Rspca Pull Out Of Crufts.

[Sherlock Bones]

My calculations show the RSPCA had a surplus of £11,016,486 last financial year.

 

In contrast, KC made £444,000 surplus last financial year.

 

Which one isn't doing all it should?

[Carole Stitcher]

At the end of the day, the Kennel Club needs to take a serious look at the way they operate.

 

An employer or senior manager faced with an employee who has (for instance) a personal hygiene problem would be duty bound to resolve that. The best way would be to inform them they have a problem, give them the opportunity and, if necessary, the support to resolve it and if they didn't, for the sake of your other employees, you would need to dismiss them.

 

As things stand at the moment, good breeders and I agree that there are some who take their responsibilities seriously, are getting the flak along with the bad ones. That surely cannot be more acceptable than someone walking into the workplace and wondering who it is that smells?

[Sherlock Bones]

The KC does have paid workers.

 

If the KC reduced the number of litters registered - eg removing those from the less responsible breeders - they'd have less "income". Call me cynical but I can't help but think their reason to continue registering puppies from dodgy breeders/puppy farmers is connected to the fee they get per pup, for registration.

 

The RSPCA and Dogs Trust are animal welfare organisations though, they're not receiving money from breeders are they?

And if the RSPCA actually stopped more cruelty, they'd need less staff and have less need for income too. Cynical perhaps too. As I say, they need to stop puppy farming and dodgy breeders (again, I say)

 

I'm pretty sure RSPCA and DT get money from breeders, in fact I know those who donate.

 

 

Because the point was raised that the Kennel Club was a non profit organisation as if that negated any possibility of self interest on the part of those who govern the Kennel Club. Profit is not the only criteria that encourages self interest.

 

Where RSPCA and Dogs Trust et al. are concerned, I believe that as registered charities their financial operations are subject to far more official scrutiny than those of non profit organisations. Again, I could be mistaken.

 

Nope, the non profit organisations are subject to Companies House scrutiny and are limited by guarantee which gives the directors of the company personal liability and has obvious tax declarations and scrutiny by HMRC. I'd say that was far more reaching than Charity Commission, which can basically just throw someone out of the Commission.

[ReikiAnge]

How would they know? They could well be! They accept donations from anyone! (even people like me ).

 

That's true

 

I guess the difference to me is that the KC would lose out financially if they were stricter about which puppies they registered (ie from good breeders who do the relevant health tests AND get good results from those tests) and that makes me think, with my cynical head on, that that may be part of the reason they haven't seem to have clamped down too hard on breeders to date. I hope that might change.

[Sherlock Bones]

At the end of the day, the Kennel Club needs to take a serious look at the way they operate.

 

Totally agree

 

I guess the difference to me is that the KC would lose out financially if they were stricter about which puppies they registered (ie from good breeders who do the relevant health tests AND get good results from those tests) and that makes me think, with my cynical head on, that that may be part of the reason they haven't seem to have clamped down too hard on breeders to date. I hope that might change.

 

Financial loss would make no difference to them. They'd make redundancies like any other business. If they were making profit for directors or shareholders it would force them to change to survive. Less income = less surplus for charity. It will only hit those who benefit from surpluses - and that isn't the KC.

[ReikiAnge]

And if the RSPCA actually stopped more cruelty, they'd need less staff and have less need for income too. Cynical perhaps too. As I say, they need to stop puppy farming and dodgy breeders (again, I say)

 

The RSPCA isn't responsible for cruelty though, whereas I understand the KC is/has been responsible for registering puppies from dodgy breeders and puppy farmers and receiving money to do so.

 

I am sure many people within the RSPCA would like to stop more cruelty, however the powers that be seem to think our current legislation/punishment is adequate How would they need less staff to stop more cruelty? It's not as though there's a finite amount of cruelty, sadly.

 

Just thinking of one case of cruelty where a lab got ridiculously, cruelly overweight. The RSPCA took the dog from his owners, put him into a foster home where he lost substantial weight and went to court. The court decided the dog should be returned to his owners Must have been hugely frustrating for the inspectors dealing with the case.

 

 

I'm pretty sure RSPCA and DT get money from breeders, in fact I know those who donate.

 

Fair enough I tried to explain myself better in my reply to Di above.

[Sherlock Bones]

But we're assuming the KC knew about every single case of bad breeding - i bet they knew of plenty but I bet they don't know of most... and they certainly won't know about unregistered breeders.

 

I didn't say the RSPCA caused cruelty at all ... but if they did more to stop it, there would be less and thus less staff needed... at least that's what i meant. I've already stated (a lot..) that laws need changing and thus the RSPCA (notwithstanding idiot judges like the one you mention) could assist in stopping those flouting a new law on bad breeding.

[ReikiAnge]

Financial loss would make no difference to them. They'd make redundancies like any other business. If they were making profit for directors or shareholders it would force them to change to survive. Less income = less surplus for charity. It will only hit those who benefit from surpluses - and that isn't the KC.

 

The KC says its main objective is 'to promote in every way, the general improvement of dogs' - surely registering puppies from breeders who don't even do the recommended healthtests for their breed, isn't promoting the general improvement of dogs? So why does the KC allow these dogs to be registered if it's not for financial reasons?

[Sherlock Bones]

The KC says its main objective is 'to promote in every way, the general improvement of dogs' - surely registering puppies from breeders who don't even do the recommended healthtests for their breed, isn't promoting the general improvement of dogs? So why does the KC allow these dogs to be registered if it's not for financial reasons?

 

Because (why do i feel like a stuck record) there is nothing in the breed standard that prevents it. And there should be.

[ReikiAnge]

But we're assuming the KC knew about every single case of bad breeding - i bet they knew of plenty but I bet they don't know of most... and they certainly won't know about unregistered breeders.

 

I didn't say the RSPCA caused cruelty at all ... but if they did more to stop it, there would be less and thus less staff needed... at least that's what i meant. I've already stated (a lot..) that laws need changing and thus the RSPCA (notwithstanding idiot judges like the one you mention) could assist in stopping those flouting a new law on bad breeding.

 

I'm not blaming the KC for the faults of unregistered breeders

 

I am not saying the RSPCA is perfect, there are too many people hating them for that to be the case, although my experiences have only been positive. They can though only work within current legislation and I suspect there's none more frustrated than the inspectors who have to deal with cruelty cases. I would imagine also that the RSPCA pushes for as much as it can, legally, but when you have ministers who believe breeding legislation in this country is adequate (as was the reply to my MP a few years ago) it just makes one want to scream.

 

My brain is getting tired now so I shall say goodnight

[Sherlock Bones]

Me too Ange. I agree... if our government took the voice of animal owners seriously, it would be a very different story I'm sure.

[Katie]

I thought breed standards were set by the relevant breed societies and just endorsed by the Kennel Club? All of them are open to massive interpretation and that's why there are such huge diversities in the various breeds and also why judging is so subjective.

 

Quite correct Di - the KC does not set breed standards. And again I agree - they are certaily open to massive interpretation. You only have to look at the GSD to see that, two totally different types of dog that don't even look like the same breed but are judged under the same breed 'standard'.

[Katie]

She can't seriously think any one will believe those statements

 

The statement about the 90% of dogs suffering no health problems.........er scuse' me missus, don't you mean 90% of dogs whose owners filled in a questionair ?

 

As for the "blueprint for a healthy dog" ..........honestly, does she think we're all deaf and blind

 

Could the same not be said for the BBc programme that kicked all this off? They chose to highlight the worst cases they could find in order to make 'good' TV and stir a reaction. I know plenty of breeders and not one would condone some of the practices shown in that programme.

 

In addition I have owned many GSDs over the years and have yet to lose one to any of these hereditary problems that are apparantly so common in the breed. There again I would not buy a pedigree puppy from a breeder that did not do the relevant health tests and am the first to agree there are some appalling breeders out there - but there are also plenty of very good ones who really care about the health and temperament of their breed.

 

If the RSPCA feel so strongly they should be out there making people more aware of what to look for in a good breeder and not taking the stance that the word 'pedigree dog' means an unhealthy dog that will suffer a life of misery.

[Helly]

I think that while the BBC did show the worse case scenarios, it highlighted that the term KC registered means bugger all unless your chosen breeder does the relevant health checks. If that increases awareness and pushes people towards more health concious breeders then it was a worthwhile program. Similarly, if the RSPCA now makes a big noise about why they have pulled out of crufts and continue to make that noise then I think they can have an impact on how people buy their puppies.

 

If the kennel clubs ditched the owners who dont health check they could get some credibility back into their name. Their representative on the program who said 'but breeders would leave in droves' like it was a bad thing let them down in my opinion. KC should be wanting the best of the best to bear their name not just any old dog as long as it fits into their (sometimes) strange ideals of what the dogs should look like.

[cycas]

The TV program was, of course, sensational - I am quite sure it selected the worst cases and focussed on them to the exclusion of all else. That's the point of an expose. You can't make a documentary about, say child abuse, and focus on all the parents that actually get along quite nicely really. The point is not the people who are doing it right, the point is the people who are doing it wrong, and why they are able to get away with it.

 

90% of pedigree dogs may, or may not, be healthy. The fact remains that to insure many breeds of pedigree dog, you'll be paying considerably higher premiums than for a mongrel. Insurance companies don't do that for fun, and they don't base their figures on owner-supplied questionaires. They base them on which dogs cost most to fix, and need fixing most often.

 

You don't get legislation on this sort of thing without an outcry. As long as the Kennel Club is seen to be doing reasonably OK, nobody will bother making legislation on this matter. I think the RSPCA have decided that they need an outcry to get the legislation they want, and that the KC is a suitable scapegoat.

 

I must say I'd have more sympathy for the KC if they hadn't shown quite so clearly that they really didn't understand the genetic science behind what they are supposed to be working on. The 'I don't want to listen to a bunch of scientists' comment was particularly telling, and they didn't even seem to understand why a closed gene pool might be an issue.

 

I really do not think it is acceptable to say that people should just choose breeders more carefully, or that the RSPCA should be working on that.

 

It's not reasonable to expect someone who just wants a healthy pet to have a detailed understanding of all the possible medical issues and genetics of their chosen dog, and to have to avoid a bunch of what are basically legal con-artists trading on the fact that people will not return badly-bred puppies once they have got them home. That's like saying you should be able to write computer code and assemble a CPU if you want to buy a computer.

Edited September 17, 2008 by cycas