KC film: the verdict

I posted earlier today about the release today of the Kennel Club's counter-film to our Pedigree Dogs Exposed update and promised a "review" when I'd had a chance to see the whole thing.

So what did I think?

Not bad, actually. It is quite well made and I would imagine the KC considers it money well spent in order to show the world what it is doing to secure the future health of pedigree dogs.

I also welcomed the acknowledgment - quite strong in places - that there are problems (if a little bemused by the buck-passing to the judges and breeders as if, somehow, they are not KC-appointed/endorsed).

And I was pleasantly surprised to hear the news that the Kennel Club has decided to ask breeders who register five or more litters a year for a copy of their council license, although it was not made clear what action the KC will take if those breeders fail to comply (have asked the KC re this so will edit in their answer if I get one).

So that's all good. And, in all honesty, it's about as reasonable a puff piece as one could expect any organisaton to make about itself.

Can you feel a "but" coming on?

You bet your bippy.

But as I'm busy, it's late and pictures speak louder than words,  I will simply post some pictures taken (not by us, I should say, given that we were refused access) at the Richmond Champ Show last year... that's the show featured in the film at which KC Chairman Steve Dean sings the praises of the hound group and dog shows in general.. where we, a little unexpectedly, see only level-backed German Shepherds..and where the Neapolitan Mastiff judge raves about how improved the breed is.

(Click the pics to expand)

GREAT DANES

Is this a double merle?

 CLUMBER (this one won BOB)

 GSDs

Reserve Dog CC

 NEAPOLITAN MASTIFFS

Am I being selective?  Yes, I am.

The point, of course, is that the Kennel Club has been, too.

For a written, rather than visual, commentary check out Terrierman's blog on the KC's film.

Dog monopoly - time to pass go?

Irish Red and White Setter breeder Margaret Sierakowski sent in such an interesting comment to the blog yesterday, that I have asked her permission to make it a separate post in the hope that it will provoke the debate that I think it deserves.

"I had an interesting conversation last night with an Irish breeder of working gundogs. It seems that the Irish Competition Authority (their equivalent of our Competition Commission) has ruled that the IKC does not have a monopoly on registrations of dogs or licensing of competitive events for dogs. Nor can they prohibit people who use alternative registries or compete in events not licensed by the IKC from also registering their dogs with IKC or entering IKC shows, field trials etc.

"There are working gundog owners and breeders who feel the IKC is too much dominated by show breeders, who don't understand the working dog fraternity, and they are discussing setting up an alternative registry , appointing their own FT judges and running trials under their own rules. Apparently there are also some smaller shows already being run which have not been licensed by the IKC. Interesting.

"In the UK , the Kennel Club has maintained its monopoly as a registry and controller of all competitive events by simply ruling that dogs who are not registered by them cannot compete, and anybody who organises or enters a show or other event not licensed by them will be banned from future participation in KC licensed events.

"I can remember discussion in the 1980 among UK working spaniel breeders about setting up their own registry and running their own trials, and there was also setter and pointer triallers who wanted more freedom to run events for working dogs other than the KC licensed field trials , whose rules have hardly changed since the 1870s.

"But all the talk came to nothing, even though the disatisfactions rumble on. Probably as many as half of all UK working springers are unregistered, many of them are good working dogs, but they can't be used for breeding with KC registered dogs unless the breeder falsifies the names of the parents on ther application, which of course happens. The cocker/springer crosses continue but also remain illicit under the KC registration system.

"Is it not time for somebody to take the case of the KC's monopoly on registration and stranglehold on the licensing of events to the Competition Commission. A little more competition might focus the mind of the KC on progress into the 21st century. We might be able to get more flexibility on crossbreeding and the introduction of unregistered dogs into breeds. We might be able to hold dog shows which focus more on dogs being healthy, sound and fit for function, and award titles only to dogs certified as fit and healthy and tested for whatever is required for the breed. 

"Just a thought, comments welcomed. Anybody willing to take on the Competition Commission? I suspect it wouldn't be difficult to get a positive ruling. At the very least it might jolt the KC into faster change."

I think I'm right in remembering that gundog breeder Derry Argue (Advie Gundogs) tried to challenge the KC on this some time ago?

Of course, there are now alternative registries in the UK, even if they don't amount to that much for the serious breeder - apart, that is, from working registries such as the International Sheep Dog Society (ISDS). And I believe that Border Collies can be registered with both the KC and the ISDS, so this already happens in a limited sense.

Of more interest, to me at any rate, is a challenge that would allow other organisations to license events and then prevent the KC from banning those who participate in them from subsequent KC-licensed events - if, indeed, this rule still applies. Does anyone know?

The KC's answer to Pedigree Dogs Exposed

We've been aware that this was in the making... A 30 minute film telling us how wonderful the Kennel Club is and how dogs are safe in their hands.  Only had a chance to view the first few minutes (in which Clare Balding in honeyed tones tells us that the Kennel Club registers all dogs.... eh?).

Good to see the emphasis on health in what I've seen so far... and this film would have been unthinkable a few years ago. It also looks well-made (by a small independent called Savannah Films). But already a few things to make me hyperventilate. More later...

Accompanying KC press release here.

Molly comes home - and passes out with joy

Picture: Polly Hancock

London24 runs the story of Molly the pug, safely back home after she went missing when burglars ransacked her owners' flat in north London on January 6.

The dog was found after a big Twitter campaign supported by, among others, chat show host and pug owner Jonathan Ross.

And the reason I'm mentioning it here?

"“Everyone was screaming and crying,” said owner Caitriona Fox. “Molly was excited but then she passed out. She’s been quite nervous, but then she got into bed with us. She’s not normally allowed to sleep in our bed because she snores.”

It is good news that Molly is home. But it is much less good news that, like too many other pugs, her snoring is so loud that it keeps her owners awake as she struggles to get air to and from her lungs. And it is very bad news indeed that, when she's excited, her airways block to the point that she passes out through oxygen starvation to her brain.

Still, as pug breeder Amanda Ellis told us when we were making Pedigree Dogs Exposed, they get back up again, don't they?

The first cut is the.... hardest

The story so far...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does the K in KC stand for (north) Korea?

The schedule for Crufts 2012 is now available online and I see the Kennel Club has tried to beef up rules regarding photography.

Here's what it says:

Click to enlarge

Clearly, the KC is very worried about those horrid people singling out unhealthy-looking dogs and posting them on blogs or YouTube or, heaven forbid, giving to BBC documentary-makers. And it would have you believe that those who want to photograph problems are the ones at fault (as opposed, that is, to those breeding, exhibiting and awarding them prizes).

The addition to previous rules regarding photography is this line:

"The Organisers reserve the right at their absolute discretion to confiscate cameras and/or films for infringement of this condition. "

This is, actually, illegal and if they try it, the KC could be done for theft. Additionally, the KC has no right to delete photographs or insist the photographer does. They can ask only that the photographer leaves the premises. Any pictures or footage taken remain the copyright of the photographer.

I do appreciate that it is uncomfortable to have problems highlighted but this is a dog show where dogs are presented for exhibition and judgement. To try to put measures in place to ensure that only nice, positive, celebratory things about dogs are reported or photographed is censorship. And, moreover, pretty much impossible given the number of visitors to Crufts - almost all of which will have a camera, even if only on their phone. I should point out, too, that while individuals in certain circumstances have a right to privacy (although that's arguable if you've chosen to exhibit your dog at an event attended by thousands of snap-happy members of the public), dogs certainly don't.

My suggestion to the KC is that they man-up here. The correct PR advice is, surely, for them to welcome everyone and actively encourage anyone who records something that appears to be highlighting a health or welfare issue to discuss it with the KC.  And if, say, the photograph or recording shows prizes being awarded to a Basset Hound with ectropion or a Chinese Crested with obviously sore testicles because they've been shaved, or a Peke that can barely walk or a Bulldog or Pug with a massive overnose wrinkle, for the KC to not just point out the positive steps they are doing to deal with them (and there are some) but, where appropriate, to be unafraid of issuing a statement saying that they are extremely disappointed that a dog with such an obvious problem is still being rewarded in the show-ring.

The KC has vet checks for the Best of Breed winners of the 15 highlighted breeds starting at Crufts and this is a good move (although I am concerned to hear that the vets are not allowed to put a stethescope on the dog). This should mean that dogs with obvious problems will not win.  Which could mean that there won't be a BOB winner of Neapolitan Mastiffs at this year's Crufts.  I have yet to see one without ectropion which, thanks to input from veterinary opthamologist Professor Sheila Crispin, has been included as a disqualifying problem.

Progressive Retinal Atrophy - the Facts

They've got their knickers in a twist over at the Stop the BBC Making Another PDE Facebook site over something I said when I was being interviewed by Victoria Stilwell last week.

But of course they're wrong. What I pointed out in the podcast was that there are different forms of PRA in different breeds, caused by different mutations. There's cord1 (found in some Dachshunds and English Springers), prcd (found in a lot of breeds, including Cocker Spaniels, Golden Retrievers, Labradors and Tollers), rcd1 (Irish Setters), rcd2 (Smooth and Rough Collies), rcd3 (Welsh Corgi), rcd4 (Gordon + Irish Setters),Type A (Miniature Schnauzer) and X-linked (Samoyed).

All these mutations are recessive, meaning that both parents must carry and pass on the mutation to their puppies for the pups to be affected.

Obviously, if you mate a Golden Retriever with a Labrador, there's a risk to the resulting pups.

But you can mate two carriers (or even affecteds) of two different breeds that don't carry the same form of PRA - eg a Springer to a Cocker  - and the pups will not be affected (although of course could be carriers so one would have to test for both mutations if you breed on).

The only exception to this is with a dominant form of PRA found in Bullmastiffs and Mastiffs.

So thank you for the suggestion that I talk to Optigen. Of course I have - and to the Animal Health Trust which has found so many of the other PRA mutations (and is still working on others).