Wednesday, 18 December 2013

Frenchie cruelty case - the full picture

Here is the full photo-set of pictures taken by the RSPCA when they went into breeders Sue and Sarah Stacey in January 2013 following a tip-off by a member of the public.









I highlighted the case a few days ago here, when I discovered the Staceys were KC Assured Breeders (and on Saturday still up on the KC website as being so).

There will always be bad pennies and no inspection scheme will catch everyone who abuses their dogs. But this kind of neglect does not happen overnight.  So as soon as I heard about the case, I emailed the KC's Bill Lambert to ask if they had inspected the Staceys and if so when.  I didn't get a reply.

Or rather, I did, but it wasn't meant for me. Lambert sent the following to me in error.

Here's my original email and what he inadvertently sent to me:

Sent: 13 December 2013 22:03
To: Bill Lambert
Subject: Sue+ Sarah Stacey - French Bulldogs
Dear Bill
Could you tell me if the above breeders have been checked, please - and if so when?
Many thanks.
Best
Jemima

From: "Bill Lambert" 
Subject: RE: Sue+ Sarah Stacey - French Bulldogs
Date: 17 December 2013 13:20:23 GMT
To: "Jemima Harrison" 

2nd mail which I did not respond to. At the same time I received this mail (Saturday night)  I received one from Penny Rankine-Parsons and immediately suspended the breeders
  
Oops.  And not the first time that fat-finger syndrome has got Lambert into trouble.

The 1st email, btw, was one asking for the total number of current ABS breeders that had been inspected.

I do understand that I drive them bonkers.  But let me state again if it's needed: the reason I am a thorn in the KC's side is because I want it to be better... to be transparent and accountable.  Then they would not have to run scared of questions asked by me.

Prediction: announcements about improvements to the ABS in the New Year.


44 comments:

  1. Those women should be locked in a room for a week but preferably a month, no water, no convenience, no food, nowhere comfortable to rest, located near to a kitchen where they can smell food being cooked. They may just then understand that what they have done is cruel. The look of weary resign on those dogs faces is heart breaking, how could those women do that. I wouldn't be responsible for my actions if I had been the RSPCA officer, she showed great restraint. KC Accredited Breeders what utter nonsense, and Bill Lambert should be removed from his post because he personally has made it untenable. Your prediction is possibly correct but arrogance and condescension are difficult traits to kill off, abolition would be the best outcome and a more considered scheme set up. I certainly wouldn't place a £50 note on the table in the hope that the KC will reform.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Easy up, Georgina,

    Why torture these two women just because they got caught? They are not alone. The system is what needs to change, not just the cases you personally see.

    If you expend your energy on individual people, you will be distracted from the long haul of changing culture and law.

    There will always be more people who don't care, or who can't handle it. Puppies poop. They poop and pee a lot. More if you feed regular food instead of concentrated high fat dog food for breeders.

    People with just one puppy have neglected the puppy, sometimes to the point of killing him. Other breeders have kennels that LOOK nice, but the dogs live their lives in little pens.

    If the people's home was a mess, then I would check for depression, or some other emotional or mental imbalance which they were suffering from, or nutritional diseases in the people. Or carbon dioxide poisoning, which if low-grade or intermittent can cause people to zombie around, even if they don't die from the lower dosage.

    If the people held jobs, kept their part of the home nice, but left the dogs neglected, then I can understand your anger. Do we have info on the rest of the house? Were the women employed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And what, anon 17:00, would you have said to these breeders if you had found these dogs in this condition, personally. Paragraph 4 is a travesty of intelligence. Dogs do everything you say because of dried food, but it is usually done outside in a free environment where a dog can express itself, play be active, be a dog. Look at those photographs more clearly, there are layers of waste, those women have just covered the mess with a layer of puppy training sheets, can you imagine the break down of matter, rotting, the stench, the fumes, the layers getting higher, the space reducing in the crate? And that is your home, no escape, no release, nothing. Please be a bit more sympathetic for the dogs and less concerned for the breeders, they do not deserve it. Your last paragraph is unintelligible, I don't care if they were careless about their personal hygene, living conditions, I DO CARE THAT THEY DELIBERATELY KEPT DOGS IN FILTHY CONDITIONS, AND THOSE DOGS LIVES WERE MISERABLE. Just look at the look of defeat in their eyes, terrible.

      Delete
    2. Hi Georgina,

      The terrible mistreatment of the dogs is obvious, I was trying to comment on the less obvious, to probe deeper into the underlying root causes for the
      all too common neglect of dogs by breeders - even show breeders, KC assured breeders, and even people who are held in esteem by others.

      I am sorry that you didn't like my comment and found parts of it "unintelligible". I usually love reading your comments, and am in agreement with you. Pity that the one time we are in such disagreement that you feel the need to flame, should be over something I wrote.

      I can understand that the photos stir up emotion. But find no reason for that emotion to be directed at me. I am glad that the photos evoke emotion in you, and guess that maybe you would rather I express more emotional outrage. But I have bred dogs, and have had friends and acquaintances who bred dogs, and shocking stories are now more likely to make me feel sad instead of angry

      I am most upset with the people in charge of these systems which cause others to get suckered into what I feel is a "purebred dog show cult", but even with them, I am trying to help them change and improve - but I admit that I wouldn't shed any tears if the dog show/ kennel club business folded.

      Delete
  3. yes it always amazes me when people write HANG THEM TORTURE THEM BURN THEN PUT THEM IN A PEN WITH NO WATER etc to me that says you are as bad if not worse than the people accused Do you know Bill Lambert? I do.. very well He is a personal friend and no one and I mean NO ONE could care more about dogs than Bill. He is not personally responsible for this. Jemimas cruel comments are uncalled for and her hubris is unbelievable. When changes are made she will surely take credit for them even though it will have nothing to do with her. Narcissism runs deep on this blog.
    Bill may have 'fat fingers" but he also has a huge heart. Something I do not see on this blog very often with all of the finger pointing and accusing and hatred. Many of you could take a lesson from Bill

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really do wonder what planet you inhabit bestuvall.....
      At best, your posts are bonkers, at worse they are pretty damn scary....
      How on earth you can brag about being friends with a man who was entrusted with responsibility for the welfare of all dogs and has managed to fail spectacularly and embarrass himself with that email is beyond me. And you think that narcissism runs deep on this blog!?

      Christ on a bike....

      Delete
    2. Bestuvall, your friend is being paid to do a professional job. A job that is aimed at the protection and welfare of dogs within an organisation that sells itself as the main body within the UK that is paid for by dog lovers. Dog lovers who have put their money and trust in that organisation to oversee this remit, and your friend isone of those people who is paid to ensure that this remit is carried out. Have you got it now? No thankyou re your offer of a lesson from Bill, I set my humanity bar a bit higher than being paid for a job and then found seriously wanting. Just like the pomposity we see with politicians, bankers, NHS and as previously stated by myself it runs close to the horrible book "Animal Farm". Anon 2002 is correct in her wording, please more passionate for a creature who cannot protect itself, is totally reliant upon us for it's welfare, that is where your energy should be spent not protecting your friends.

      Delete
    3. Having a big heart and gross incompetence are not mutually exclusive. Niceness does not translate into capability, or even diligence.

      This is a neglectful situation. Your friend's inattentiveness and/or inability, nice as he may seem in other spheres of life, have opened him up to getting in serious trouble re animal welfare, as well as with organisations charged with protecting the public from false and misleading advertising/illegal trade practices.

      Delete
  4. I'm struggling to see where Jemima has been cruel. If I caught some bragging that they'd ignored my emails, I'd expose the evidence too.

    And if Bill loves dogs as Bestuvall claims, then why is he more than happy to preside over a scheme that allows abusive or mentally ill breeders to torture animals? That doesn't strike me as an animal lover, it strikes me as callous disregard. Bill Lambert ought to hang his head in shame for his negligence, and you, Bestuvall, ought to be ashamed for having the neck for sticking up for him. You are a disgrace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you know Bill? I see no bragging here . Only that he did not respond and why should he? To take more abuse from you and people like ? Bill is not negligent and I am not a disgrace . You do not know me or Bill and you assume a lot of things none of which are true.

      Delete
    2. Because he is RESPONSIBLE and ACCOUNTABLE.
      And he ignored emails from a welfare campaigner related to those pictures on this blog post.

      It's irrelevant if you know him or not! He is in a position of authority and trust. Supposedly....

      Delete
    3. And it is his chosen paid professional work Bestuvall, are you his minder? Perhaps he would like to offer an explanation about his email and his wording and why the inspections are so few. He is a grown man who thought he could do the job, interviewed for the job, offered the job and accepted the job. Every penny he is paid is one less that could have been used for the welfare of dogs by the Kennel Club, if they so chose. Like those poor dogs in those crates, there is nowhere that Bill Lambert can hide regarding the email.

      Delete
  5. I think that those commenting so far are missing the point. The KC has set up a scheme which they claim enables puppy buyers to be confident that the puppies they buy are bred and raised in a manner that results in their purchase being healthy and well adjusted. The KC claims that the scheme works because the kennels receiving accreditation are inspected. This turns out to be mostly untrue. The KC is misrepresenting what it does and I hope there is a legal way in which it can be held accountable. Had I bought a puppy from a kennel which I now discovered not to have been inspected I would sue if possible. I have no idea what job Bill Lambert has within the KC, no idea if his job description involves making sure the scheme is properly run or not. The scheme so far is a sham and nothing to do with Bill Lambert caring about dogs or not. I was totally unaware that breeders by and large were not inspected and if the KC are pushed into doing something about it I certainly will give credit to anyone who put pressure on them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steady on - these pictures are shocking and it's a very emotive subject, but I think we are moving away from the point of the post.
    As I understand it, the BIG problem is that the KC is giving the impression that it's accreditation scheme is a guarantee to the public that the breeders they are considering have been checked and found to be of a high standard.
    The reality seems to be that very few checks are carried out for whatever reason - lack of time, unwillingness of fellow breeders to "whistle-blow" etc, so the impression is misleading.
    Rather than attempt to address this and improve standards the KC appears to prefer to ignore , deny or counter attack anyone who criticises them. Bill Lambert is their spokesman and must take some of the blame.
    For goodness sake - I hope everyone who reads this blog cares very much about dogs.
    I also accept that anyone buying a puppy should do their own research but surely the big danger of the KC scheme is that it lulls people into a false sense of security - " If the KC have approved it, all must be well.. "

    Alison (not anonymous)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Are you people for real? He might have a huge heart, but that's not getting the job done is it? Responsibility...he is being paid to do a job...he is failing miserably. What grieves me is that for all his 'big heart' he never sounds as if he gives a fig when these things come up. Far too busy protecting his position than really getting to grips with issues. I don't care how 'nice' he is, he isn't being effective. Much like the rest of the KC. How about growing a pair and really driving some change...for a change. If he cares.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Okay, so what do we know, and what can we do?

    These dogs were badly kept by an assured breeder. Checking the numbers shows that inspections are hardly ever being done. One inspection in the winter, and one inspection in the summer would IMO be minimal. Instead we find most have not been inspected at all.

    The KC is not a tea club of children or rest home retirees. It has some power, control, and responsibility. It calls this an "assured breeders" scheme. Most people would not feel assured after seeing these photos.

    What can we do? The past is over, and can not be changed. The current time, the dogs are being cared for, the courts will continue with or without any input from us. But the future! The future we can steer it in the right direction. But how?

    One way might be to try to sue the KC. But I don't think dogs can sue. So I guess it would have to be a person who was harmed by this. Anyone buy a sick dog from an assured breeder?

    Another way might be if a person paid more for a puppy from an assured breeder than what they could have paid elsewhere, and should get the difference back. Any other ideas?

    "Fraud". A legal term, probably best left to people who deal with it.

    "Snoop, expose, inform the public, push for change, push for institutions to either living up to their responsibilities or getting out of business......" that is what a media is for.

    Anyone else?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Perhaps the people at the KC are feeling overwhelmed? Being responsible for all the dogs in the UK might be more of a burden than they can carry? Perhaps they are too proud to ask for help? Really, maybe we can help then set things up in a more manageable way?

    Disclaimer: I am not claiming to be anything but a person commenting on a blog - no claims of expertise.

    1. If you claim to be doing inspections, people expect you to be doing the inspections, and to do them in a manner that dogs don't starve between inspections.

    Realistically, it is almost impossible to inspect dog breeders within the current system. If you live where no property can have more than 2 dogs or cats, then inspection don't have to push to hard to get people to care for their dogs and cats.

    If you live where dog breeders have at least 100 breeding bitches, then you can learn about walk-in kennels, raised sleeping platforms, hose down non-permeable surfaces, soft bedding to prevent injures such as pressure sores, air exchange rates, amount of ammonia in the air, automatic water systems, building air temperature control, heated flooring or floor temperature regulation, food quality, veterinary inspections, pest control, escape prevention, public safety, and most troublesome sanitation and waste purification or disposal and ground water contamination prevention. Plus any other issues I couldn't remember at a moment's notice. Basically think of huge kennels like hog farms or chicken barns, except that puppy farmers often bring the public with children, in to choose and take home a puppy. And hog and chicken farmers don't often expect to operate in cities, but since puppy sellers sell to people in cities, then sometimes expect to set up there too.

    Then there are the people who don't have a professional puppy farm, but their dogs are more than pets and more numerous than pets. They don't have regular professional puppy farmer buildings and labor saving equipment, but they have too many dogs to house them as pets.

    Good luck with this group. They often get deep in denial (been there) and don't know that just as more heat changes ice to water and then water to steam, quantitative changes can lead to qualitative change. That one pet dog plus more pet dogs doesn't mean more pet dogs, a tipping point is reached where you have a pack of dogs (and maybe a few cast away dogs who are not part of the pack), then more dogs doesn't yeild one giant pack, what you get is several different packs all on one territory...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ....so you have to have categories of breeders based on the number of dogs they have - no that isn't exactly right, it is a bit more complicated than that, you have to group breeders by the number of PACKS of dogs they have.

      Let me explain 2 things. The first, already mentioned, is that dogs form themselves into packs, groups of dogs which accept each other and have some bond between them.

      Some types of dogs are geared to just like a few other dogs. But other dogs like being part of a huge pack. We could call them introverts and extroverts, but that might imply another bunch of taste that might not correlate the same as with people. But for lack of a better term, we can use extrovert = big pack lover, introvert = loves living with just a few others, and "aloof" as not interacting much with others.

      The terms are rough. A dog might enjoy being in a bigger pack if he is larger than the others and likes to fight, without truly being extroverted. And aloof dogs might be alright together if they run loose on a ranch and aren't territorial, without being pack dogs.

      Dogs who can't live in a pack but are kept in a pack will fight. Neutering helps especially if done before the male dog reaches sexual maturity.

      This affects how much work it is to care for a group of dogs. And people can only expend so much effort, after that things go slack. Care for the baby or the puppies? Do the dishes and start supper, or clear up the puppy nursery?

      If you have a pack of 20 beagles who sleep loose in the house at night, in the morning, you open the back door and let the whole pack outside into the garden/yard.

      If you have 20 mature Shibas who hate each other, and wish they were an only child/dog, if you let them all out together it would be like a huge donnybrook with fangs. Dogs can kill each other.

      So in regulating numbers of dogs, it is the number of pack that is important. A pack can be one dog, or over 100 dogs, depending on the breed, housing, and other factors, more later

      Delete
    2. Pack theory is not relevant to this discussion.

      Domestic dogs form loose, transitory associations with each other.
      See Coppinger, Dunbar, Donaldson. Dogs have been selectively bred to form close bonds with humans, even before their own kind in a lot types. Particularly dogs like the Frenchie.... We're not talking about wild Dingoes here.

      There are plenty of guidelines available (DAC) and in the public domain which advise people on what conditions are acceptable when breeding dogs. Indeed UKAS should have had a set of standards to audit the KC to to ensure this is traceable.

      How the hell did they get away with awarding an 'Assured' status without inspecting hardly any of their registered breeders?

      I can't understand how UKAS would accept this as standard practice? You can't assure anything with any guarantee if you have no evidence

      Delete
    3. Hi Anon 1306,

      I don't need to read theory, I've been through this myself.

      The simple fact is that taking care of dogs who get along well with each other is much much easier than taking care of dogs who have to be housed separately in crates.

      Plus dogs who have the run of the place all together, live tolerable lives. If not, then a person who has 20-40 dogs, can let each dog gets out of their crate for less than an hour per day (figure in that people have to sleep), and often just a bathroom break twice a day. Many show breeders live in regular houses, they have a regular garden/yard. They have regular non-pack breeds who respond to overcrowding by trying to kill off the other dogs. The breeders respond to this, not by reducing their number of dogs to 4, but by keeping dozens of dogs in crates, and letting each dog out, one at a time, all day long. Breeder after breeder falls into this same pitfall (and all their dogs too) because nobody will talk about it.

      So I am talking about it. The KC simply can't write adequate guidelines for assured breeders without discussing this.

      Delete
    4. You can't just assure the a breeder is good. Even good people can get in over their head. People influence the people around them. People can be pack animals too, and that can surprise people who don't think of themselves that way. People can get carried away becoming one of a group. Peer pressure can get adults too, and it is common in dog shows. People conform. People follow along with what everybody else in their club is doing. People get to where they don't even notice that they are breeding infirm dogs who are suffering. They fail to notice that judges are awarding dogs whose suffering and malformations are the most extreme - and people follow along, breeding to whatever type the judges pick.

      You can't just assure that a breeders is good, when you know what the undertow of the show ring is really like. You have to look at the situation the breeders is in. You have to have a booklet or website that explains how to keep dogs, and that more dogs just can't be added to the house, at some point, the dogs need professional housing with walk-in kennels.

      Otherwise you find the same end: the breeder keeps breeding to get that one glorious showdog, along the way she keeps many puppies who had "potential" but who didn't reach the heights she aspired for them to reach. Soon the dogs are too much for her to control, and they have to be separated. But she can't build professional kennel runs behind her house, so the dogs are crated.

      This story repeats over and over. Most people quit long after they should have, probably because they have begun to see themselves as part of the show ring scene, to quit would be to negate what they see themselves as, and to quit being part of their social group. But most people do quit, eventually.

      But who greats the newcomer who replaces the person who escaped/quit? All the people who haven't had the good sense to quit.

      Delete
    5. Any assured scheme, needs to assure that a certain property is set up to properly house a set number of dogs.

      It is not enough to assure that a particular breeder seems okay now. She must already have The Tools of the Trade, the proper kennel set-up. Or she must be given a maximum number of dogs of her breed which can live in her home (10 Frenchies require less room and less control than 10 Mastiffs), and the applicant must show how well she is set up for litters of puppies - does she really think she is going to raise a litter of 12 Mastiff puppies from birth to sale on her kitchen floor?

      The assured breeders scheme can't just have inspections, it needs rules and guidelines which are based on reality, on what a person can do and what they can't, and you can't take proper care of dozens of dogs living in crates, and being advised by dozens of new friends who say "we all do it this way" doesn't help, because it gets to be too much for them too.

      Delete
  10. Do the breeders on the scheme pay to be on it? If so, does the subscription not cover the cost of an annual inspection? If not, why not? If it does, where is the money going instead? Seems to me the KC has a lot of questions to answer.

    There is an opportunity here for an animal charity to set up their own breeders' scheme. Annual subscription covering the cost of the inspections should make it self-funding.

    Chris R.

    ReplyDelete
  11. See these dogs are in CAGES. If they all played nice with each other, they wouldn't have to be in cages. And they would be loose in a bigger space, so not forced to sit near poop.

    This is not only a sign of very bad housekeeping, but of not breeding for a good pack mentality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong anon 0012. Sorry to be rude but you are wrong. If the breeder of the above FBs left the dogs in a room, however large, they still wouldn't have kept it clean, they were lazy, irresponsible, cruel and greedy. Don't blame the dogs because their temperaments may have caused them to be caged/boxed, that is grossly unfair. Most dogs come to an arrangement amongst themselves, they sort out the pecking order. But even the thought of dogs left to their own devices is horrible, can you imagine what would happen on the odd occasion food or water was introduced into the situation under those conditions. Good pack mentality my left foot. The dogs are totally, wholly innocent - the breeders, I don't have a printable adjective to describe what I think they should be called. Just look again at their faces and the places they were expected to live and revisit your wording.

      Delete
    2. Hi Georgina,

      Wow, you sure got your hackles up and your tail curled high today. You'd be a grand watchdog. But I'm no tresspasser, just a friend come to play with you (play bow, smiley tail, hello yap).

      Yes, these Frenchies have been neglected badly. Nobody, absolutely NOBODY, is saying that their care is good enough.

      But I am trying to widen the net of responsibility to include those who gave them the "assured" label, those who allow that many dogs breeding in one house, and those who push people to be malcontent with their pets and to strive to breed dogs to get show winners.

      One of the issues which bothers me, is that, just as show breeders have changed the looks of the dogs, so have they changed the instincts, emotions, intelligence, and the minds of domestic dogs.

      I feel that one of the greatest losses is where dogs no longer play well with each other, and can no longer be trusted together, and can't be housed loose in the house together. This is one of the root causes of misery in dogs.

      I feel that having your dogs living in shipping crates is wrong. Shipping crates are for shipping and riding in the car. They are okay for travel. But not to live in. Dogs should not had to live in boxes or little wire cages either.

      So why are so many purebred show dogs living in crates and cages?

      Again and again the answer is the same: because the dogs fight.

      Not all dogs work out a pecking order. Dogs can simply not want certain other dogs living in the same house. In the wild, one dog would be driven away. In a house, he is either attack over and over, or one of the dogs is caged or crated (a sort of living death).

      I feel that it is important that people who have pet dogs in their home, understand that they should only keep the number of dogs that can get along together well, and which the owner can care for.

      After the number of easily cared for pet dogs in the home, one needs to have a proper kennel with walk in runs/yards.

      It is a waste to growl about individual people swept along with a sub-culture that they unwisely followed, when the major problem is the clubs and cult-ure which tries to turn pet owners into purebred show ring contestants or breeders.

      Delete
  12. Even if the box was clean, the top photo looks like dogs living in a box, not a wire pen where they can see the rest of the room. Worse than a shipping crate.

    The kc shouldn't just inspect how the home looks when they are there, they need to see how it is set up for future litters. So if you ask the breeder "If you had 2 litters a month apart, where would you put them?" And she replies "One litter could stay in that box, and the other could live in the laundry room." Then you know she doesn't have room for them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. That's just awful! Same thing is happening in the states.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I am a member of the ABS and was inspected around two years after joining...I think the KC are in a dilemma over this, they need a large number of breeders to sign up to the ABS to make it viable but to physically inspect everyone before they join and with the frequency required if inspection is to be meaningful would be crippingly expensive. They could increase the joining fee to cover the cost but the reality is that good breeders don't need to join the ABS or any other accreditation scheme , they will always have bred to a high standard and will have a waiting list of puppy buyers for any litters they produce. If they increase the fees good breeders will simply refuse to join deeming correctly that they are being financially penalised for breeding well.

    Could the RSPCA or the DAC do a better job ? ....I doubt it, their proposed standards for breeding are so convulated and impractical that no breeder would sign up, and unless accreditation is compulsory for all breeders they would face the same catch 22 situation. The bottom line is that any such scheme needs good breeders more than they need it .

    The other requirements of the ABS scheme do seem to be working well , I know from personal experience that health test results and feed back forms etc are checked, yep the scheme is not yet perfect as this appalling case shows but it is better than nothing .....it would be such a shame if Jemima's blog resulted in people turning away from the ABS, what an own goal if all this negativity resulted in yet more people buying from Preloved etc....the puppy farmers and BYB's must be rubbing their hands in glee !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People run away from the denial and misdirection of the Kennel Club and the people who they have trusted in the past to look after the well being of dogs. Instead of admitting faults and improving we get empty words and promises. That's the issue which drives people away, not someone pointing out the faults in the first place. Or do you thing everyone should keep quiet so no improvements are made?

      Delete
  15. Hi Grondemon, I think the gremlins have bypassed an earlier reply regarding the financing of the scheme. The KC accrued a huge amount of money from these scheme if one takes the length of time established and the number of members overall. Thousands of breeders at £10 per head per annum adds up. It should have been the first thought of how they were going to finance the scheme and bearing in mind that, even at this volatile financial period the world has been experiencing, the KC has been able to maintain it's business. Because of dog owners, who have been led to believe that the KC have their best interest at heart when in reality it has been found wanting on lots of levels. They are cash rich, asset rich and it is time they liquidated funds. Funds that can finance what in essence is a very good idea, pay for professional training for inspectors, provide equipment and make the whole scheme viable and successful. As you say they won't scare off good breeders because good breeders didn't need them in the first place, but it was a very good way for the KC to inform the public of what to look for when considering a puppy and that is the saddest thing about all of this mess. If it had been properly set up with all eventualities catered for it would have been so good for dogs, their breeders and their new owners. But never lose the fact that whilst we are pontificating and worrying about the situation at Clarges Street dogs are suffering and being sold to innocent new owners under the umbrella of Accreditation/Assured by the leading dog authority in the UK, and that is totally misleading and shameful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Georgina, I didn't publish your last comment because in my opinion it was too strong re Bill Lambert. I do not know him well, but I do know that he loves his dogs and despite the ABS's and KC's shortcomings, he is a nice man.

      Neither is it true that the ABS makes money for the KC. There has been a lot of training involved in the UKAS accreditation and the current £10 annual fee does not cover the cost of running it. Can the KC afford that? Personally, I don't think they can afford *not* to.

      The problem here is the KC culture, not that they don't care about dogs, and you have to remember that it is, at heart, a trade association representing breeders. It is not, despite claims, a welfare organisation.

      Does that mean it doesn't do anything good for dogs? No it doesn't - the KC has always done *some* good things for dogs - the Canine Good Citizen Scheme, funding of the development of genetic tests, Mate Select etc.

      The problem is that some of these initiatives, like the ABS, have been fudged.

      It is a good scheme in principal. The KC just need to be encouraged/cajoled/bullied to make it better.

      Delete
    2. Ten pounds is a derisory amount! It would cost more than this to advertise a litter of puppies in a local paper. They should be paying between fifty and one hundred pounds a year, which would cover the inspection costs. Make inspections less frequent, with a discount on subscriptions, for those who pass with flying colours. Whoever in the KC thought they could set up a scheme for just ten pounds a year needs their head examined!

      Chris R.

      Delete
  16. People you can't pump 50 liters of petrol into a 30 liter tank. There will be overflow.

    You get cases of dog neglect like this one because the people have TOO MANY DOGS.

    Usually people are trying to have a puppy farm or a show kennel inside their home.

    There is nothing wrong with raising horses either but, no matter how much you love horses, you just can't have a herd of horses in your house.

    You may think these women mean if you want, but my guess is that if they had 2 dogs, they would have been able to care for them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have a good point.
      I've seen a lot of people with far too many dogs in one house.
      I don't think they're trying to have a puppy farm but the temptation when one dog does well at a show is to have a litter, then keep any promising offspring until show age. Very soon the house is full of dogs.
      The owners didn't mean this to happen ( I hope ) but it feels that the situation gallops out of their control.
      Could limiting registration to perhaps one litter every two years and only allowing people to show dogs from these limited litters help ?

      Delete
    2. Thanks Dixyblue,

      The question I would ask is: "Why did these woman have so many dogs?"

      17 dogs is more dogs than what most people have and can care for. And at least one of them was a mastiff! Since the dogs were kept in cages, I might guess that this was for the usual reason - the dogs' tempers were such that they could not all be together without fighting.

      If each dog was let outside in the morning for only 5 minutes, it would take 1 hour and 25 minutes to let all of the dogs out to pee. Some of the dogs would probably have peed in their cages while waiting their tern.

      If the cages were cleaned up a bit while the dog was outside, it might take 10 minutes per dog/cage to take the dog to the door and let him outside, walk back to the cage, clean it, put in fresh bedding, retrieve the dog from outside and put him back in his cage. Then move on to the next dog. At 10 minutes each, 17 dogs, that is 2 hours and 50 minutes - nearly 3 hours!

      Then this much must be done in the evening too after each dog is fed, which takes longer. I'd guess at the very least 7 hours a day, but probably a few hours more, just for minimum care for these 17 dogs, assuming that they didn't have the dogs not shown in the photos in a different housing set-up.

      I know from experience that many dog breeders live this sort of life, going from one cage to the next, cleaning, filling water and food bowls, retrieving dogs. They hate this life and complain of the burden. Not a good life for the dogs either.

      Why don't they quit? Not everybody has the same reason. Many people got into raising dogs because they love dogs. They kept a favorite puppy from each litter, the puppies were like children. Children who grew up to be surly, fought with each other, tried to kill each other, and had to live in separate cages. That is a usual case.

      Some people get into dog shows, and their dogs live in shipping crates piled up 2, 3, 4 high depending on the size of their breed. Why don't they get rid of the dogs who aren't winning? Some of them do. The dogs are 'put to sleep', killed. Now they have a nice tidy house without too many dogs, and the dogs they own are all winners.

      Delete
  17. Hey you guys, you got nothing on America. We got you beat. Dec 17, 2013 www.latimes.com has got an article called Nearly 100 dogs, cats, rescued. And it has a photo of animal control office Sal Chacon and he is standing in pet poop so bad he is wearing a gas mask. You got what, 17 dogs? We win.

    ReplyDelete
  18. anonymous 20:49.

    Noone forced these women to overextend themselves. Their responsability as full grown adults with the ability to aquire dogs, was to stop when things got a little out of hand, downsize and care for the dogs they had. they choose not too, and so we choose to punish them for choosing to put whatever they wanted ahead of the welfare of animals who could not choose to leave.

    its the same ethical contract we all enter into when we choose to care for someone who cannot leave, be that pets, children, handicapped partners ect. If we cannot care correcly, we are not suited to be the main giver of care, regardless of our own ego and need.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jim Jones didn't have to force most of his follower to drink the poisoned kool-ade either, but they did drink it. What do you know about what happens to the mind of people who get swept up into a cult? Remember, even some veterinarians were so indoctrinated that they could not see genetic disease and deformity when it was sitting in front of them every day, right under their own hands!

    Books were published, with people proudly using their real names and photo, describing how to breed dogs to be more deformed and suffering, just to please some deluded dog show judge.

    And there are still people suckered into believing things like that English bulldogs need a pushed in nose so they can breathe when they hang onto a bull, and they need rolls of skin on their face to channel blood away ..........and that we need to keep breeding bulldogs to this 'old' recipe because it is important to preserve the bull baiting ability of bulldogs.

    It is the dog show and dog breeding cult-ure which needs to change. People seldom get 17 dogs as pets. Usually people get too many dogs after they are exposed to dog show culture. People understand it partially, try to follow along, and become hoarders.

    ReplyDelete
  20. To be successful in the Show world means consistantly successful...that means bringing out a new puppy every year or two ....ive watched many many breeders begin with a couple of dogs, walked every day , free run , sleep on the sofa ....nice life. Then they win some and need to breed a litter and bring out a new puppy, keep a stud dog or two, the stud dogs mark so cant be left without supervision, they cant manage a pack off lead ...so the cages arrive ... The non-show dogs are not walked because there isnt time to keep them all fit , off lead becomes on-lead because they cant control them all. I cant tell you how often ive seen a happy pack of a few turned into a miserable pack of ten.
    Breeders of today are not the same as the stock breeders of old....they were just that , stock breeders of dogs and they kept dogs well in the main, they wernt pets but they had excellent Kennels and Runs, correct exercise, fed well , anything not good enough was homed out.
    I dont have a problem with that ....but its not how I wanted to keep my dogs
    I leant from experience how many dogs I could control off lead , how many I could keep free in the house ( might not be the same number) and above all I learnt about myself !
    Could I home the also rans , the bitches too old to breed, etc NO
    Could I keep them out in decent Kennels and Runs NO
    Could I not free-run them all daily NO
    Could I cage them daily NO
    I realised early on that I could enjoy the Shows and the Breeding and I do very much, even if it means a year or so just watching because I have nothing to show.
    If the showing and breeding meant I wanted to breed more, keep more , have a greater chance of success then I would have to re-home the older ones, have decent kennels, employ help if needed, and I have absolutely no problem with that ....if you can do it, some of the best breeders can and do, they have a long term breeding programme to better the breed.They have bred super dogs over the years and I admire their commitment and skill.
    BUT YOU CANT MIX THE TWO ....and thats where the problems come
    Know your own limitations and work with them

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jan
      You make some excellent points but you cvant tar everyone with the same brush. I have had dogs for 35 years and have had 8 champions over that time. I have had up to 6 at one time, but every one was walked every day and they all ran free in the house together. I have cut down as I get older but you can mix the 2 and I have known many others that do.

      Delete
  21. There are always exceptions to every point made , if you have your own land, dont work and can give them all the time they need then yes I agree , but many have too many dogs for the time they have, ive come away from many breeders homes thinking..poor bloody dogs . Yes they were clean thank goodness but IMO dogs need free running pretty much daily and many dont get that, some get an hour of the cage and thats it. When my dogs reach the end of their lives I dont ever want to feel guilty that they didnt enjoy their lives. You are obviously an excellent breeder with your dogs coming first, many however are not and seem to be blind to the poor miserable lives their dogs lead.

    ReplyDelete
  22. just seen the "improvements" - fees up, no consultation - many good breeders talking about leaving as it seems aimed at helping big breeders ie puppy farmers

    ReplyDelete
  23. abs breeders 10year ban should of been life

    ReplyDelete