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).

Bred for Looks, Born to Suffer

Tomorrow, if you're walking down Clarges St in London's Mayfair and hear strange popping noises, it will be Kennel Club staff's heads exploding in response to the RSPCA's new  Bred for Looks, Born to Suffer campaign, launched today with the above ad in the Mail on Sunday.

I have to confess to feeling a little uncomfortable about some aspects of the campaign myself.

I'm fine with the ad above as I feel really strongly that we should return pugs to an earlier version where they had longer muzzles. In fact, we've just returned from filming with world brachycephalic expert Professor Gerhard Oechtering in Leipzig who showed us the damage that has been done, internally, by breeding for such a flat face (see below). It is so much more than most people imagine - and it is heart-breaking to see what we've done to this characterful little dog that bears its fate with such cheerful stoicism.

I'm OK, too, with what the RSPCA's new campaign says on the main campaign page, although I know others will be hyperventilating at the singling out of pedigree dogs as opposed to those dreadful designer crossbreeds.

But I did wince at this page... which starts:

The way that dogs are bred today, in order to win shows, is having a huge impact on their health and welfare. This is why we’ve launched our Born to Suffer campaign which seeks an end to the breeding of dogs based on looks.
 
But it's not just show dogs that may be suffering. Many pedigree dogs never appear in shows, but many are bred by breeders who want to produce show-winning animals, and who sell their surplus dogs as pets.

And the reason I winced is that, although it's true to say that it's the show-scene that often stamps the current 'look' on a breed, there are loads of breeders breeding purely for the pet marked who are producing dogs that are no better (in fact in some instances worse - pet-bred Shar-pei, for instance, are usually much more wrinkled than their show-bred cousins).  In other words, I think to single out show breeders in this instance is unfair. I know, I know, people will no doubt yelp that that is exactly what I do. But I wouldn't have done if I had been copywriting the RSPCA campaign.

Here, by the way, is a a 'grab' from the footage we shot of the inside of a pet-bred pug's mouth when we filmed in Leipzig. Pugs have the same number of teeth as a dog with a longer muzzle and this is nature's attempt at accommodating them.

Add 22/12: here's the Kennel Club's response to the RSPCA's new campaign - essentially an insistence that the breed standards are not to blame. 

No time and no shows

Currently, I barely have enough time to breathe let alone blog, as we're flat out on Pedigree Dogs Exposed 2 - so apologies for the silence. Our first viewing with the BBC is on January 4th, so there'll be no Christmas for me this year, but I did find time last night to be interviewed by Victoria Stilwell for her Positively podcast. For those who have more time than me and want to listen, our chat starts between a quarter and a third of the way through the podcast here.

I do urge my friends over on the Stop the BBC from Making Another PDE Facebook site to listen as you'll hear no less than three clear admissions of puppy abuse on my part perpetrated during the interview itself. The victim is the puppy pictured above. Well, he wouldn't stop barking.

His name is Wrigley (although he's more usually called Pupster) and his mum is a tiny working-bred English Setter who was pregnant when she arrived from Ireland as a rescue.  Who was Dad? Best guess is a mountain goat. That's our 5ft-high Yew hedge he's jumped on.  Wrigley is a fabulous pup - a real ray of sunshine; we should have rehomed him, really, but he makes us laugh and in the way that puppies sometimes are, he's been a positive influence on the rest of the dogs.

I first met Victoria and her husband Van at Crufts in 2008. We've stayed in touch very sporadically since then and we met again a couple of weeks ago at the APGAW meeting on dog-breeding at the Houses of Parliament. We were given permission by APGAW Chairman Neil Parish to film the meeting, which prompted the Kennel Club to pull out. Neil Parish read out the following statement at the start of the meeting:

"The Kennel Club was keen to be involved in APGAW's meeting regarding health and welfare developments in dog breeding since these are issues which we consider to be of paramount importance. However, in view of the decision to allow filming by Passionate Productions, the Kennel Club has elected not to attend since we do not trust those involved to present an unbiased account of proceedings."

Fortunately,  the RSPCA, the British Veterinary Association and the Dog Advisory Council felt able to attend to speak - and in the audience were many others from dog welfare and dog interest groups.

The Kennel Club's decision to not attend was disappointing. I do understand its concern but can't help feeling that they are currently receiving very poor PR advice.  No-shows do not, in the main, go down well with the public.

And television loves an empty chair.