Rspca Pull Out Of Crufts.

[Maria]

See my post above, a completely impossible argument. they aren't here to make money, and they don't. Those who ARE making money are bad breeders and puppy farmers. They need shouting down, not an organisation that is there to assist dogs.

 

My point was about income generation, not profit - 2 different things.

I'm also not aware of any law that states that NPO's like the KC cannot make a 'profit', ie a surplus of income over expenditure. Commercial orgs call it profit (part of which is / can be distributed to members), and NPO's call it a surplus because they don't distribute to shareholders, but it's the same thing - aiming to ensure your income exceeds your expenditure.

 

We obviously agree on the issues, but obviously don't agree on solutions .In my view the KC / breed clubs left to their own devices has created these problems, and therefore personally I don't believe they have the desire to make major changes, because from all their responses to date they don't seem to really believe there is a problem.

The UK hasn't signed the European Convention for the Protection of Pet animals, which would have helped address some of these issues.

 

http://www.petparliament.com/viewarticle.p...id=0&npage=

 

http://www.petparliament.com/viewarticle.p...id=0&npage=

[raiye]

On Radio 4 tonight they said it was because the whole issue was with their lawyers. Their lawyers obviously work a damn sight quicker than mine so i'm not surprised it took so long, i'd still be waiting if it was mine

 

 

 

And turning that on it's head. supposing, just supposing... that statement is actually correct? Why are you assuming you're being lied to?

 

You are being lied to.

The actual figures of the 24% of applicants that returned their questionaires, 34.2% (off the top of my head) reported illnesses within their dogs.

Caroline Kisco argued these fugures, becuase it is her belief, illnesses such as HD and Glaucoma should not be included in these figures because many dogs with these illnesses lead full happy lives. Even though most of those dogs need medical procedures and/or pain relief for the rest of their lives.

Even so - when simple procedures can be put in place OVER NIGHT to change these figures, I can not understand or excuse the KC for not taking those simple steps.

[cenydd]

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.

 

Absolutely 100% agree. The whole KC registration and show judging system is seriously flawed, because it effectively takes no account whatsoever of health or genetic issues. The KC keep repearting this nonsense that the breed standard is a 'blueprint for health', when it clearly isn't - it is an aesthetic standard with very little regard for health. Judging at dog shows takes very little account of health accordingly. The registration system means absolutley nothing, since there is no requirement for any testing, and no checking of accuracy. At the moment the total 'buyer beware' attitude to dog breeding (together with the general ignorance of dog buyers caused by the lack of education requirement for new dog owners, but that's a different discussion!) just isn't a good enough system. The KC have been told this for years, but so far have got away with ignoring it. This can't continue, and thankfully people like the RSPCA and DT have now reached the point where they feel a public stand is needed to get the KC to sit up and take notice.

[Sherlock Bones]

My point was about income generation, not profit - 2 different things.

I'm also not aware of any law that states that NPO's like the KC cannot make a 'profit', ie a surplus of income over expenditure. Commercial orgs call it profit (part of which is / can be distributed to members), and NPO's call it a surplus because they don't distribute to shareholders, but it's the same thing - aiming to ensure your income exceeds your expenditure.

 

We obviously agree on the issues, but obviously don't agree on solutions .In my view the KC / breed clubs left to their own devices has created these problems, and therefore personally I don't believe they have the desire to make major changes, because from all their responses to date they don't seem to really believe there is a problem.

The UK hasn't signed the European Convention for the Protection of Pet animals, which would have helped address some of these issues.

 

http://www.petparliament.com/viewarticle.p...id=0&npage=

 

http://www.petparliament.com/viewarticle.p...id=0&npage=

 

Maria I totally agree on that point. I still am not convinced that income generation is the issue: I believe it doesn't matter how much you make its what you do with it that needs evaluating.

 

 

You are being lied to.

The actual figures of the 24% of applicants that returned their questionaires, 34.2% (off the top of my head) reported illnesses within their dogs.

Caroline Kisco argued these fugures, becuase it is her belief, illnesses such as HD and Glaucoma should not be included in these figures because many dogs with these illnesses lead full happy lives. Even though most of those dogs need medical procedures and/or pain relief for the rest of their lives.

Even so - when simple procedures can be put in place OVER NIGHT to change these figures, I can not understand or excuse the KC for not taking those simple steps.

 

I think it's spin... and avoiding saying "yes we have a problem". I don't think the figures are lies, because they are an interpretation of actual data. And I do think overnight changes are needed.

 

Absolutely 100% agree. The whole KC registration and show judging system is seriously flawed, because it effectively takes no account whatsoever of health or genetic issues. The KC keep repearting this nonsense that the breed standard is a 'blueprint for health', when it clearly isn't - it is an aesthetic standard with very little regard for health. Judging at dog shows takes very little account of health accordingly. The registration system means absolutley nothing, since there is no requirement for any testing, and no checking of accuracy. At the moment the total 'buyer beware' attitude to dog breeding (together with the general ignorance of dog buyers caused by the lack of education requirement for new dog owners, but that's a different discussion!) just isn't a good enough system. The KC have been told this for years, but so far have got away with ignoring it. This can't continue, and thankfully people like the RSPCA and DT have now reached the point where they feel a public stand is needed to get the KC to sit up and take notice.

 

Agree mostly: the system is totally flawed because of the health issues and that's where the overnight changes are needed. I do think however that the breed standard is a blueprint for health - but that vitally assumes all breeders screen for health issues that are not recorded in the standard - and they don't - and that is very very wrong.

Buyer beware is very dangerous - but i do think that all dog organisations need to make people aware of the way to buy a dog - and every owner should know the problems their breed can have (even those getting a rescue) - not the genetics and whys of it - but the possibility of it, and weigh up if they can or want to take on a dog that could be ill.

 

I still wish the RPSCA and DT would work with the KC than walk away, they're far too valuable and I fear now the KC will use them going away to say "well, we didn't know" even more strongly Don't give them the get out - the dogs are too important for that.

[Nettie]

http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/press_office/p...t-at-crufts.htm

 

Dogs Trust Withdraws From Kennel Club Events Including Crufts

Dogs Trust, the UK’s largest dog welfare charity has announced it will be withdrawing from Crufts and Discover Dogs. Dogs Trust will also not be involved in this year’s Westminster Dog of the Year Show. This follows consultation with the charity’s Trustees and requests from its supporters.

 

Dogs Trust believes that this removal of support is the strongest signal it can give to the Kennel Club and breeders to achieve immediate action to ensure that the health and wellbeing of pedigree dogs is ranked over appearance and artificial breed standards.

 

Dogs Trust hopes that this will lead to rapid changes in the manner in which dogs are bred and is in talks with Defra and The Kennel Club to help bring about the following much needed changes:

 

1. The review of breed standards to ensure they are firmly focused on the health and wellbeing of the dog, not the supposed aesthetics of the breed. Breeders and show judges must be required to adhere to these revised breed standards.

 

2. The introduction of secondary legislation, so as to prevent inappropriate breeding practices, especially the intentional inbreeding of closely related dogs or dogs with known debilitating genetic illnesses.

 

3. The introduction of genetic screening of all breeding stock and the assured integrity of such a process.

 

4. Purchasers of dogs should first consider a rescue dog. If it is a pedigree, they must understand the importance of determining and questioning its genetic heritage.

 

Dogs Trust has had a long history of working with The Kennel Club in order to promote rescue dogs at pedigree shows and we hope to be able to continue this relationship as soon as these vital animal welfare points have been put in place.

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7620507.stm

 

Kennel Club lodges BBC complaint

 

Cavalier King Charles Spaniels are among the affected breeds

The Kennel Club is lodging a complaint with TV regulator Ofcom about a BBC documentary exposing genetic illnesses in pedigree dogs.

 

The club, which runs Crufts dog show, said it was unfairly edited and did not properly reflect its "deep commitment to the health and welfare of dogs".

 

It also said it was reviewing its contract with the BBC to broadcast the famous show.

 

A spokesman for BBC Documentaries said it stood by the programme's content.

 

In a separate statement, the corporation said it was "seeking reassurance, on behalf of its viewers, that the objectives, practices and organisation of the breed competitions at Crufts have as a first priority the health and welfare of all dogs taking part in the competition".

 

An advisory panel would be set up to consider "what measures the Kennel Club should be expected to take now and commit to in the future".

 

It added: "The panel will be asked to give the BBC their advice quickly to enable the BBC to discuss the issues with the Kennel Club before planning begins for coverage of Crufts 2009."

 

Crufts has been transmitted on BBC Two since 1966.

 

The move comes after the RSPCA pulled out of the show over welfare concerns.

 

'Best in breed'

 

Pedigree Dogs Exposed, which aired last month, said physical traits required by the Kennel Club's breed standards, such as short faces and dwarfism, lead to inherent health problems.

 

The deliberate mating of close relatives, in particular, had left animals suffering from epilepsy, breathing problems and deformities, it claimed.

 

The documentary also said dogs suffering from such conditions were not prevented from competing in dog shows and had gone on to win "best in breed", despite their poor health. The fact of the matter is that the large majority of pedigree dogs in the country are healthy

 

Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club

 

Kennel Club spokeswoman Caroline Kisko told the BBC it was not "a tenable position" for the broadcaster to show Crufts - a programme "celebrating dogs" - when it had also aired a documentary "which was clearly so heavily biased against dogs".

 

"All of those dogs that were shown on the programme were taken to be to do with the Kennel Club," she said.

 

"The message put across by the programme was that all their disabilities, their illnesses, were caused by something which the Kennel Club had done, to the point where we were likened to Nazis."

 

Ms Kisko said the Kennel Club had recognised that "things had gone too far" with some breeds several years ago and was making efforts to address their health issues.

 

But she added: "The fact of the matter is that the large majority of pedigree dogs in the country are healthy."

 

Crufts sponsor

 

A second charity, Dogs Trust, has also announced that it is withdrawing from Crufts and the Westminster Dog Show.

 

In a statement, it said: "Dogs Trust believes that this removal of support is the strongest signal it can give to the Kennel Club and breeders to achieve immediate action to ensure that the health and wellbeing of pedigree dogs is ranked over appearance and artificial breed standards."

 

Crufts' sponsor, and dog food maker, Pedigree said it was "concerned at the findings of the BBC's recent documentary".

 

"Pet health and welfare is our primary concern at Pedigree and we are committed to continuing our work with all parties to promote responsible dog ownership."

 

The RSPCA is carrying out a scientific review of pedigree dogs and their care which will be released in January.

 

 

I was norty and opened a seperate thread on the DT so am putting this here now.

[ReikiAnge]

I still wish the RPSCA and DT would work with the KC than walk away, they're far too valuable and I fear now the KC will use them going away to say "well, we didn't know" even more strongly Don't give them the get out - the dogs are too important for that.

 

I don't know that any of them, the KC included, are walking away from the situation?

 

The KC press releases about the Dogs Trust and RSPCA withdrawing: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/2046/23/5/3 and http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/2037/23/5/3

 

both include a quote from the KC: "we will continue to endeavour to work with them despite their stated position, for the benefit of dogs."

 

and the Dogs Trust press release included this bit:

 

Dogs Trust hopes that this will lead to rapid changes in the manner in which dogs are bred and is in talks with Defra and The Kennel Club to help bring about the following much needed changes:

[cenydd]

I still wish the RPSCA and DT would work with the KC than walk away, they're far too valuable and I fear now the KC will use them going away to say "well, we didn't know" even more strongly Don't give them the get out - the dogs are too important for that.

 

I don't think there is any suggestion that either of them are 'walking away' as such, merely making a public statement that things aren't as they should be to bring the KC to the table. Having heard things indirectly from the DT (via another forum), their position seems to be that they have been trying to talk to KC about this issue, but the KC have simply been fairly resistant to doing anything significant about it. In other words, DT have always been, and still are, at the negotiating table - what they want is for KC to be there too, with serious intent of talking about the issue and taking action to solve it. I suspect the RSPCA feel very much the same way. There is only so much talking you can do to someone who refuses to listen, and in those circumstances diplomacy eventually has to be backed up by sanctions. That's what this is, as I see it - sanctions (and publicity) to try and force the KC into proper negotiations, rather than a break off of diplomatic relations and a declaration of open war to seriously damage or destroy the KC as an entity.

[Melp]

Just to answer the question I think Anne asked a few pages back.

DNB have attended Crufts for the last two years. Both years we have been given full access to the Press Office and a table on which to display our literature and press packs.

Last year our leaflets were on every KC stand and we were allowed to distribute them to other stands and individuals.

This year we were given a price for our own stand which we could never have afforded. We still had the press office access but our leaflets were not on the KC stands.

This was because we'd pizzed off the KC by refusing to attend a breed identification course. I imagine that next years we won't even get press office access.

As individuals we don't like Crufts and we don't like breeding. That opinion has never changed but we welcomed the opportunity to get ourselves out there to as many people as possible and having the KC back us publically made a huge difference to our standing as a credible organisation.

[Rudi]

It's not just the fact that bad breeders can register their puppies with the Kennel Club that's at issue. It's the fact that the KC, along with breed councils, sets breed standards which, in some cases, do not encourage dogs that are bred to be healthy. You can't get rid of genetic back problems in long backed dogs or eye problems in pugs etc., etc., unless the standard to which people breed is radically altered, but I don't think you can do that over night. I think encouraging more people to do something physical with their dogs would be a bonus, in some breeds a working qualification would be a bonus before any breeding took place - much like on the continent.

 

I also note that no-one, the RSPCA and Dogs Trust included, is mentioning the loss of good temperament in some breeds which is as much down to bad breeding as anything else. I think having some sort of temperament test for dogs who are to be bred from is as important as having genetic screening for debilitating conditions.

[cycas]

It's more than breeding out health or even temperament problems though surely? Some breeds seem to have been inbred to the point where it seems that the breeders may not be able to 'breed out' a problem because there isn't enough genetic variation within the breed to be able to select for anything else.

 

Even if they were health testing for everything, many issues are not held on a single gene or set of genes, and are likely to recur after several generations even with healthy parents and grandparents, and thus more likely, the more closely related all the animals in that breed are. The whole idea of a concentration of genes, even from a handful of excellent parents is deeply questionable, and to my mind they should be looking at how sustainable a closed studbook really is.

[cenydd]

I think having some sort of temperament test for dogs who are to be bred from is as important as having genetic screening for debilitating conditions.

 

I agree that temperament is also an important issue, but objective testing for it is obviously much more difficult than it is for identifiable medical conditions. It's certainly something which ought to be explored and discussed more as a possibility though. If the breed standards were adjusted to take more account of temperament that would be something.

[reds]

Perhaps the KC might start taking notice now (then again, probably not being as defiant as they are!)

 

http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/851/do...rufts-dog-show/

[Paul]

Having written to Pedigree foods to inform them I will no longer be buying their products due to their continued sponsorship of Crufts I've just had a reply, no surprise in the corporate response but I'll follow it up with a few examples of the health and welfare they wish to maintain.

 

Paul

 

--

 

Dear Paul,

 

Thank you for contacting Pedigree.

 

At PEDIGREE everything we do is for the love of dogs. We constantly work with breeders, owners and industry bodies to continually promote responsible dog ownership and breeding. As a company dedicated to dogs, we would like to see all dogs in good health and enjoying life to the full. We currently have no plans to withdraw our sponsorship of Crufts. We will support all parties to ensure that breeders and show organisers maintain pet health and welfare as their primary concern.

 

If you need any further information or advice please contact our Consumer Careline on the telephone number below and one of our Consumer Care Advisors will be more than happy to help you.

 

Kind regards.

 

 

Gail Jones

Consumer Care Team

[Red Rotties]

Although it is said they cant change things overnight what must be remembered that dogs reproduce very quickly and a few years of good breeding can make a change for the better, in six years with a good breeder you can have three new generations

[DanishPastry]

Just to answer the question I think Anne asked a few pages back.........

 

I did not ask the question Mel, I just stated why I did not think it was necessarily wrong for smaller organisations to attend crufts, to get their message across to most people possible