching now. And if they, the fancy, want to be seen as doing things in the better interest of their breeds...then they'll need to admit that in an isolated and closed population of dogs, no matter how widespread they may be in this world...there is an urgent need to breed with genetic sources outside of their own chosen breed in order to save them.
The hardest part seems to be pulling them out of their religious dogma. Or slapping them awake to see reality, if even for a moment.
CHG, remember that the word 'eugenics' means 'well-born'. It is the practice of breeding for desired characteristics; and that includes breeding for good health.
DeleteIf a breeder chooses which two animals should breed together, rather than turning an in-season bitch outdoors to mate with whichever random dogs come along, is practicing eugenics, even if the dog and bitch are of totally different breeds. Provided the purpose is to improve on the previous generations, whether that improvement is in physical or mental health, or working ability, or coat texture, or whatever, then it is eugenics.
Don't be sidetracked by those who would have you believe it is a demonstration of nazism and therefore automatically something to be deplored.
Just got this Mary.... The definition is correct. However the practice is in itself detrimental to diversity. It in fact is extremely in favor of limiting genetic resources since by well born it means of assigned hierarchy. Much like the practice of line breeding among the british royalty. That was Eugenics in practice. The reference to the nazi-ism does in fact show eugenics also in practice. Is is also witnessed whenever ethnic cleansing is enacted among populations of people who for whatever reason find it as a resolution to social differences.
DeleteIf a breeder decides that breeding from established lines of champion dogs is in fact a way to enhance the chances of perfection in the resulting litters then they are in fact practicing the principals of eugenics. If they instead feel that searching for specimens outside of the given pool of resources and outcrossing from other genetic stock, then there is no eugenics behind the motivation. Its more driven by sound and proven scientific findings rather than a "well born" ideology and a close minded approach towards purity of bloodlines.
Crossbreeding is not a panacea. It is not something just anyone can do nor should do. It's something that only people who have a thorough understanding of genetics and both breeds and a clear objective in mind should do after a lot of research, otherwise it could result in diseases currently limited to the gene pools of particular breeds (such as syringomyelia, epilepsy, sebaceous adenitis, and hyperuricaemia) running rife amongst the entire population, and quite possibly the destruction of some breeds by total obliteration of type and temperament. While having a better system in place for the reincorporation of outcrossed dogs into breeds would be very beneficial, a tiny minority of people who cross breeds currently are doing it with any intention to improve the health of either parent breed. The vast majority of them do it so they can have mutt puppies to sell under bogus marketing that is unfortunately supported by comments such as "crossbreeding is one way out of the mess."
ReplyDeleteAn excellent post. Crossbreeding should only be done by people who know in detail the backgrounds of the intended parents as well as their breeds as a whole; putting together two random individuals won't automatically give healthy puppies, contrary to what so many people advocate.
DeleteYes, the breeds were developed from crossbreeding and then selecting for certain desired traits and away from undesired traits. Re-introducing undesired traits without a well thought-out plan to remove them again isn't progress.
Our most useful medical drugs have been developed from repeatedly removing impurities from the original mix which worked against the desired effect, and which could cause serious health issues. Reintroducing those impurities again won't improve the medication, just as randomly mixing genepools won't guarantee a good result.
Sound sense Mary, it can only be undertaken will all of the health tests currently used with pure bred dogs.
DeleteSooo, question: back in the "pre KC days" when dogs were types or landraces vs. "pure" did we have the same issues with disease? Many of those disease issues are a problem because of diminishing genetic material, are they not? In those days dogs were bred for physical or working characteristics as a guideline. Seems to me common sense, a knowledge of the breeds involved and standard good breeding practices should be enough.
DeleteBeth, back in the pre-KC days, dogs suffered from the same illnesses as they do today (apart from parvovirus, because that only appeared in 1977/8), just as humans did. The difference is that 'back then' there were very few vets and treatments were extremely limited. Dogs tended to be kille when they couldn't do their job, or die naturally of disease instead.
DeleteHybrid vigour isn't just a theory! And why on earth is introducing carefully selected genetic diversity akin to introducing impurities!?
DeleteWhich diseases in particular is this thread referring to I wonder? Congenital diseases caused by loss of genetic diversity or diseases associated with contagious or infectious routes?
DeleteOf course any living organism is susceptible to infectious or contagious disease but generally speaking, a healthy species is one that has a great deal of genetic diversity, like humans. Genetic diseases do occur in humans but they are rare, whereas in dog breeds a genetic disease can affect a large proportion of the population due to the breeding practices. These issues are no longer up for debate anymore! The evidence is clear and the writing is on the wall.
I'm not against pedigree dog breeding as such, but anyone who has a basic understanding of genetics understands that crossbreeding isn't some sort of voodoo or forbidden 'way out of the problem', it's simply a sensible and sustainable breeding policy. The problem is attaching purity to pedigree and assuming that purity is somehow exclusive, rare and desireable - that false value is reflected in the attachment to looks.
Genetic purity in nature is neither viable or sustainable and an unhealthy animal is therefore not desireable. It's warped human mentality, despite the empirical evidence, we are battling here every time.....
The other bit of the equation is that transportation was limited so there were pockets of genes. These genes may have reached saturation in that locality but breeding wasn't done on the huge scale it is today. The gamekeepers only bred a litter when they needed a new generation, not because they wanted money. Therefore the saturation of genes was in slow motion and if a bloodline appeared to be "unfit for purpose" I understand that they crossbred which I think is how the best dog for the best job devolved, hence I assume the different breeds of spaniel/retriever/setter/terrier/hound etc etc etc. Consequently because of the "right dog etc" presumably meant that the concentration of genes on one type of dog delayed the situation we see today. The situation we see today is mainly driven by human greed and lack of moral fibre. In some ways dog showing has been the downfall of the pedigree dog, bearing in mind that to my shame I enjoyed it for 40 years, so from an "idiots'" point of view it was fun, but from the other side it was business, business, business purely and simply. And of course, ease of travel, communication, technology have all played their part in the pedogs downfall, when ironically if the humans had been more restrained it should have been otherwise. I think the fear of crossbreeding whilst it should dilute genes, may mean that clean bloodlines will become contaminated which may mean a slow decline for that breed. As Mary says it has to be undertaken with great caution and intelligence, geneticists involved. This where the KC has to refocus from dog showing/show business glitz and glamour and employ experts who can advise on the best way forward and here I agree with Jennifer that a more scientific approach must come into play.
Delete'I think the fear of crossbreeding whilst it should dilute genes, may mean that clean bloodlines will become contaminated which may mean a slow decline for that breed'
DeleteYou can't 'dilute' genes - they are either expressed, modify others or not expressed at all. You won't knowingly 'contaminate bloodlines' if you carefully select and test dogs for the known congenital disorders that have tests available. 'genetic purity' is a fallacy that needs to have it's myth busted when it comes to dog breeding.
The problem people have with crossbreeding is that they can't bear to accept that the image/look of the dog may change. The value of the dog is attached to what actually isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. Otherwise, what is the problem? Farmers do it everyday!
It certainly isn't safe to leave breeding in the hands of hobby breeders who either refuse to learn about science/genetics or find it too difficult to understand.
I should clarify when I say dilute, I didn't mean as in water, but as a wider spread, i.e. not so intense or "in bred". Contaminate, I meant bloodlines that are healthy may not wish to have a bloodline introduced that will bring health issues with it. Breed shape and "desired" points are changing all of the time. The breed I showed are so heavily coated, ear set too low and leathers too long (almost cockerish) front angulation very poor, hare feet, round eyes, and high set tailset. All of this drive to breed these exaggerations whilst the breed has so many health issues I am sad and exasperated by the hostility and denial. A bubble of what is happening in all pedigree dogs internationally. Re the farmers, I laughed out aloud, sorry. The thought of farmers cross breeding every day when they should be ploughing fields and bringing in the harvest was just too much, I've sniggered all day whenever I thought about it.
DeleteAnonymous3 September 2013 09:49, I don't understand how youcan say "Genetic diseases do occur in humans but they are rare," when in fact there are many thousands of them - and this in the most random-bred species on the planet! They only seem to be rare because of the vast species population, but pro rata they are are more common than many of the canine conditions.
DeleteGeorgina, did you not know that farmers also raise livestock!!!? And, yes, they crossbreed. They understand the importance of genetic diversity and health and residual disease. I am afraid your comment re this also made ME laugh too!
DeleteHi Anon 08:27, I didn't mean to make you cross! Of course farmers review their breeding programmes constantly. I laughed, not to be rude or insulting, but because of the way you had phrased it... you made it appear that the farmers themselves crossbreed everyday. I wasn't disputing your statement because you are obviously correct but hopefully if you read it again as I did, it will make you laugh too. Georgina
Delete'Anonymous3 September 2013 09:49, I don't understand how youcan say "Genetic diseases do occur in humans but they are rare," when in fact there are many thousands of them - and this in the most random-bred species on the planet! They only seem to be rare because of the vast species population, but pro rata they are are more common than many of the canine conditions.'
DeleteWhere is your evidence please? Can you point me to peer reviewed literature that verifies your statement that 'pro rata they are more common than many of the canine conditions.'? 'Random bred' - as nature intended do you mean? Genetic diseases in humans ARE rare incomparison to dogs who are mostly inbred. You don't seem to understand.
The following is a statement from the Weizmann Institute which studys genetic disorders in humans:
http://www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/listdiseasecards.pl?type=full
'Genetic diseases are caused by abnormalities in genes or chromosomes. Many genetic diseases are conditions present from before birth. Most genetic disorders are quite rare. A genetic disease may or may not be a heritable disorder. Some genetic diseases are passed down from the parents' genes, but others are frequently or always caused by new mutations or changes to the DNA. In other instances, the same disease, for example, some forms of cancer, may stem from an inherited genetic condition in some people, from new mutations in other people, and from non-genetic causes in still other people. There are more than 6,000 known single-gene (or monogenic) disorders, which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births. As their name suggests, these diseases are caused by a mutation in one gene. By contrast, polygenic disorders are caused by several genes, frequently in combination with environmental factors. Examples of genetic phenotypes include Alzheimer's disease, breast cancer, leukemia, Down syndrome, heart disease, and deafness.'
Here is a link that JH wrote which may help you understand genetics and breeding a little better:
http://www.dogbreedhealth.com/a-beginners-guide-to-coi/
Hi Georgina - you didn't make me cross at all. I certainly didn't intend to offend you and my sincere apologies if I did. IMO it's important to understand that despite lots of evidence to support crossbreeding and the resulting health benefits in domestic animals, we still have people who can not see the wood for the trees with regard to pedigree dogs. It is very frustrating.
DeleteIt is especially concerning to see people misinterpret or twist words to suit their own agenda. That I find morally repugnant, particularly when they can not back up their opinions with empirical evidence.
No problem anon 13:34, life is too short to be hurtful to one another hence my apology. Dogs and their welfare are our main common interest and you are quite right to understand and maybe why the written word can so easily be misunderstood. I guess it is why in times of strife, aka Syria, there have to be face to face meetings so that each party can see what the character is of the person with whom they are dealing. So many people see dogs as inanimate objects and the illnesses they are subject to, because of human desire and ignorance, as just words on a page. Not an actual, painful, distressing, life shortening disease and like you, I find that so frustrating. Unlike us, these people just don't seem to relate/tie/link the two together, it is weird. It is one of the reasons why I can only think that money is their real interest when "dealing in" animals, they blinker themselves to justify their income stream. Hopefully there will be a resolution aided strongly by worldwide Kennel Clubs, but they too are blinkered currently, but I do believe that they will wake up and help. Georgina
DeleteIf done with a well thought out diversity plan and an understanding of the ingredients used in that outcross...it is in fact a panacea... This would have to be a breeder with more attention to details and information and education than the average breeder. It would have to be someone with a passion to do so for the love of their dogs and not for the money.
ReplyDeleteSomeone with the resources to do so and the courage to go against the grain and market their dogs. Then use the real world experiment that unfolds before them as the evidence that the process works, can be replicated and sustained.
And who is willing to take these dogs into the world to do the same jobs that the recognized breeds do. Possibly better and ultimately longer than any recognized breed.
Why is so much of the attack concerning focussed on the Kennel Club? Maybe time to shift more of the focus , and the blame for the mess that some breeds have got into, more on to the breed clubs. And for some exposure that its more often the breed clubs who dig their heels in and refuse to admit or accept the problems their breeds suffer from. In a cautious kind of way, the Kennel Club have been moving forward where health, genetics, sound conformation and good breeding practices are concerned, even if they are still wary of head on confrontation with breed clubs and influential show judges
ReplyDeleteMy recent experience with my own breed , which is a numerically small breed (currently around a hundred or less registrations per year) and a very small, inbred gene pool, is that the KC are willing to discuss sympathetically, although quietly, proposals to outcross to widen the gene pool, and ensure the future health of the breed, and allowed me to recently import a first generation outcross dog with no hassles whatsoever. Its my breed club, run by a small number of show people, which has buried its head in the sand and doesn't want to face the problems of the very small gene pool or to accept the need to outcross if the breed is to have a future at all
If I have any criticism of the KC currently , its more about their low key approach rather than the general direction in which they are going. I do believe the KC is starting to move in the right direction. How about another version of PDE, examining the obstructionist role of the breed clubs , and how they resist changes in breeding practices or breed standards, and how this is damaging dogs
Much of the problem is the show ring culture itself. You don't have to be particularly healthy or smart or even able to do the job your great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother once did to win. You ONLY needs to look the way the fancy has conditioned itself to believe you should look and survive judging long enough to pick up your prize. Breed clubs feed into this by promoting dog shows as the be all, end all in the world of purebred dogs. Meanwhile the vast majority of all exhibitors and their dogs have ZERO experience doing the job for which the breed was intended and neither do the vast majority of the ones judging. And they call this preserving breed function. Who are these people kidding? And they have the nerve to tell backyard breeders they shouldn't be breeding until they've proven their dogs? These people need a good kick in their elitist a**es if you want my opinion. Of *course* they're going to object to outcrosses, either to remote lines within their own breed (for the ones where this option remains), or outbreedings to similar breeds for maximum diversity because it means they may have to let go of their misguided indoctrination that anything that falls outside their narrow ideal is less that perfect. What kennel clubs around the world need to do is step up to the plate and hire geneticists to recommend/set policy and serve as educators for fanciers. While it's probably wishful thinking, I wouldn't even mind if they did away with dog shows entirely.
ReplyDeleteThe KC should not be adopting a softly softly approach. They should be firm, committed and using their leadership to the maximum effect for the benefit of dogs and their health issues. Shilly shallying with politics "even if they are still wary of head on confrontation with breed clubs and influential show judges" is, regrettably, why nothing is being done quickly and effectively. "Influential show judges... if they are only involved in dogs because of the "power kick" and not the welfare and wellbeing of pedigree dogs then they should withdraw and turn their attention to judging inanimate objects. For 40 years I was a member of the main breed club until this year. I was appalled when I discovered what was truly happening within the breed and the acceptance of the breed club/s - I explained that I no longer wished to be associated with a club that openly allowed a continuance of a situation that should have been terminated immediately. But an "influential show judge/breeder" was involved consequently no action. I find this attitude totally, unacceptable because these are the very people who should use their experience and influence for the benefit of the breed. I dread the thought that if "so and so gets away with it, then so will we" and perhaps this is why so many breeds are in danger currently. The Kennel Club should be loud and proud. They should be using their power and influence. As stated above, because the UK KC is the "grand daddy" of them all, they should be spearheading the future and the other KCs who want guidance and a plan (set up with their help) would follow happily, effectively creating an International Kennel Club, everybody using the same baseline. They would and do accept that the UK KC has the experience but if they continue with their "Dodo" attitude and remain complacement they will be over taken by younger, innovative, determined and possibly more modern attitude that is in keeping with today's society. The clock is ticking, dogs are dying and breeds are fading. When the KC do wake up and start acting they really will be a force to be reckoned with and I for one would back them all the way. I don't know about another version of PDE re breed clubs, do you mean a sort of name and shame? I think JH could embrace that idea within this forum. I think your idea is very good, but with the "B" breeds keeping a low profile with these exposures when I would have expected a reasoned response from them, it doesn't bode too well that the breed clubs will respond. The irony is is that the code of ethics in my much loved breed is quite clear and yet ignored and I guess that is the case with many other breed clubs. The KC have the power to stop it don't they? I thought that they licensed the breed clubs and gave them parameters in which to form a club, perhaps I too am a "Dodo" and got that wrong? The KC shouldn't be discussing anything "quietly" because that implies that they are frightened of what the backlash may be, they should keep all and everyone informed of discussions undertaken, even to the point of "minuting" them for public inspection? Openness and honesty is what we should expect in a democratic free society. Again for the avoidance of doubt I am not anti KC or dog breeder, I am, however, anti dog cruelty, dog ignorance, dog politics etc etc etc
ReplyDeleteTrouble is the KC is a business with no power other than persuasion. They can't enforce anything unless the breed clubs allow them to. If the KC says do this and the breed clubs say go away what then? Seeing how the breed clubs tend to support each other, even when blantantly wrong, the idea of not rocking the boat too hard and taking slow steps is understandable.
Delete"The KC should not be adopting a softly softly approach."
ReplyDeleteGeorgina, have you never heard the old adage "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"?
Anonymous is right, the breed clubs in the UK are dominated by, and in many cases, cater exclusively for the showdog exhibitors and breeders. On the other hand, the KC makes some effort to ensure that their general committee and most sub committees have a proportion of dog people from working and field trial and other areas of canine activity and breeding. Ironically, its the non democratic nature of the KC that allows them to ensure that these minority groups , with an interest in functional dogs not bred purely for appearance, get some fair representation on their committees. Although I've long argued that the KC should open up their membership, I've also come to realise that if they do, there is a risk that they could be swamped by new members from the show dog fraternity, who would then elect show people to fill the committee places. Until very recently, Kennel Club Chairmen, often came from working and field trial dog backgrounds (Keith Sorenson was a good example of this kind of chairman). As it stands the KC does provide some counterbalance to the influence of the breed clubs and the show fraternity. As we saw a couple of years ago, when the KC introduced health checks for the high profile breeds, confrontation resulted in the formation of the Canine Alliance, and the spectre of a coup at the KC ending in control by disgruntled show judges and exhibitors. Strategically the KC is probably doing the right thing, moving forward cautiously with the promotion of moderate healthier and genetically sound dogs, and preserving at least some of them as functional, without risking a coup by show judges and exhibitors.
DeleteIf the breed clubs dig their heels in and don't cooperate, then maybe we need some new and alternative breed clubs who put health and welfare before show wins and titles , and encourage participation by all kinds of owners and breeders, as well as show people
Hi Mary, No, not as such but the softly softly approach has been ongoing for some years (5 at least) and there is no headway. I dread to think of how many needless deaths have occurred since the initial exposure, but death in reality is the easy option, to struggle on with an inflicted malformation because humans find it appealing to look at is far, far worse. As anon above mentions dog shows are not the desired reason for breeding dogs, dog showing is for comparison as a beauty parade. The real hardwork is the breeding of the show dog in the first place, that is the real desired reason and I do not mean for money only, but for the benefit of future generations of healthy pedigree dogs. The old boys network (KCs) usually involve friends recommending friends and known contacts for any vacancies/positions and consequently mutter amongst themselves in dark corners with the hope that there is no detriment to their own career or self held belief that they are the best "man" for the job. Rather than to compete for the job/situation/position in an open market and this may be where the problem within the KC exists. They quietly huff and puff, cautiously try out a recommendation, wait to see the reaction, retreat if it's bad, boast if it's good and in the meantime dogs are dying, people are allowed to exploit the dogs and the KC and everybody smiles at one another because nobody is brave enough to suggest an alternative way forward. You know, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. The recent nonsense of vet checks is a prime example of this woolly thinking, especially when the chairman is a vet and should have been much more savvy with it's implementation. The other point that the KC is used voluntarily by dog breeders is something they should never forget because if they don't start to help dogs now, I would think that they will disappear and a more professional, legalised, setup will take over. We are all aware that there is going to be much more intervention from Government bodies in the coming years, there has to be unless dog breeders adopt more restraint when churning out puppies. Mary you know the sadness of rescue dogs and to protect the future rescues pedigree dog breeding will have to be officially monitored. Anon 02:01, on what are you basing your statements? If what you say is correct how can all of these organisations justify their withdrawal/support, how? Cruelty, negligence, greed cannot be ignored, can it? The public who live in a free and democractic society have a right to know what is happening and what they are buying into, don't they/we/us? Surely we do?
DeleteGeorgina, remember that 5 years is only two generations - change will only ever be slow, in the same gradual way that the extremes developed in the first place. To expect dramatic and noticeable changes within 5 generations is like wishing for the moon.
DeletePS; you say that "to protect the future rescues pedigree dog breeding will have to be officially monitored." The vast majority of the dogs in rescue aren't the pedigrees. The breeding of crosses and mongrels needs at least the same level of control to that of pedigrees, and currently there is absolutely zero. No health checks required, no lower or upper age limit for breeding from a bitch, no limit to the number of litters a bitch can have, no need to keep records of who buys the pups ... it's a free for all.
DeleteHi Mary, I think I was trying to say that if the pedigree dog breeding slowed down, not stop just slow down, it would possibly enable rescue dogs to be considered as pets for new dog owners. If the market is saturated as is currently the case, I can't believe the numbers on Pets4Homes site, shocking, all of these puppies need to be homed whereas if they weren't in the "dogs for homes market" hopefully the rescues would at least stand a better chance of being homed. Beautiful, healthy dogs destroyed needlessly if there was more restraint from the pedigree dog breeders, but they won't restrain themselves because of the gains to be made from an untaxed, unmonitored (in some case huge) income streams. I agree that the crossbreeding breeding route also needs the same rules and regs as peds., it is one of the reasons why the KC should embrace them as part of the overall "dog world and welfare issues" they need to take their eye off dog showing activities and concentrate more on the dogs themselves and not what the owners/breeders can gain/brag about just because their dog won a piece of cheap cardboard at whatever show. The overall breeding and health issues are far more important at the present time. Georgina
DeleteAnother PDE? really PDE2 was hidden by the BBC on its 4th Channel, the RSPCA have now distance themselves from the producer, the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare now regret past association due to misleading information and now avoid the producers. The BBC have been taken to task on wasted funds so I doubt the will spend another penny to fund a production companies own agenda, indeed if the rumours are true they will need the funds to pay the KC when Crufts returns to the BBC 2 screen in 2 years time.
ReplyDeleteIn a fairly unrelated thought, but connected by the topic of Pugs, I was wondering if you ever thought to use Munchkin cats as an example of how national breeders should react to a deformity, with the vast majority outright rejecting it and those who do are shamed.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it seems as the years have gone by, the cute deformity has overtaken the logic of the situation in the public eye, as they now see a lot of profit in breeding them regardless of official stance by ethic critics. In my mind it outright shows that this is a problem not just with Kennels, but with human nature itself. Money to profit and natural instinct completely stonewall attempts for sanity.
very few people can put their own desires second to what is right ,
DeleteI had a conversation with a breeder who told me if they stopped breeding from sick dogs there would be non of the breed left.
So they'd rather have dogs who suffer terribly than have a different breed that was healthy or heaven forbid outcross.
perhaps they forget that the future dogs they are mourning actually don't exist yet so can't care whether the breed dies out
They also forget that breeds are artificial human constructs that would not exist in nature and all derived from the village dog anyway. Warped logic!
Deletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/petshealth/10278282/One-in-five-puppies-bought-online-die-in-six-months.html
ReplyDeleteWhile the content in the above piece is of course for concern, why don't the KC also emphasise the on going health issues concerned with continuing to breed pedigree dogs within a paradigm of closed gene pools?
Anon 02:01 BBC4 is arguably the best channel on BBC. The demographic is aimed at the intellectually curious and well educated who wish to utilise the TV as source of education, not necessarily be anaesthetised by tedious soaps and dismal drama.
A PDE3 focusing on the dissonance at hand and the warped human psychology that drives the perpetuation of sick dogs may be just what is needed actually. Lets get some social psychologists in to tell it how it is...
You seem to know an awful lot about the inner circles at the RSPCA and the BBC Anon 02:01. Please, do share your scoops! I'd love to know why the RSPCA, who honoured PDE and the BBC (who are making a programme with JH now) have suddenly changed tack on animal welfare issues all of a sudden??
Anon 15.00 well if BBC 4 is arguably the best channel lets hear your argument? or could it be the only reason it commission PDE2 , let correct that commission a QUARTER of it as that all they would pay for "new" material. could it be that Richard Klein, BBC Four Controller, commissioned it on BBC one, is it patronage or face saving?
ReplyDeleteI am sorry. I can't understand the majority of your post. The grammar does not make sense. My argument is that BBC4 demographic is interested in factual, informative and intellectual programmes. Well educated, intellectually curious which is arguably reflected in the quality of the programmes and the occasional high quality drama they have produced.
DeleteThe topics in PDE and PDE2 require you to have an open mind, an understanding of applied science and an objective rationale to put aside your own desires to consider what is in the best interests of canine health and welfare. Perhaps the vast majority of the dog fancy don't fall in to that mindset? Popularity does not reflect quality.
Come on! Spill the beans about your sources and rumours! Or are you just making it up?
Making it up.
DeleteJemima
Clearly! ;)
DeleteTOTP2, The Joy of Disco, yeah real quality programmes, and on average other programmes on that channel are repeated 4 times in the first week of broadcast, and go on to be shown 10 -12 time again on the channel on the next 18 months (the fact that PDE was only shown 3 times tell a lot too). They have the lowest viewer figures of all the BBC and the majority of other digital channels (even Dave multi repeats beats it every night). As for making it up the Ofcom report show Jemima made much up her self (when she wasn't trying to put words in people mouths instead). As for Crufts going back to the Beeb, Its under discussion (why not ask the BBC). Jemima has not out let in the press and just this blog to spout off in, even Dogs Today have stepped away from her, the BVA refuse to deal with her and even the RSPCA have a different stance to her. As for her success you say she is working with the BBC, on what their press office did not find anything current.
DeleteBBC4 (Quote from BBC Website) 'Intelligent, mixed-genre content for the 21st Century.'
DeleteClearly, beyond the scope of your understanding. What with it being aimed at intelligent people for the 21st Century....
Thank you for the support, but prob best not to engage...
DeleteJemima
Quotes about the BBC from their own website...yeah very objective. As Jemima she has no credibility as a journalist as shown by Ofcom. The BVA reject her agenda, the RSPCA distance themselves from her. its quite sad how far she now stoops to get publicity.
DeleteOK Anon... you must now be boring yourself, surely?
DeleteUnless you have a new point to make - or, indeed, some you know, actual *evidence*, that's the last comment of yours I am publishing on this post.
Jemima
Anon 17:08 I agree with Anon 08:32, your presentation is lost because it doesn't make sense. But apart from that, one assumes you love dogs hence visiting this page. Try and open your mind and whilst your comment about a breeder preferring to breed from sick dogs "to save the breed" is valid, because that breeder's attitude is why pedigree dogs are struggling. Regrettably, if that breeder was honest, their real interest isn't in the breed but whilst ever that breed will produce puppies and the breeder can sell those puppies for money that is their real motivation. BBC is a side issue in your argument, the BBC belongs to all of us and they have a responsibility to cover all topics in society from amusement to serious issues. And believe me 17:08 this is one very, very serious issue that needs to be made public and addressed. One way or another dogs will suffer, either as in your example or because the Government have to step in and take control. All of us who were around when the Dangerous Dogs Act initially came into effect were appalled by what Government intervention can create. So many wonderful pet dogs seized from the arms of their owners (literally) children crying, people shocked all because some anti dog person complained, probably made up a story, resulting in a lovely innocent dog ending his days in some cement box for possibly years and for no reason. For me it is why I feel that the KC urgently need to take control before others step in with a possible devasting effect on genuine dog lovers and their dogs.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC cater for all interests, and to cover all members of society some of the programmes have to be easy to understand and others are more cerebal. From the quotes you have made Anon 14:49 it seems that perhaps you are from the easy to understand region. Hypothetical "exposures" are always a dangerous area to dabble in on an open site because somebody may take exception to your claims. You may, of course, mean something totally different from what you have written, but again you are very difficult to understand because of the presentation. I guess that you are not a journalist???
ReplyDelete