Thursday, 11 September 2014

Vet checks - has complacency bred contempt?

These timed photographs show what the photographer who took them alleges was the sum of the vet check of the Best of Breed Neapolitan Mastiff at Richmond Championship Show last Saturday.

The photographer maintains that vet Erik D'Arcy-Donnelly never got up from his desk and that the vet check took less than two minutes, including writing the form which gave the dog a Pass.

14:15:41: Sean Platts enters the vet's office with Best of Breed Vallino Too Hot To Handle.
Vet Erik D'Arcy-Donnelly is seated at the desk
50 seconds later: vet Erik D'Arcy-Donnelly remains seated on the opposite side of the
desk to dog and owner
1 minute 6 seconds later, owner Sean Platts has emerged from the vet's office with his Pass
The vet check for the Neapolitan Mastiff covers eyes, ears, skin and a soundness check during which the vet is supposed to ask the dog's handler to move the dog up and down.

But, according to the photographer, vet Erik D'Arcy-Donnelly remained seated throughout on the other side of the desk from Vallino Too Hot To Handle and owner Sean Platts.

"I spotted Sean Platts and his dog walk from the rings in front of the trade stands towards the vet's office, accompanied by a KC official. It was a warm day and the door was open, so I thought it would be interesting to take some pictures of a vet check. To my astonishment, the vet never got up and, less than two minutes later,  Mr Platts emerged waving his Pass.  I did not see him examine the dog and there was no room inside the vet's office to move the dog. I was quite shocked by what I saw."

The video below shows vet Nick Blayney demonstrating how the vet check should be conducted. It includes a hands-on examination of the dog.


I contacted Erik D'Arcy-Donnelly - who breeds and shows Border Terriers  - to ask if he would like to comment.  I did not initially send him the pictures. His response: "I would like to reassure you that every aspect of the Veterinary Health Check for all of the Category 3 breeds on Breed Watch was carried out in full to the guidelines specified by The Kennel Club."

I then sent him the above photographs and invited him to comment further. He has not so far responded - but if he does I will add it here.

Mr D'Arcy-Donelly is also a duty vet at Windsor and Newbury Championship Shows.

The dog's owner, Sean Platts, also insists that everything was done by the book - including that the vet asked him to move the dog up and down outside the vet's office after the eyes/ears/skin check.

Mr Platts says he is pro the vet-checks in principle, although thinks they should be for all breeds.

When shown these pictures, Mr Platts says: "These pics are from when I returned to the vet's room from being outside after the movement, and in the room I'm stood waiting while the vet writes his report. So your spy was late with the camera and missed the exam and movement part."

Not so, says the photographer. "I had been there for some time with a friend who was packing up. There was no way I would have missed a Neapolitan Mastiff being moved up and down outside of the vet's office. I saw Mr Platts approach with his KC escort, he entered the vet's office and two minutes later emerged with his Pass. The KC official remained outside throughout. The vet did not move from where he was sitting at the desk and there was no room inside to move the dog. In fact, there was an obvious quiet place to one side of the vet's office which was the logical place to move the dog. It was not used for this dog."

So, what did happen here?

The exis data on the photographs confirm the timings - and although not impossible to fake, there is no reason for the photographer to have done so. The photographer says it is impossible for him to have missed a Neo being moved outside the vet's office just prior to these pictures being taken.  He explains:"I had been there for several minutes and, as a photographer, you are scanning all the time."

This is a photographer who, essentially, supports and is part of the dog show world. They sent me the pictures because they were shocked. But, of course, it’s one person's word against two others.  

To be clear, I am not suggesting that the Platts' dog would have failed her vet check. The Vallino kennel is one of the more health-conscious Neapolitan Mastiff breeders.

Does it matter if the vet check was skimped? Well, yes it does. 

The vet checks were introduced at Crufts in 2012 for the Best of Breed winners for the high-profile breeds. We know most people in the show-world think they’re pointless and offensive. And, let’s face it, they’re cursory. It's no secret that I would like them to be a whole heap more thorough.  Nevertheless, they have led to fewer dogs with obvious problems being put up and that is a good thing, despite the continuing protests.

As Caroline Kisko says in the video above, the vet checks are intended as independent confirmation that winning dogs are sound in body; designed to reassure those outside of the show world, not those within it.  

As such, it's important that they are always conducted with the utmost care.

71 comments:

  1. Maybe once a trust is broken, the old Scottish saying applies: fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me?

    Perhaps, we need to acknowledge that the era of trustworthiness is dwindling into the twilight, and that things must be transparent now?

    Perhaps each dog and handler should queue up in a line, just before entering the ring, so the exam can be watched?

    ReplyDelete
  2. jemima.... as I stated your SPY as I call him, must have had his eys shut while I was doing the movement part of the exam. as I told you he had me running round in a ring, then a straight line away from him and then back.... if your SPY would like to come and see me face to face at darlington or driffield champ shows over the next week or so . I will gladly put him right.... and also I did tell you that he did not ask permission to take the pictures.... and if he had seen the breed judging he would have seen that my bitch is quite capable of doing a job she was bred for....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sean, I suggest you must have your eyes shut, if you breed dogs to look like that. Why anyone would feel the need to own dogs so over exaggerated is beyond me.
      Your dogs origins are for fighting, breeding dogs for fighting should have no place in a modern society, they serve no purpose now, other than being a freak show and suffering for your warped sense of beauty and lack of understanding of health in canines.

      Delete
    2. Sean, could I ask you to stand away from your comment. Assuming what you have stated is correct then so be it. However, what if the person who took the sequence of photographs is correct? What if the Vet short changed the dog world, you, your dog, your breed, us? What if the KC agent who was there to verify and confirm that the correct procedure had been undertaken was negligent in their observation? How would you honestly feel taking possession of a certificate that stated your dog had passed the inspection when possibly there had been no inspection at all. Does or would that make you proud to include that certification with your dog's paperwork and to use it as a marketing tool when you breed from that dog, knowing that it was a false statement? That the certificate is worthless yet innocent people buy a puppy from you believing what they read and see because they know no different. Would you really think that was fair, right, or honest? Always bear in mind people are becoming more aware of their "rights" and trade description act, so if you are really comfortable with what you experienced then say so unequivocably, otherwise join us and be really disappointed and ashamed of the KC for not ensuring that their scheme is beyond reproach, professional, honest and for the wellbeing of dogs. You, like the rest of us, have been hoodwinked and made to look like fools just because the KC forget that their are people who love their dogs and will bring to light an episode of this ilk so that there can be a public debate. They are not spying, they are informing of a possible wrong doing.

      Delete
    3. Sean: In the interests of transparency, could you please note your connections in this matter. This discussion is hard to follow for those of us not involved in the UK dog scene.

      Delete
    4. Jennifer, you really cannot work out who Sean is ? Look at the article again and his comment, you don't have to be from the UK to realize if the dog's owner is called 'Sean Platt' and the comment is from a 'Sean' and 'Sean' actually in his comment refers to, "my bitch" that he is actually 'Sean Platt' who owns the dog in the article above.
      For someone who in past blogs on here, has commented about how good they are at statistics, it seems strange that you cannot make such a simple logical deduction from the information above.

      Delete
    5. Sean "And if he has seen the breed judging he would have seen that my bitch is quite capable of doing a job she was bred for......"

      Delusional. A dog show is never going to prove that not in a thousands years, certainly not in the present manner dog shows are conducted.

      Are we to assume the bitch was performance tested then or is that something the illicit photographer/spy missed as well? And why the secrecy anyway?

      BTW that blood hound in the video has extremely good tight eyes as such almost void of any possibility of infection save for possible entropen. It's a sad fact based on the vet check criteria that if the dog had chronically bad eyes but no infection they would still pass. In fact there is another blood hound in the video doing its "run" with the standard chronic ectropion found in the breed and not a word.....

      Nor a word about the dog being tested ears stopping airflow to the ear canal or the lets face it completely and shocking inability of the animal to run properly. It's like watching a sack of bones thrown across the floor. Yes it doesn't go far, a few meters in fact in this case before it comes to rest in a sad heap. It took it the first meter or two only to try and co-ordinate its sagging ligaments to finish the last meter and not entirely convincingly either. Is this considered a nice brisk athletic action? One that can carry the dog for miles and miles of countryside hill and dale after a scent, or even just around the block at a walk? Is this uncoordinated mess of a dog now judged fit for purpose (any) like Sean's apparently was?

      Im asking myself does a dog even need to be deformed to follow a scent for example? Well no as any sniffer dog at any airport near you will prove.

      In the case of Sean's breed I never want to see one ever again. It's pure inhumane folly to have invented such a breed. The only way to solve this breeds problems as with many is to stop breeding them entirely.

      Delete
    6. river p w hat you say is truth abouth the most neapolitans... but not of this one. i've been in a few countrys watching shows of neapolitan. and indeed some of them look like a sack of patatoes. but i guarantee you this one is not. the quality in the uk is very good and the breeders do hard work with still improving the breed. i own an english bred neapolitan. he's got the health many owners of any breed would be jalous of and he will outrun most labradors i know. his eyes are fully clear of ectropion or entropion. so before talking shit go and watch how the breed allready inproved in this few year and still getting better...

      Delete
    7. Erm sorry it so long to reply but it looks like Jemima has other things to do, I completely forgot to look without her usual blog post.

      Fact is I've never seen a neapolitan I would be comfortable enough with to bring into my home. For me it would have to be so changed it was no longer a neopolitan. Then it would probably end up looking and moving like an English mastiff so I would still not approve.

      When you realise in every deformed dog there is normal dog screaming to get out you realise the normal dog is the way to go, no need to squash its head hollow its back, suffocate, hurt its eyes etc etc. No need at all.

      Delete
  3. Easy to enter half a story, where are the names of the photographer and the witness... This is once again vindictive half cocked story intended to harm those who seek to better thee breed, For whatever reason Jemina Harrison has... She is pursuing her own malicious agenda... shame on you!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a breed that is a fighting dog, how can you better it, because it has no purpose now and bettering it for it's breed purpose would actually mean making it a more dangerous dog, if you apply logic.
      Bettering it as a fighting dog logically, you would be making it better at fighting, so better at fighting, a good trait would be being very aggressive and very strong with a very big strong jaw, so basically a danger to society.
      Why in the 21st century do we feel the need to breed fighting dogs. They are a man made breed no longer needed by man. If you actually better it and breed it for purpose, you are breeding dangerous dogs. I don't expect you to get the above, because I know you are not breeding the dogs for the purpose that man originally bred them for, you breed them to show off with.

      Delete
    2. it was in the first place a guarding dog...

      Delete
    3. What do you think a guard dog does ? It fights off intruders and throughout history has been known as a fighting dog, be that when guarding, when be used for baiting or in war. It's main prowess has been it's courage when fighting, meaning it will fight until it's opponent's death or it's own, which ever comes first.

      Delete
    4. Mastiffs were all bred as combat / war dogs originally. They were later used for guarding.

      Delete
  4. As with everything in this world, integrity is lost. The KC official should be interviewed and state what he saw and his actions relating to that action, the KC should be interviewed as to what officials are expected to observe and the action that official is expected to take in the event that there is a deviation from that action, the owner should be interviewed and asked exactly what happened, and the VET. The vet is in a position of absolute trust and his professional services sought for the sake of the dog, it's breed, it's future. To be seen to do otherwise is rank dishonesty and the professionalism and reliability of his opinion, in all fields, becomes questionable. This whole business of showing dogs is sadly becoming more and more driven by money and dishonesty, a great shame because in essence it is a nice past time that can benefit another species. Presently, it is going completely in the opposite direction. It will be interesting to hear what Caroline Kisko has to say about this ridiculous albeit outrageous situation. Unless the person is very idle and very mischevious, his account should be taken as presented and considered very seriously because our dogs' futures rely on these schemes set up by the KC for the betterment of dogs and should be 100% reliable. I should just add that if it is true, the arrogance of a Vet to behave thus in such a public arena is astonishing, so what happens behind closed doors.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Unfortunately the veterinary profession are making very lucrative deals with the KC for health screening etc, so it stands to reason that most vets would not wish to bite the hand that feeds them.
    There's a lot of money to be made out of pure breed dogs as they are, so why would a profession that makes money out of the way the KC have made dogs look, want to encourage them to be bred, so that it decreases their income from them. Logically running a business, and let us be real here, that is what most veterinary surgeries are primarily run as now, you want animals that need veterinary treatment.
    The vets primarily are self regulated in the UK, even our Police don't have such a luxury any more.
    A couple years ago I went to a seminar put on by my vets in a local hotel and the seminar was about breeding from cats and dogs. The seminar was being conducted by a well know woman vet who does a lot of seminars for the KC on breeding and I believe comes from the Oxford area.
    I thought this seminar was going to be about breeding for better health and one of those things I thought would be about creating better fertility, but seems I was wrong on that. The lady started the seminar by openly admitting pure breed dogs have fertility problems, "that's a fact" she said, get over yourself and I'm going to tell you how to get round this, and what followed was basically a pharmaceutical company sales pitch and even a representative from a pharmaceutical company was there to talk to us about our dogs infertility problems and how to get the products she was peddling, even down to chemical castration.
    See I connect health with fertility, as working with stud animals equine, agricultural and canine I have noticed the most fertile animals turn out to be often the most healthy all round and when breeding, the line fertility and ability to birth easily is one of my first considerations for carrying on a line after the general health and temperament of the dog, apparently I'm wrong if you listen to this vet peddling her wares. So the KC breeding seminars, are not about breeding healthy dogs, they are about how to get unhealthy dogs to breed, in my mind.
    Until we can get enough vets to stand up for the welfare of dogs and not be worried about the welfare of their back balances, I see many vets, as part of the cause and the problem we still have of pure breed dogs being bred to suffer.
    The change will come from educating the public to what these people are doing. Thanks Jemima, keep the good work up !

    ReplyDelete
  6. For all we know the check had already been carried out and the owner and dog were simply returning to the tent to collect their paperwork and pass. It's very easy to take a few photographs out of context. Of course, Jemima, you're simply reporting on what you've got in front of you but the photographer is far from professional to suggest the dog only attended the tent once simply because the dog was not seen at any other time.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous 13:34, I would like to believe your thinking on the matter, but if you read the dog owners comments, he actually says after seeing the photos, "These pics are from when I returned to the vet's room from being outside after the movement, and in the room I'm stood waiting while the vet writes his report. So your spy was late with the camera and missed the exam and movement part."
    So he was not returning to collect the paperwork and pass, after the dog being examined earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why is anyone surprised by this.

    Let's be clear - dog shows are for the benefit of the human participants. This type of thing encourages more and more people to breed more dogs.

    The dog rescue centres are stuffed with dogs needing homes. Of course, the people that go to these shows would not dream of housing a needy dog and properly caring for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said. There are so many worthy dogs out there, but so many people are preoccupied with formal pedigrees. It's ridiculous.

      Delete
    2. The majority of those worthy dogs are there mainly due to irresponsible breeding/homing (generally to the first person who will pay the price) and then abandoned when no longer convenient.

      Why should those of us who prefer to buy/breed puppies whose ancestry and parental health can be traced, reared and homed with the utmost care, be vilified, for the fact that dogs bred without those advantages have been cast off.

      With that logic the canine race in our homes as whole would primarily come by as the result of carelessness and irresponsibility. Many bred from parents with poor health and temperament.

      Perhaps if no-one bought or homed a puppy bred badly (doesn't have to be purebred, but parents should at the very least be hip scored and eye tested), of sound body and mind, reared with care and their breeders be responsible for what they have bred, not just for the first weeks of their lives.

      I would like to see every puppy bred (not just pedigree ones) have to be identified and t4raceable back to it's breeder. perhaps then we will see where the majority of dogs ending up in need of rescuing come from.

      Of course there will be times dogs need to be re-homed, and this should be done with care and co-operation between the breeder and owner of the dog and rescue centres would only exist for the cases where the breeder and owner truly cannot do this. Death illness emigration or serious unforeseen circumstances.

      It is far too easy for both owners and breeders to wash their hands of their responsibility.

      ANYONE WHO ALLOWS THEIR BITCH TO HAVE A LITTER IS A BREEDER. Doesn't matter if it was accidental, a one off, or one of many intentional litters. Just as a person becomes a parent when they have a baby.

      Why for example are we importing more homeless dogs from overseas, especially Ireland if we have so many needing homes already????

      Delete
    3. Barbara, logically most of the pure breeds are not bred with the modern world taken into consideration and this carelessness and irresponsibility of pure breeders to not recognize this fact is why many end up in rescue homes as well.
      Breeding baiting breeds is a prime example of irresponsible breeding of dogs in the 21st century, breeding an animal that it's primary instinct should be to fight until it kills or gets killed and then to top it all the KC takes a breed like that and markets them as a family pet, that is really irresponsible.
      Pure breeding has no logic, because if it had logic, it would breed dogs as pets primarily, as primarily the majority of dogs are pets, not show dogs first.
      Puppies coming in from Europe is something you need to take up with the European Union and your MP. You do know about the campaign to stop puppies being sold in pet shops and it was debated in the house of commons on the 4th September. Hope you signed the petition Barbara and asked your MP to be their, you are doing your bit to stop this cruel trade ? Follow this link and you can see the debate : http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/backbench-business-committee/news/mps-debate-regulation-of-the-sale-of-puppies-and-kittens/

      Delete
  9. Video record every vet inspection. The record will then confirm the KC got what it paid for by the vet exam. The exams can be reviewed later to improve consistency between vets. The vets, owners, and KC can have records to refute complaints about the process.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with Georgina who posted earlier. Where is the KC official's statement about what he observed?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sean Platts said 'Everything was done by the book.' He's right, it was, right next to where it was sitting on the Vets desk.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why am I not surprised?

    As "other" Mike notes - dog (and other animal) shows are primarily for the benefit and the aggrandisement of the owners - not for the animals. Why would anyone in their right minds want to "better" a fighting breed in the 21st century?

    Is it possible to "better" a brachycephalic breed without breeding away from extremes of type? Where dies health feature in all this "bettering" which has been going on for the past 100 years or so? Why are the majority of pedigree animals going backwards when it comes to the health aspects?

    Should anyone necessarily believe a vet who happens to be a breeder and who therefore owes his primary allegiance to the federation he is supporting by paying show entry fees? Independence is what is required for peace of mind, surely?

    I suspect if any of these people has made a serious study of the deleterous effects of the inbreeding policies they follow, maybe they are just enjoying themselves far too much (and making too much money in the process) to give a good goddamn for the welfare of the animals?

    Which of course raises a very pertinent question :how much do animal breeders REALLY care for the animals they breed? Or are the animals merely a means to an end?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I can save the KC loads of money. It is clear that there are whole breeds where every show dog in that breed, in this country, are unhealthy, unfit, or suffering (we all know which breeds).

    So why bother with the veterinarian exams? Any vet can see the dog has problems without getting up from their chair!

    Flunk whole breeds! Tell them to they can't show the bred-to-suffer breeds until enough of the breed has changed for the better, and their standard reflects vast improvement. They can still breed their dogs, but not show them.

    This is because, with breeds whose standard requires harmful mutation, it is NOT the pet breeders, not the backyard breeders, not the puppy farms - it is the show breeders with their faulty standards which are breeding these suffering breeds.

    Dog shows should ban qualzucht bred dogs!

    You don't need a veterinarian to tell you that pugs have a pushed in nose, that bulldogs aren't breathing normally, that Western bred show Shar Pei have folds of loose skin, that Rhodesian Ridgeback have a ridge, etc. You can see that for yourself. The breeders can too. The KC can see it too.

    Ignore the dog show people who act surprised when you point out the obvious. The words been out there since PDE aired. They know. They just don't care, not enough to stop breeding dogs to suffer! That is clear too, isn't it?

    Enough is enough. The breeders aren't making the changes to fix the problems in their dogs. Poor dogs. They've had years now to write better standards that actually work, educate the judges, spread the word, and get it done. But the xxxxx up breeds are still xxxxx up, aren't they? One glance at the pugs will clearly tell you what you need to know - the breed hasn't been fixed up yet, and I haven't seen rings (or even one) of the new model of healthy show pug.

    Want to look at show Pekingese? English Bulldogs?

    Just ban the cold hearted sadistic lot of them from the shows.

    Now with German Shepherd Dog, there are many good working ones. Maybe some other breeds with field types like with Bassets, where a different type could be shown. Eastern Shar Pei aren't so extreme.

    As Anon 1238 (12 Sept) above came right out and said: you really can't fix many of the Molosser breeds. A fixed bulldog is a pit bull, or something like an American Bulldog, which you really can't use to replace any of the dwarf bulldog breeds.

    Maybe, if the show rings drop these breeds, the pet breeders will let less extreme types breed. Or maybe the public will finally understand what qualzucht breeders are doing.

    ReplyDelete
  14. up to your usual standards of accuracy, which isn't very high. Interesting to hear of the Newbury Championship show, as there isn't one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Up to your standards of trying to smear Jemima, Anonymous 22:45, because the shows she means are on the Newbury showground, so you really are just splitting hairs.
      Seems one of your standards is being disingenuous.

      Delete
    2. There are no General Championship shows at Newbury Showground, so as for being disingenuous I think the comment on accuracy now also applies to Anonymous 23.33 as well as Ms Harrison, but as the press and the BBC and the Parliament select committee accuracy has never been her strong point.

      Delete
    3. Erik D'Arcy-Donnelly's CV mentions officiating at Newbury, hence the wording above. More accurately, it should have been Southern Counties Champ Show. But it *is* at Newbury Showground.

      Delete
    4. http://www.corsini.co.uk/scca/ if you go to this link it will show you that Southern Counties Champ Shows are on the Newbury show ground.
      Anonymous 22:45 no one said, "General Championship shows"only you, seems you have started putting words into Jemima's mouth.
      Jemima actually said "Newbury Champioship shows"and I know amongst dog showing people, that they often refer to the shows on this show ground as the Newbury championship shows hence why Jemima reported as that and because they are on Newbury show ground and are champioship shows, you could argue quite soundly, that referring to them as Newbury Champioship shows is accurate and not misleading the reader, unlike what you seem to be trying to do. The vet in the article is the vet at the three champioship shows this year at this venue, Newbury Showground.
      Being disingenuous means that you are trying to claim that their is no Newbury Championship show, to discredit Jemima, knowing full well that Championship shows are held at Newbury Show ground and people refer to them as Newbury Championship Shows and you withheld the last bit of information about show on Newbury show ground and that people are known to refer to them as the Newbury Champioship shows , which comes over as disingenuous. You pretended to know less about something than you did, you know damn well the shows are held at Newbury and often referred to as the Newbury Championship Shows, but are just trying to smear Jemima and discredit her, but in that process you are coming over as even more disingenuous.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 23:33, what is inaccurate in saying "the shows she means are on the Newbury showground" ?
      The shows the vet officiates are the three Champioship shows held on Newbury Showground, often referred to as the Newbury Champioship shows and it seems even the vet refers to seem as this, by his CV, so I think that the statement above is accurate.

      No one has used the term, "General" other than you, before the words "Championship shows" which seems to show you are lacking in accuracy, as well as coming over as ever more disingenuous.

      Delete
    6. No one in the dog show world refers to any shows as Newbury Championship shows!

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 15:32 you can vouch for every single person in the dog show world, I think not. The vet refers to them in his CV as the Newbury Champioship shows, so that's one person to start with involved with the dog showing world, who refers to it as such. You're like a dog with a bone on this and giving us a real insight to the small mindedness of the dog showing world. LOL

      Delete
    8. You have to be kidding me! You are arguing over someone using an incorrect place name. Jesus what chance is there for dogs.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous 20:17, No, their not kidding you, the pure breed fraternity get really concerned about this kind of stuff. Naughty Jemima messing with their heads.Lol

      Delete
  15. Could I just say that one of the things that has surprised me most about this possible incident? If my dog had won best of breed at a championship show and then asked to undergo a Vet check I would expect a professional procedure, according to the criteria set down and observed by an agent from the body who licensed the dog show. I would be outraged if I had been fobbed off with a shallow, worthless inspection, I would be annoyed that my time had been taken up by such a rude, disinterested professional engaged to do a thorough job, an agent who thought it was acceptable for me and my dog to be made to look a fool by "conforming to the rules and regs of his employer". In effect a total waste of time by all concerned. Time I could have spent rewarding my dog with a romp for being idle for most of the day because I wanted to spend my time winning a tatty piece of paper! If this had happened to me I would have bellowed loud and clear about the absolute shambolic event called "Vet Inspection", I wouldn't have waited for a passerby to be so bemused that they had to take photos to believe what they were witnessing and was morally strong enough to publicise it. Sean, where are your morals in all of this? If you can absolutely endorse that you had a full and fair inspection, according to the criteria set down by the KC then let us all see it, was this the first time your dog had been inspected, was it the first time you had seen this particular vet under these circumstances. Lots of questions Sean, you love your dog and your breed, if this event is true, are you really comfortable with what happened?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Shame on you for making up a story and photos , maybe if the so called photographer had their eyes open they would have noticed that the dog was moved several times outside and these show the owner waiting for the paperwork , vet inspection long done , what length you have to go to for some glory , tut tut

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And you saw it and you can honestly and irrefutably claim that Sean's dog went thro' the correct procedure? Look at the timing record on the photographs. To date Mr EED has not responded to Miss Harrison's request for an explanation AFTER he saw the photographs because before he saw them he had stated that Cat 3 procedure had been undertaken, the photographs seem to suggest otherwise. However, you seem to be able take a "grab" at glory without actual, positive proof under an Anonymous Title 2139, now that is not very democratic is it. If you are going to be so rude, be brave and use your name with proof of "what you saw" or know irrefutably to be the truth and show it to us all.

      Delete
    2. And you were there, and have prove to verify your claims. I would love to believe your side of the story Anonymous 21:39 but having been around competition and vets long enough, I know this sort of crap goes on and more often than not.

      Delete
    3. I was told about this posting today and have been reading these comments with interest but you are all missing the point. Jemima Harrison is behaving in typical fashion and being her usual sanctimonious self and taking the moral high ground, as are some of the other posts on here. The basic facts are that until Ms. Harrison or anyone else can provide irrefutable evidence to prove the case being made regarding the 'photographic evidence' provided then this will, like all her others, not be seen with any credibility whatsoever in the wider sphere of those with an interest in the care and welfare of dogs - FACT. It beggars belief that what I expect are educated individual's can be taken in by such a duplicitous person as Ms. Harrison. If she and her cohorts were really truthful in seeking to do their best for all dogs, then I suggest they would be following a far more rigorous and professional approach to their work that could make a real difference in the places where it matters. Ms. Harrison's approach is, as always, simply cheap, tawdry, unworthy and unprofessional and the sort of practice that one usually finds contained in a 'Red Top' daily and it is a scandal if anyone should have an ounce of respect for this foolish individual who will never, ever be taken seriously by those within this field who could engender real change and at a much higher level than The Kennel Club. If you don't believe me, then carry out your own research and you will prove to yourself pretty quickly that this woman is not having a single jot of influence on the welfare of dogs.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 18:57 if as you say, "this woman is not having a single jot of influence on the welfare of dogs", why have you even heard about her, about this post and then felt the need to add your ounce to discrediting her. Because of your actions, I would suggest, she is having influence, because otherwise, you would not even bothered to come here in the first place. The mere fact you have commented on here means she most certainly has influence over you.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 18:57 with such a vicious personal attack on Jemima, she seems to of rattled your cage.
      As most on here post Anonymously like you and me, how the hell do you know if her cohorts are not or are seeking to do their best for all dogs. I post Anonymously because of people like you would stop my good work and many of us who are seeking to do their best for all dogs, because look what you are like when we remove are anonymity, you try to take us out by defaming our characters.
      Keep up the good work Anonymous 18:57, people like you making the effort to comment on Jemima's blog, make me realize, we are making a difference.

      Delete
    6. Ms Harrison has not been published by any major news paper, or canine publication in years, the BBC don't have contact with her, or and other TV production indeed the last thing the BBC was to pay for 15 minutes of rehash, a few years back. This blog and her closed FB group are the only things she has to feed her ego, such a pity really, but action have finally caught up with her.

      Delete
    7. Good try, Anon. But, actually, I am in the middle of making a major BBC science series.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2013/two-four-science-commissions


      And...

      http://www.televisual.com/news-detail/Hadlow-reveals-raft-of-science-commissions-for-BBC-2-and-4_nid-3582.html

      Delete
    8. Is the pedigree cats thing still happening?

      We now await Anonymous 23:40's mea culpa.

      Delete
    9. Keep the vitriol coming Anonymous 23:40, Anonymous 18:57 and Anonymous 21:39. Gives us a real insight to the mindset of the pure breeder.
      Every time you comment you show that Jemima has influence, enough influence for you to read her blog and then comment on her blog and the fact you know so much about her career, I am actually wondering if you are stalking her.LOL

      Delete
    10. Anonymous 23:40, you don't have to have be right in the public glare to be doing good work.
      Is that what feeds your ego, showing ? Unless you are showing your dogs, you can't care about their welfare or can being doing anything for their welfare ?
      You seem to feel the need to comment on Jemima, so she must have a pretty major influence over you, or is coming on here being insulting anonymously feeding your ego ?

      Delete
  17. There are always those who are uncomfortable with the possibility of a wrong doing being disclosed publicly, they lower the tone with insults and rudeness. Taking on that mantle of aggression is pointless. Instead the negative energy should be used to find out the real truth of this possible wrongdoing. Can those who have been so rude honestly, hand on heart, be happy that they are right and that the professional bodies involved in this debacle are beyond reproach and that it is right to attack two people brave enough to go against the tide of acceptance that the "The KC is good, honest, right, professional, reliable" when in reality they offer all but fail because of their complacency that people will just accept what they say. We are lucky that we live in a society where freedom of speech is available but it seems to me that there are some elements who become defensive without really thinking through the possibility that the "claimant" may be correct and that a wrong doing has taken place. If one has any doubts about JH - visit Black Retriver X because there are few people who would invest so much time and effort and money to give discarded beautiful dogs a second chance to prove their wonderful characters for others to enjoy. Not because the dogs will give her kudos, money, or win a tatty card, it is because the love of dogs burns within her very soul and regardless of their genetic pool they are deserving of a second chance and she is determined to give them that chance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Georgina, the BRX is s not addressing the source of the problem indeed it means it has a let out, why export a problem to another country and in the process dog in this country being rehomed!

      Delete
    2. Anon 1453, unsure what you are saying, my point is that JH is not involved in dogs for her own benefit thus anything she undertakes is for the betterment of dogs overall. I am not denying that she has a media career, which she has used for the benefit of dogs insofar as she saw an injustice and used her background to democratically raise the danger of inbreeding dogs to extinction, but before the extinction there would be a lot of suffering to those dogs. I personally feel her effort has been legitimate, thought provoking and worrying because of the denial by some breeders to breed on regardless with some acceptance by The Kennel Club, who would appear to be too self interested to offer a real resolution. Your comment about BRX not addressing the source of the problem - this will have to be done by Government intervention because whilst ever dogs are used as a "backdoor source of untaxed income" people will refuse to accept their responsibility. The Gvt will introduce a neutering policy, compulsory micro chipping is on it's way in 2016 and whilst I personally abhor intervention from such sources, to protect the dogs and the cruelty enacted on some dogs, I would back it. BRX is offering a second chance to dogs that would have been destroyed because the society they were produced in seem to perceive horses and dogs as a "right of ownership" but with no responsibility to that right. I think some of the information I have read on this site has been proven to absolutely underline that we all have a responsibility for and to our dogs but the people who are making real money from them couldn't care less, and this for the real, genuine dog loving dog breeder must be sickening.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 14:53 That's like saying, "Don't let an asylum seeker into the country, that has been tortured and family killed in it's country of origin and is at risk of being tortured, because it's not addressing the problem and we already have homeless people here." Imagine if one day you are that person.
      If we employed the attitude you are implying, don't expect any help when you in need of help, because why help someone unless it addresses the problem ? I will tell you why we help often when it does not address the problem because most of us are compassionate and know the reality that addressing the problem will be to late for the individual that needs help now, so we do our best and show compassion at that moment and still push for the problem to be addressed.
      I give to the homeless, I give to food banks, I know that it does not address the problems, but it helps in that moment of need and I also then try help to address the problems.

      Delete
  18. The Trail hardly looks like a major piece of work following suffers of Parkinsons, and seeing how they may or may not be helped. I think the BBC would of been better off paying the fee Harrison and co get (how many thousands?) straight to the research instead of lining PP pockets.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 13:43, so you think anyone making a program to help people learn more about a condition many of us may get or will know and care for someone with this condition is a waste of time and will not help the research into this condition ?
      The more that is learnt about this condition and the more people understand about this condition, early diagnoses is a big help in managing Parkinsons, so programmes about it can only help the general public's awareness.
      Unfortunately people who make programs like this, also have to make a living, like you, they need to eat and keep a roof over their head, so they get paid to do so, why not ? They are doing a job and public service. The exposure it will give to this condition will most likely bring more revenue and interest into research of this condition.
      Sad that you feel the need to use this to discredit Jemima on a blog about purebreed dogs, you are really stooping very low now.

      Delete
    2. Get a relative with Parkinsons and you are their main carer, you may change you mind about whether it's major piece of work or not, seeing how they may or may not be helped. Yet more thoughtless vitriol from the pure breed camp, maybe you think once a person is past what you think is their usefulness, they should be euthanized ?

      Delete
    3. Anon 13:43 you sound like a petty, jealous and emotionally incontinent schoolgirl. Good job the BBC don't ask you to advise them then really isn't it. But then you seem to think that your inflated and vitriolic opinions are actually worth something on here. Go away and come back when you have something worthwhile to contribute. Luckily, for us you won't come back because it will require you to understand how to be a decent human being. You obviously lack that capability.

      Delete
    4. Well I suspect Ms Harrison will forget to mention the role of the Kennel Club, the AHT and other Vets and the world of pedigree dogs in the work on Parkinsons , but then again Ms Harrison does like to ignore the DNA testing work done by so many breeds, but even she must acknowledge the links to NCL.......but as I say I doubt she will! but all those Parkinson experts/PDE flunkies on here would already know those facts.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 16:08 yes, it is wonderful that you have managed to breed conditions that are in humans, that are similar in dogs, at such high levels in pure breed dogs, we can now study these conditions in dogs to help humans. You must feel so proud of yourself.

      Delete
    6. Looks like it took you two days to find out so little, Anonymous 16:08 in reply. You think you should be proud that you have bred certain conditions in dogs that are similar to humans at such high levels that they make big enough groups to study for research into these conditions in humans and you save the expense of the conditions being introduced to lab animals and studied instead ?
      You are trying to turn a wrong into a right, by saying, "Although we have bred so many sick dogs by are pure breeding blindness, but look on the bright side, they are coming in handy to find out about conditions in humans, so you must praise us for that."
      What an awful term to use, "flunkie" and yet again gives a real insight to the mindset of the tunnel visioned pure breed cult.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 16:08 you are one of the DNA test flunkies, that think that you will save pure breeds with just DNA tests.Poor AHT they really are banging their head against the wall with you lot. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the world is not flat. Lol

      Delete
    8. Anonymous 16:08 those DNA testing companies, sure do love you pure breed flunkies. Kerching !

      Delete
  19. It really needs to be independent vets not use those from the show scene, too much bias.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jemima, are you still alive? Any plans for a new blog post?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Still alive... :-) Join us on Facebook..

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/pedigreedogs/

    ReplyDelete
  22. Greetings from Finland! My comment is very off topic, but I wanted to post it now, because I was just thinking about this when I was walking my dog. I have a 5 year old Welsh Corgi Pembroke, a dog who should have many happy years left, but isn't probably going to have more than a few. The reason is the way he is built: too heavy with way too short legs.

    His other front leg is twisted, probably because when he was growing up, his bones couldn't support his weight. My dog is not overweight, he has never been (I have checked this several times when seeing a vet). He has probably osteoarthritis on that twisted joint - we haven't seen a vet yet, but I just phoned one for a painkiller prescription (in Finland you have to get a prescription to most veterinary medicines).

    When my husband suggested that we should get a Corgi, I had doubts. I had never thought I would get a dog with an "unnatural" built. But I did some googling and found very convincing information about Corgis, how they don't have problems because their legs are not that short and their backs are not that long. This was my first dog and I hadn't seen that many Corgis before, so I didn't quite know what to look for when we went to see the breeders and their dogs.

    When our puppy was growing up I had to disagree with the arguments about the Corgi built: to me the dog had definitely way too short legs and long back for all that weight he had to carry. If you google information in Finnish, you find that average Pembroke male should weigh about 10-12 kg (22-26,5 lbs), but our dog weighs 18 kg (39,7 lbs), and as I said, I have consulted a vet about his weight more than once!

    When I was getting the prescription I also told the vet about the problems with our dog's built. She told me it was a common problem and that our Corgi is about average weight. I told her I'm never getting a Corgi again, and she told it was a wise decision. So the problem is not in our individual dog but in the breeding. Meanwhile the breeders (and probably Corgi owners too) pretend to have 10-12 kg weighing males and 9-11 kg (19,8-22 lbs) weighing females with "long enough" legs - when in fact the legs are so short the dog's chest is not far from the ground.

    I have started a couple of discussions on some forums about the Corgi, but clearly Finnish dog owners like to believe there's no problem. I'm sorry about this off topic and way too long comment, but I would be thankful, if you wrote something about Corgis as a breed. I know there are healthier individuals, and in Finland there are one or two kennels who breed Pembrokes with a healthier built, but I don't think I'm the only one who is facing this problem.

    Merry Christmas and thank you for the important work you are doing!

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ahhh Jemima, please come back and keep this blog alive!
    I'm just a lurker who's been following your work and excellent investigations for years.
    But I'm anti-FB and will die before I sign up to that privacy-invading targetted advertising garbage.
    Could you not maintain this blog as your primary content and link from FB to keep the best of both worlds? Just a thought...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Facebook is working really well for the "cause" as it's so much more interactive. And it takes much less effort for me at a time when I am super-busy with other stuff. (Every blog post takes *some* crafting). But I must admit that I miss it too... Consider it in just in hibernation...

      Delete
    2. Same here. Been following this for years and very disappointed to see it stopped. I'm also anti-FB, for same reasons as above. Can it at least be set so you don't have to log into FB to read it? Thanks!

      Delete
  25. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete