BillyMalc Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 It shouldn't need to be legislated. If someone takes the decision to create new lives that are dependent on them for their health and welfare, any decent human being should take the responsibility to do this in a manner conducive to the best interests of those lives. Many do not do this and their representative body, the Kennel Club, do nothing to enforce this basic humane criteria on their membership. This means that basically the governing body of the Kennel Club are just as much responsible for the misery that some dogs are having to endure as any back yard breeder or puppy farmer and should be equally despised. Excellent post!! :flowers: Absolutely! I reckon the power of advertising (Glitz n Glam etc) will counter any bad press and Crufts and Discover Dogs will be just as busy and successful for the Kennel Club as ever. But at least a great part of the general public cannot pretend that they've never heard any of it, due to the publicity this is getting, plus the RSPCA and Dogs Trust will now not be sponsoring the KC by paying out thousands of pounds for a stall. As an organisation which is there to support dog/animal welfare I'd also rather not give the impression that I'd support the KC - and therefore condone its practices - by being represented at one of their events. They might have known about this for a long time, but taking a stand at last is, IMHO, better than saying nothing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BilRed Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 How many of you have actually read a breed standard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeadyP Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 According to the KC club website today they have lodged a complaint against the BBC programme, and they are reviewing the contract with the BBC. Do you think they are going to try and get in first with a split with the BBC? The KC whines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greys mum Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 Kennel club to lodge a complaint.KC complaint. Call me cynical if you like, but why didn't they lodge a complaint before? The programme was quite some time ago. It seems it wasn't until the RSPCA and DT withdrew they thought about conplaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Bones Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 How many of you have actually read a breed standard? Me My point is the KC can't enforce anything, humane or otherwise - they can only offer guidance. They need to certainly remove those judges who don't judge to the correct (and in my view in some cases wrong) standards and introduce better and more comprehensive standards involving health/temperament issues. They can't be accussed of having anything that is a money making enterprise because the whole organisation is a not for profit organisation - there simply isn't any point in earning more money so I feel that argument totally void. The RSPCA on the other hand CAN enforce, if the law so allows (which is doesn't, and it should). If all this, working together, happens, then i think bad breeding will be weeded out. It still won't stop puppy farming though, and the RSPCA have to take a stand on that, somehow, for without the outlawing of that, terrible, not just bad, breeding will continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celeste Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 RSPCA – 'There are unacceptably high levels of disability, deformity and disease that threaten pedigree dogs." The Kennel Club ran a health survey looking at pedigree health, the largest of its kind in the world. It has been found that 90 percent of pedigree dogs will not suffer from health problems that will have a detrimental effect on their quality of life, based on an analysis of the Breed Health Survey, carried out by in 2004 by the Kennel Club and the Animal Health Trust. This is to date the largest dog health survey of its kind in the world. Of course, there are some dogs which suffer from some diseases but the Kennel Club is working hard to help eliminate these conditions and to ensure that ALL dogs have the opportunity to lead healthy lives. For more information about the work that the Kennel Club has done in the area of pedigree health visit www.doggenetichealth.org Dogs shows using current breed standards encourage the intentional breeding of deformed and disabled dogs and the inbreeding of closely related animals. Dog shows are fundamentally designed to reward those dogs that meet a particular breed standard, which is the blueprint for a healthy dog. The Kennel Club is continually working to ensure that this objective is achieved by regularly reviewing breed standards and ensuring that judges are educated so that dogs displaying visible health problems will not win at dog shows. For further information about the work of the Kennel Club and to find out more about the issue of pedigree health visit www.doggenetichealth.org. Date: 15-Sep-08 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Bones Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 Call me cynical if you like, but why didn't they lodge a complaint before? The programme was quite some time ago. It seems it wasn't until the RSPCA and DT withdrew they thought about conplaining. 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 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 And turning that on it's head. supposing, just supposing... that statement is actually correct? Why are you assuming you're being lied to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maria Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 It shouldn't need to be legislated. If someone takes the decision to create new lives that are dependent on them for their health and welfare, any decent human being should take the responsibility to do this in a manner conducive to the best interests of those lives. Many do not do this and their representative body, the Kennel Club, do nothing to enforce this basic humane criteria on their membership. This means that basically the governing body of the Kennel Club are just as much responsible for the misery that some dogs are having to endure as any back yard breeder or puppy farmer and should be equally despised. Completely agree - great post. Those of us who have been aware for a while of the shortcomings of the KC / showing world, and who have therefore boycotted Crufts / KC 'products' for years, are over the moon that at last larger organisations are taking a stand. Badly bred, mistreated and 'commodity' show dogs have not had a voice until now. Meanwhile the KC buries it's head in the sand and just complains everyone is being mean.........when it has been in their power for the last 100 years to do good, they chose money and misery over welfare. Until they come out from their position of denial and actually do something positive /worthwhile , Imho they should be boycotted by anyone who cares about the welfare of our canine companions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Bones Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 , they chose money and misery over welfare. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katiebob Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 In support of someone's post, possibly SB's, the reason we've got puppy farming is due to excessive legislation - farmers were told to diversify by ?? DEFRA I believe. Sometimes too much legislation is a bad thing. Now it's started, it seems no-one can stop it. In some ways, rescue is helping it by rehoming dogs that puppy farmers can't themselves sell. I've not got a sensible answer for that one so I won't try. 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. Sorry, neither point is particularly relevant to the original topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reds Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 To be fair SB that is hard to swallow. They boast about the tens of thousands of labradors registered with them every year (don't forget they get a fee for each registration). Where do they talk about getting those lab's hip scored or any other health test for that matter. The same goes for all breeds; each registration is great to them and they see the figures as a sign of success. Their responsible breeder scheme incurs a fee payable to them too. If they were really that concerned with welfare then they would never quote the huge figures as something to be proud of, at least not without mentioning health testing and how all of those dogs had been bred. The bad breeders are still with the KC, even those 'exposed' by the programme (and regardless of the programme's faults, there was no denial of foul play) have not been disciplined as far as anyone is aware. Instead it is the people speaking out pro welfare and testing that are getting bullied and petitions put together to force them out of breed clubs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Rotties Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 (edited) a old family friend of mum and dads bred and showed old english sheepdogs for many years then went on to judge the breed. She wasnt well liked as a judge because her favourite thing was to judge outside and get the coats moving in the wind, that way she could see if anything was wrong with the shape or movement of the dog, so not all judges are the same either Edited September 16, 2008 by Red Rotties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reds Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 I would love to see the reseach materials they used to get those statistics, what ages were the dogs? did they go by owner self-reporting as opposed to diagnostic medical tests? Did they repeat the survey months/years later to see if those same owners went on to experience health problems with their pets? What did they classify as a health problem? I can imagine endless flaws in their tools and hence analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Bones Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 To be fair SB that is hard to swallow. They boast about the tens of thousands of labradors registered with them every year (don't forget they get a fee for each registration). Where do they talk about getting those lab's hip scored or any other health test for that matter. The same goes for all breeds; each registration is great to them and they see the figures as a sign of success. Their responsible breeder scheme incurs a fee payable to them too. If they were really that concerned with welfare then they would never quote the huge figures as something to be proud of, at least not without mentioning health testing and how all of those dogs had been bred. The bad breeders are still with the KC, even those 'exposed' by the programme (and regardless of the programme's faults, there was no denial of foul play) have not been disciplined as far as anyone is aware. Instead it is the people speaking out pro welfare and testing that are getting bullied and petitions put together to force them out of breed clubs... I've already said that health tests need to be brought in, i've never claimed anywhere here that current breed standards are acceptable - I don't think they are - what I do think is that the RSPCA need to be involved in the change to bring in those more stringent rules and to enforce them (via law). You are making gross generalisations. I know no reputable breeder (and i don't know many at all) who makes money out of showing or breeding. Those who do are puppy farmers. As i keep on saying, the issue of fees to the KC is irrelevant - it doesn't matter how much money they make they cannot make profit, they aren't allowed. If those bad breeders are still with the KC (i have no reason to know either way, and I doubt anyone else does) then they should be removed, i'm completley in agreement with that. I only see the KC being bullied here, not the other way round - they're standing up and saying they want change, yet those who could help are walking away when they're crucially needed and required by all. I'm also pro welfare, I'm not feeling bullied, and if my opinion is considered bullying, well i'm shocked. How come then if they don't like the petitions they are getting against them, they are happy to publish the KC complaints line and also start up the many online petitions that are now up and running against the KC? It's all about cooperation, not about fighting each other. One can't complain that things aren't fair if they don't like the exact same thing that they too are doing.... I would love to see the reseach materials they used to get those statistics, what ages were the dogs? did they go by owner self-reporting as opposed to diagnostic medical tests? Did they repeat the survey months/years later to see if those same owners went on to experience health problems with their pets? What did they classify as a health problem? I can imagine endless flaws in their tools and hence analysis. http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/549 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celeste Posted September 16, 2008 Report Share Posted September 16, 2008 And turning that on it's head. supposing, just supposing... that statement is actually correct? Why are you assuming you're being lied to? Because I'm a born cynic Also because I can't imagine for a second that every owner of registered pedigree dogs were asked, I have two, nobody asked me, between family and friends there's another 15, they weren't asked. Going by other data that the KC have collected I would guess that questionnaires were sent round some breed clubs and the members were free to fill one in if the chose too, which to my mind isn't an accurate picture of pedigree health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts