Did anyone watch this? (it has just finished)
Now I know that some of you will not be suprised at all and it seems that all of your previous criticism of the KC was bang on the money, but I have to say I am HORRIFIED. I had no idea it was this bad, its a real worry and the reaction of some of the breeders was absolutely shocking.
Pedigree Dogs Exposed
Moderators: emmabeth, BoardHost
-
katowaggytail
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:37 am
I think a lot of critiscism is fair, the KC could do WAY more than they do and the argument that people would just step outside the KC's jurisdiction just doesnt hold true when you think that they COULD if they wanted to, make KC registration a 'brand of quality'..
That said, I thought the program was awful, the program makers set out to make things look as bad as possible, it was completely unbalanced and some of the points raised were THE lowest, cheapest, weakest shots imaginable... the Nazi reference was unbelievable!
Also the way they omitted certain rather relevant information... yes syringomyelia is an awful awful condition, and the fact that that woman has bred a further 26 litters after her dog was diagnosed IS horrific.
But... the program mislead us about a lot of things.
For a start, the whole 'pedigree dogs cost more to insure than mongrels, thus mongrels are healthier'.
Mm... try less mongrels are insured. Easy to lie with statistics though. I dont thiknk either is healthier than the other, but for what its worth, the program DID outline that pedigree dogs suffer less health problems than humans.... since humans are not breeding to some predetermined breed standard, and are breeding out of 'free choice' as it were, surely that shows that breeding randomly does NOT mean we are genetically more healthy (we have more health problems than dogs do)... if that follows then surely mongrels, bred with no thought to their long term health, are less healthy than pedigrees.
Ah but we have few statistics for them compared to pedigrees - so lets bash the pedigrees some more.
Back to the Eugenics thing - given that the KC have allowed people to outcross to other breeds in the recent past, it definately doesnt follow that they are Nazi'esque in their determination to make sure everything is 'pure'... silly argument and rather offensive I thought.
And all this focussing on genetic mutation - without genetic mutation, theres no evolution! Without it, never mind no dogs existing, we'd have no people!
It is the extremes that are the problem, the breeders who dont care, the lack of 'teeth' the KC have.... and right at the very very heart of the problem are those who choose the dogs they buy based based on how easy it is to get one, how cute they look, and how soon they can get it.
It is these people who cause the demand for puppy farmed and back yard bred dogs, bred without health tests, without concern for their health and these are the majority that cause the problem.
I note they didnt make any effort to distinguish between good breeders and bad breeders, nor give anyone any useful advice.
I do think the KC needs a firm kick up the rear end, but i dont think putting dog buyers OFF buying kc reg pups is the way to go about it at all - EVERY single breeder I know is sick and tired of the KC's refusal to be more active and do more about health problems and grossly deformed breeds such as pugs, bulldogs etc.
That said, I thought the program was awful, the program makers set out to make things look as bad as possible, it was completely unbalanced and some of the points raised were THE lowest, cheapest, weakest shots imaginable... the Nazi reference was unbelievable!
Also the way they omitted certain rather relevant information... yes syringomyelia is an awful awful condition, and the fact that that woman has bred a further 26 litters after her dog was diagnosed IS horrific.
But... the program mislead us about a lot of things.
For a start, the whole 'pedigree dogs cost more to insure than mongrels, thus mongrels are healthier'.
Mm... try less mongrels are insured. Easy to lie with statistics though. I dont thiknk either is healthier than the other, but for what its worth, the program DID outline that pedigree dogs suffer less health problems than humans.... since humans are not breeding to some predetermined breed standard, and are breeding out of 'free choice' as it were, surely that shows that breeding randomly does NOT mean we are genetically more healthy (we have more health problems than dogs do)... if that follows then surely mongrels, bred with no thought to their long term health, are less healthy than pedigrees.
Ah but we have few statistics for them compared to pedigrees - so lets bash the pedigrees some more.
Back to the Eugenics thing - given that the KC have allowed people to outcross to other breeds in the recent past, it definately doesnt follow that they are Nazi'esque in their determination to make sure everything is 'pure'... silly argument and rather offensive I thought.
And all this focussing on genetic mutation - without genetic mutation, theres no evolution! Without it, never mind no dogs existing, we'd have no people!
It is the extremes that are the problem, the breeders who dont care, the lack of 'teeth' the KC have.... and right at the very very heart of the problem are those who choose the dogs they buy based based on how easy it is to get one, how cute they look, and how soon they can get it.
It is these people who cause the demand for puppy farmed and back yard bred dogs, bred without health tests, without concern for their health and these are the majority that cause the problem.
I note they didnt make any effort to distinguish between good breeders and bad breeders, nor give anyone any useful advice.
I do think the KC needs a firm kick up the rear end, but i dont think putting dog buyers OFF buying kc reg pups is the way to go about it at all - EVERY single breeder I know is sick and tired of the KC's refusal to be more active and do more about health problems and grossly deformed breeds such as pugs, bulldogs etc.
Absolutley discusted watching that program and yes you can see why the KC didn't want it aired those poor dog's
How can anyone breed from animals knowing the suffering that they are going to cause to there offspring, any breeder who willing uses a ***** / dog knowing that it is of poor health regardless of breed should be ashamed of themselves and not be allowed to continue to breed, as for the judges who place these dogs knowing that they shouldn't be in the ring never mind made up to champions where they know people are going to want to use them for breeding well IMO they should be struck off all judging list's perminantley.
The KC needs to stop putting money matters first and do there job properly and as for the RSPCA there quite happily going along knowing about these poor dogs and doing nothing about it which means there still being bred from and more dog's will suffer and owners will have there hearts broken, yet they call it cruel to dock a tail they need to get there priority's right
How can anyone breed from animals knowing the suffering that they are going to cause to there offspring, any breeder who willing uses a ***** / dog knowing that it is of poor health regardless of breed should be ashamed of themselves and not be allowed to continue to breed, as for the judges who place these dogs knowing that they shouldn't be in the ring never mind made up to champions where they know people are going to want to use them for breeding well IMO they should be struck off all judging list's perminantley.
The KC needs to stop putting money matters first and do there job properly and as for the RSPCA there quite happily going along knowing about these poor dogs and doing nothing about it which means there still being bred from and more dog's will suffer and owners will have there hearts broken, yet they call it cruel to dock a tail they need to get there priority's right
Bilclarie Dobermann's
If it's not a Dobermann it's just a dog
www.bilclarie.com
[img]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p244/bilclarie/untitled.jpg[/img]
If it's not a Dobermann it's just a dog
www.bilclarie.com
[img]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p244/bilclarie/untitled.jpg[/img]
You have each made some thunderin' good points.
One is: how the hell do you get the public to support good breeders, sourcing their pups sensibly and choosing a breed or type which fits their experience and lifestyle?
And: If you get the judges on board, the problem is virtually solved. If cripples didn't win rosettes and cups, people wouldn't breed them. Educate the judges and you change the breeds.
Not having a TV I didn't see the programme, but I didn't expect it to be 'fair'.
One is: how the hell do you get the public to support good breeders, sourcing their pups sensibly and choosing a breed or type which fits their experience and lifestyle?
And: If you get the judges on board, the problem is virtually solved. If cripples didn't win rosettes and cups, people wouldn't breed them. Educate the judges and you change the breeds.
Not having a TV I didn't see the programme, but I didn't expect it to be 'fair'.
-
katowaggytail
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:37 am
Right, more awake now.. new job = brain frazzle!
I feel that if the KC banned people from showing dogs with problems that would be a start, and then they wouldn't be allowed to breed from said dog, and make shed loads of money - not allowing doggie "incest" is another.
Beverley and Caroline Kisko were on the Richard and Judy show, shown before this programme aired... I could feel the tension and discomfort through the TV, god knows what it was like in the studio.
Maybe the KC should look at the Swedish model and see if they can adapt parts of that for here.
Bilclaire: given what some of those dogs are going through I quite agree with your tail docking sentance.
I feel that if the KC banned people from showing dogs with problems that would be a start, and then they wouldn't be allowed to breed from said dog, and make shed loads of money - not allowing doggie "incest" is another.
Beverley and Caroline Kisko were on the Richard and Judy show, shown before this programme aired... I could feel the tension and discomfort through the TV, god knows what it was like in the studio.
Maybe the KC should look at the Swedish model and see if they can adapt parts of that for here.
Bilclaire: given what some of those dogs are going through I quite agree with your tail docking sentance.
-
beverleyDogsToday
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 3:11 am
- Location: Surrey, UK
- Contact:
Oops - no that wasn't me! I was interviewed in the documentary briefly. That was Jemima Harrison the documentary maker on Richard and Judy - the Kc conspiracy theory people would have a field day if they thought we were one and the same people!!!!
But we do seem to share the same opinions and a similar age... and we obviously look a bit alike - oh hell I'll admit it - I am a documentary maker in my spare time! No wonder I've never got time to groom the dog.
(Someone else recently accused me of a being a country and western singer - said they'd gone up to me after singing and I'd said my name was Beverley but I'd completely blanked them and claimed to know nothing about Beardies - really couldn't make this sort of thing up!)
Anyone - please see the latest blog - lots of people feeling full of energy today and wanting to do something practical. Let's see what we can do...
http://coldwetnose.blogspot.com/
But we do seem to share the same opinions and a similar age... and we obviously look a bit alike - oh hell I'll admit it - I am a documentary maker in my spare time! No wonder I've never got time to groom the dog.
(Someone else recently accused me of a being a country and western singer - said they'd gone up to me after singing and I'd said my name was Beverley but I'd completely blanked them and claimed to know nothing about Beardies - really couldn't make this sort of thing up!)
Anyone - please see the latest blog - lots of people feeling full of energy today and wanting to do something practical. Let's see what we can do...
http://coldwetnose.blogspot.com/
Check out my blog: http://www.coldwetnose.blogspot.com/
Thinking of buying a dog?:
http://www.dialadog.co.uk - for excellent advice
Thinking of buying a dog?:
http://www.dialadog.co.uk - for excellent advice
-
thistledown
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:31 am
Nettle, a lot (most?) of BBC programmes can be seen again through the computer using BBCi. I think you have to download software in the first instance (Mr T did it, so it can't be too difficult to do 
). Programmes are usually available within a few hours. The programme in question was available yesterday evening about 30mins after it was aired.
You don't need a licence to watch these BBCi programmes, or the ITV equivalent called ITV Catch-up. I'm 100% sure about that as Mr T asked the Licensing Authority and got it in writing. You only need a licence to watch programmes in 'real time'.
Programmes load and play a bit like You-tube clips.
). Programmes are usually available within a few hours. The programme in question was available yesterday evening about 30mins after it was aired.You don't need a licence to watch these BBCi programmes, or the ITV equivalent called ITV Catch-up. I'm 100% sure about that as Mr T asked the Licensing Authority and got it in writing. You only need a licence to watch programmes in 'real time'.
Programmes load and play a bit like You-tube clips.
Thank you 
I have now seen it.
It's a pity to have emotional manipulation (for goodness' sake, even a reference to 'class'
never mind the nazi stuff) but that's TV I suppose.
It's naive to think that 'legislation' will solve the issues, or the KC becoming 'stricter' - since the breeding age and number of litters per ***** limit was introduced, many breeders keep fictional bitches for registering the extra litters, and people like those will continue to breed incestuously while falsifying their documents.
The KC has a valid point in that if it does alienate the breeders by being 'heavy' now, there goes the chance of getting them on board and making changes softly-softly.
Most of all, it is well-nigh impossible to educate many of the public. All the while they happily buy puppies from puppy farms or off the Internet rather than sourcing good breeders - who DO exist - get rid of dogs on a whim, don't bother to train their dogs, or have so little regard for them that they let them get pig-fat, people breeding unsound animals have a market.
Yes this issue can be turned around from a breeding point of view - but only if those good breeders are supported, instead of being liberally tarred with the same brush as the others.
I have now seen it.It's a pity to have emotional manipulation (for goodness' sake, even a reference to 'class'
never mind the nazi stuff) but that's TV I suppose.It's naive to think that 'legislation' will solve the issues, or the KC becoming 'stricter' - since the breeding age and number of litters per ***** limit was introduced, many breeders keep fictional bitches for registering the extra litters, and people like those will continue to breed incestuously while falsifying their documents.
The KC has a valid point in that if it does alienate the breeders by being 'heavy' now, there goes the chance of getting them on board and making changes softly-softly.
Most of all, it is well-nigh impossible to educate many of the public. All the while they happily buy puppies from puppy farms or off the Internet rather than sourcing good breeders - who DO exist - get rid of dogs on a whim, don't bother to train their dogs, or have so little regard for them that they let them get pig-fat, people breeding unsound animals have a market.
Yes this issue can be turned around from a breeding point of view - but only if those good breeders are supported, instead of being liberally tarred with the same brush as the others.
I watched the programe last night and found it extremely upsetting, especially the breeders attitude to their dogs. It appeared that the they were only interested in winning best in breed and obviously the more prizes your dog wins the more you can charge for a pup. I know not all breeders are the same and there were people shown who cared about the health of the dogs and the pups.
The kennel club can do a lot to change this attitude by changing the definition of the breed standard and not allowing these disabled, deformed animals to win best of breed or best in show. Then the breeders would not make money from these animals thus they would be forced to breed animals that are healthier and happier.
The kennel club can do a lot to change this attitude by changing the definition of the breed standard and not allowing these disabled, deformed animals to win best of breed or best in show. Then the breeders would not make money from these animals thus they would be forced to breed animals that are healthier and happier.
-
beverleyDogsToday
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 3:11 am
- Location: Surrey, UK
- Contact:
No probs, someone else thought it was me, too! Jemima was great so I don't mind one bit!
Behaviour guru Dr Ian Dunbar just emailed me with a blindingly obvious suggestion that I think sounds a winner.
Only breed your dog to an unrelated stud dog who is more than 7 years old and healthy!
As he says:
"Longevity is simply the very best overall indicator of health, fit genes and good behavior and temperament."
Check out my blog for a bit more on that and a link to Ian's article, but it seems so logical and easy to enforce!
Dog has to be pretty nice to survive till 7, and slowing down the generation sounds such a cool idea....!
http://coldwetnose.blogspot.com/
Behaviour guru Dr Ian Dunbar just emailed me with a blindingly obvious suggestion that I think sounds a winner.
Only breed your dog to an unrelated stud dog who is more than 7 years old and healthy!
As he says:
"Longevity is simply the very best overall indicator of health, fit genes and good behavior and temperament."
Check out my blog for a bit more on that and a link to Ian's article, but it seems so logical and easy to enforce!
Dog has to be pretty nice to survive till 7, and slowing down the generation sounds such a cool idea....!
http://coldwetnose.blogspot.com/
Check out my blog: http://www.coldwetnose.blogspot.com/
Thinking of buying a dog?:
http://www.dialadog.co.uk - for excellent advice
Thinking of buying a dog?:
http://www.dialadog.co.uk - for excellent advice
-
thistledown
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:31 am
two reasons:mum24dog wrote:So what if it wasn't balanced?
the general public is left with no concept of how widespread the problem is and may assume that all pedigree dogs are a timebomb waiting to go off. Lucky backyard breeder or puppy farmer who can step forward to offer a specifically Non-Pedigree, non KC-registered pup. No need to advertise, the programme did it for them
secondly, when unbalanced information is given out in any medium which relies on integrity and trust (tv, radio, or printed word) they become less credible IMO the further they stray from giving straightforward balanced information. Once they adopt tactics such as the Nazi imagery of the documentary their credibility is at stake. We tend to trust our media in this country, however once credibility is lost it may never wholly be regained and we are all poorer for it, media and consumer alike.
The Nazi imagery was a huuuge mistake. Who was it who manipulated public opinion by using shocking imagery to vilify a section of the population? Leni Riefenstahl anyone??
In the interests of useful discussion and debate, and for those somewhat less geeky than others.. can we all familiarise ourselves with..
Godwins Law - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Briefly - the longer a debate or argument goes on the greater the probability of someone using a Nazi/Hitler comparison is.
The point of which, is that the more you overuse such a comparison the less useful it becomes, and in this case it is hyperbole to compare Nazi ideas/concepts such as Eugenics, with dog breeding.
When one recourses to wild exaggerations, in the pursuit of making ones point.. it leads everyone else to wonder why the mere facts would not stand up for themselves.
In other words, if dog breeding IS as bad as the Passionate Productions people make out... there would be no need for the comparison between dog breeding and eugenics at all.
Given that reductio ad Hitlerum (reducing to Hitler, ie, 'playing the Hitler card') has been a commonly understood 'poor tactic' since the early '50's, again it leads me certainly, to question the motives of someone who uses such a cheap trick.
Are we really to believe that Passionate Productions want the very best for dogs?
Or do they just want to score points and rock the boat and look big and clever on the tellybox?
To me, and I love a good debate - thats just ruined her hand completely, which is a damn shame.
Godwins Law - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Briefly - the longer a debate or argument goes on the greater the probability of someone using a Nazi/Hitler comparison is.
The point of which, is that the more you overuse such a comparison the less useful it becomes, and in this case it is hyperbole to compare Nazi ideas/concepts such as Eugenics, with dog breeding.
When one recourses to wild exaggerations, in the pursuit of making ones point.. it leads everyone else to wonder why the mere facts would not stand up for themselves.
In other words, if dog breeding IS as bad as the Passionate Productions people make out... there would be no need for the comparison between dog breeding and eugenics at all.
Given that reductio ad Hitlerum (reducing to Hitler, ie, 'playing the Hitler card') has been a commonly understood 'poor tactic' since the early '50's, again it leads me certainly, to question the motives of someone who uses such a cheap trick.
Are we really to believe that Passionate Productions want the very best for dogs?
Or do they just want to score points and rock the boat and look big and clever on the tellybox?
To me, and I love a good debate - thats just ruined her hand completely, which is a damn shame.
