Crufts and Kennel Club exposed! Dog owners must read.

[Teki187]

This is mainly for the people who are unaware of the BBC's documentary or who are interested in what has happened after it.

First the BBC documentary about it:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6:

Since that documentary, the kennel club released this response:

The Kennel Club feels that the programme, Pedigree Dogs Exposed (BBC1 19August) missed a real opportunity to progress the cause of dog health. Itappeared to have a very specific agenda repeating prejudices, providing nocontext for the debate, and failing to put forward constructive proposals. It left viewers with the mistaken impression that all pedigree dogs are riddled with a wide range of health problems and that the dog community is doing little or nothing to improve the situation. This is patently not true.

Whilst the Kennel Club was shocked and saddened by the dramatic imagery
used in the programme, and accepts some of the important issues raised, what it does not accept is that these problems apply widely across the 200 plus breeds in the UK. Pedigree Dogs Exposed also failed to show the real progress being made by both the Kennel Club and responsible breeders in improving dog health or to recognise that 90 percent of dogs will not suffer from health problems that have a detrimental impact on the quality of life.

More than that, the programme drew upon a new study on dog genetics by
Imperial College to underline its criticisms of dog breeding, without acknowledging the fact this study was entirely enabled by the Kennel Club as part of its commitment to health research. This research will now provide the Kennel Club with a valuable scientific platform to enlist the support of breeders in tackling key health problems where they occur.

Commenting, Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club spokesperson, said: “In reality the gap between some of the views expressed on the programme and those held by both the Kennel Club and most responsible breeders is very small. Over the last 20years we have been working to develop tests and health screening schemes to identify and eradicate problems, many of which are historic. One example of this is the elimination of canine leucocyte adhesion deficiency (CLAD) in Irish Setters, that caused early death in puppies which was eradicated through the concerted efforts of both the Kennel Club and Irish Setter breeders.

“However, it is important to put this into context. The Kennel Club has no legal standing, unlike some similar bodies in other countries. We have to work on these issues through partnership and persuasion – not coercion. The danger of introducing draconian measures is that some breeders could choose to operate outside the Kennel Club’s jurisdiction; with absolutely no controls. That cannot be the best way forward.

“The programme also made some sweeping, and far from accurate assertions. The Kennel Club refutes that it would put ‘looks’ above the health of pedigree dogs, in fact we actively discourage the exaggeration of features in any breed. The standards have been, and will continue to be amended when necessary to ensure the breeding of healthy, well conformed dogs. Dog show judges are also educated to judge to those standards ensuring that dogs with obvious problems that could affect their quality of life do not win, and that the rewards go to fit, healthy dogs. All of this of course is dependent on the responsibility of breeders and owners – and this is where our efforts must be concentrated.”

“We can state categorically that the majority of pedigree dogs in the UK are healthy. We increasingly have in place checks to monitor health issues going forward. In those few breeds where there are problems, including those highlighted in the programme, we have been and will continue to work with breeders to improve long term health through the development of tests and screening programmes.”

Kennel Club health initiatives include: funding research to identify problems and develop efficient screening for health, such as eye testing and hip scoring; the introduction of the Accredited Breeder Scheme, to act as a ‘kite mark’ for responsible breeders; and most recently the launch of a major campaign which seeks further to promote health improvements across breeds - ‘Fit for function – fit for life’. This, in conjunction with breed clubs, focuses on tackling unnecessary exaggeration in some breeds, whether that is of coat, weight, skin, angulation, eye formation or shortness of muzzle. All dogs should be fit for function, even if that function is to be a pet - all dogs should be able to see, breath and walk freely.

“By their lack of context, programmes such as Pedigree Dogs Exposed, far from helping the situation run the risk of damaging the work already being done. This work will not be carried out by TV production companies – but by the hard work of the Kennel Club and the country’s responsible breeders,” said Caroline Kisko.

In summary, health issues are of primary concern to the Kennel Club but
changes cannot be made overnight. We are working proactively with breeders to make these changes – but we are dealing with the legacy of 100 years. What we need is the support of experts such as those featured in the programme, not their condemnation – support which we have indeed received from a number of respected bodies such as The Animal Health Trust, The Blue Cross and the British Veterinary Association.

Source - http://www.dogsvictoria.org.au/assets/pdf/kc-response-bbc.pdf

The RSPCA seem to be going toe to toe with the kennel club now saying:

The ‘parade of mutants’ comment is Mark’s personal view. The RSPCA is, however, concerned about the unacceptably high levels of disability, deformity and disease affecting pedigree dogs - and this includes animals entered into ‘best of breed’ classes in dog shows like Crufts.

We believe dog shows that are judged only according to breed standards encourage selective breeding for appearance and the intensive breeding of closely related dogs.

The RSPCA isn’t against all dog shows - in fact we want to help ensure a positive future for the pedigree dog by working with everyone involved. We would like to see the emphasis shifted away from appearance, so that health, welfare and temperament are considered first and foremost.

Dog shows have the potential to be incredibly beneficial in terms of promoting dog welfare and are also ideal opportunities for the RSPCA to meet dog owners and breeders, let people know about our work and help spread animal welfare messages about responsible pet ownership.

Source - http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/699/kennel-clubs-dubious-pr-exploits-exposed/

K9 magazine, a very well respected magazine, published a article in 2005 saying "Is Crufts 2006 a Showcase for Pedigree Breeds in Decline?":

These include extremes of size, backs that are too long in proportion to the legs, flattened faces and abnormally short jaws and noses, loose skin and skin folds and bulging eyes. Common diseases pedigree dogs suffer from include: hereditary hip and elbow dysplasia (e.g. German Shepherd Dog, Golden Retriever); inherited eye diseases (e.g. Pekinese, Basset Hound); heart and respiratory disease (e.g. Pug, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel); breed-related skin diseases (e.g. West Highland White Terrier, Cocker Spaniel); inherited skeletal problems of small and long-backed breeds (e.g. Dachund, Chihuahua); bone tumours in large and giant dog breeds (e.g. Rottweiler, Great Dane); and hereditary deafness (e.g. Doberman, Border Collie).

Following on from the documentary the following companies have stopped sponsoring the show:

Pedigree - http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/2118/23/5/3
Hills - http://www.dognews.co.uk/hills-latest-company-to-withdraw-from-crufts/
RSPCA - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4761471.ece
BBC - http://www.dfordog.com/events_2008_bbc_crufts.htm
Dogs Trust - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crufts#Criticism
100's of smaller companies have also reduced stand sizes.

The 27th of February 2009 Times ran this article:

The day after Pedigree Dogs Exposed was broadcast last August, I received an e-mail from a senior official at the Kennel Club. It read: “I just hope you will sleep soundly knowing that you have done nothing to progress the health of dogs.” Others accused us of sensationalism and bias. “Here’s a noose . . . go hang yourself,” wrote one German shepherd breeder on a forum. “If I ever meet you, I will shoot you,” wrote another.

Some people accused of us of withholding medication so that the epileptic boxer dog featured in the film would have seizures on cue for the camera. Yet we also received hundreds of phone calls, letters and e-mails of support, including many from individuals involved with the pedigree dog show world. They felt that the film was badly needed and would be a catalyst for change.

Pedigree Dogs Exposed was not an easy film to make and one of the biggest hurdles was persuading people to speak out. Much of the media coverage since then has been critical of the Kennel Club, which in turn criticised the “journalist mafia”. But the public simply recognises the truth of the film’s central claims — that inbreeding and breeding for beauty was damaging the dogs, and not enough was being done to address it. The question is, can you really teach an old dog new tricks?

There are signs that the Kennel Club is resistant to reform. In an interview with Dog World two weeks ago its secretary, Caroline Kisko, divulged that the organisation had banned canine mother and son, and brother and sister, matings “for PR reasons”. The truth is that the Kennel Club continues to dispute that the mating of close relatives is a problem, despite scientific evidence.

It has postponed plans for tackling the critical issue of genetic diversity. The Kennel Club has claimed recently that it is working with Imperial College London to address the issue. But Imperial College researchers confirmed this week that they have not heard from the Kennel Club since last September. It was also surprising to see a recent Kennel Club press release citing the support of Roger Mugford, an animal behaviourist. In it, Dr Mugford claims that selection for the show-ring has resulted in a marked improvement in the temperament of pedigree dogs. But he can produce no data to support this. The truth is that there is no scientific evidence to suggest this is the case. Equally, there have been some encouraging signs from the Kennel Club’s headquarters in Central London. It has stepped up training for judges — and bravely taken on some of the breeding clubs that are resisting change.

So which is it to be? The Kennel Club that still resists mandatory health testing for dogs, and frets about the “outside interference that plagues us” (as Ronnie Irving, the chairman, wrote recently)? Or one that recognises that everyone who cares for pedigree dogs has a right to a view on how we safeguard their future?

The greatest dog show on earth is not taking place at the NEC next week but on our farms, our streets and in our homes. It can be seen in the border collie’s exquisite skill at moving sheep, in how a German shepherd helps to police a riot and in the way a cavalier King Charles spaniel curls up in the crook of your arm and chases away loneliness. This is the true beauty of pedigree dogs. And it cannot be judged in a ring at Crufts.

Source - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5817598.ece

So this years crufts is going ahead as normal. What do you think about the dog shows?

Are they a stage for "freak" dogs or should we be breeding dogs to the standards which cause poor health?

 

[JBuk]

Can you summarise in a few sentences?

 

[Teki187]

Can you summarise in a few sentences?

Without using a biased opinion no.

 

[Cosimo]

Can you summarise in a few sentences?

Three to be precise.

 

[semi-pro waster]

So this years crufts is going ahead as normal. What do you think about the dog shows?

I think of dog shows in much the same way I think of academic politics, namely that of Sayre's Law - to paraphrase "they're vicious precisely because the stakes are so low". I've watched Crufts before but I really only ever enjoyed the obstacle courses that some of the dogs run because you can see the dog enjoying the challenge often, however I've got very little time for the parading of dogs that goes on.

Are they a stage for "freak" dogs or should we be breeding dogs to the standards which cause poor health?

Pedigree dogs aren't inherantly bad but some of the more exacting (and even arbitrary) standards that are applied are. I'd always prefer a healthy dog over one that conformed to whatever is viewed as the 'correct' standard by the breeders association.

 

[Teki187]

I'd always prefer a healthy dog over one that conformed to whatever is viewed as the 'correct' standard by the breeders association.

I agree with you there. I'll always get my dogs from working owners.

It looks like quite a lot of the "famous" breeders are now unregistering with the UK kennel club and in fact registering with the American one, as that is based more around the dogs ability to perform its duty.

 

[Energize]

Some of the people in those videos make you want to throw up. And parliment does nothing as usual, (probably because as the video shows half the people in parliment own these dogs), corruption as usual.

 

[Cosimo]

Some of the people in those videos make you want to throw up.

Why is that?

 

[Energize]

Why is that?

Because they have no regard for the dogs at all.

 

[cheets64]

I cant understand how someone can love a dog yet bread it so its life is plagued with illness and pain and probably premature death.

sick *******.

Whats worst is that they do if for show.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Thread reminds me of "Best in Show"

No, that's a bear in a, in a bee costume.

Just trying to add a little humour to a very depressing thread

 

[yermum]

I love watching dogs go through their paces in the agility and obedience classes, but the 'show' aspect is gross. The constant preening, brushing and grooming is not what dogs are about. Mind you, the dancing dogs make me feel really grossed out too. Not the dogs - the owners!

 

[Flying Gribble]

I think that programme was extremely biased and sensationalistic and picked on a few obvious health issues with some breeds whilst ignoring the healthy majority.

I don't show, but do own a healthy pedigree dog, and for many years the breed club has been subsidising health tests for the only common inherited condition in the breed. As a result, all of the current top breeders publish their health test results and only breed from clear lines. I understand, and agree with the revulsion of some of the situations shown in the programme, but it's plain wrong to slap the "freak" label on all pedigree dogs, breeds and breeders. That's like looking at a video of the KKK and labelling all white folk as violent, rascist thugs.

 

[Energize]

I think that programme was extremely biased and sensationalistic and picked on a few obvious health issues with some breeds whilst ignoring the healthy majority.

Some breeds? There's a huge amount with health problems. The whole point of the program was to expose bad practises so they're hardly going to look at the healthy breeds are they?

but it's plain wrong to slap the "freak" label on all pedigree dogs, breeds and breeders. That's like looking at a video of the KKK and labelling all white folk as violent, rascist thugs.

Who's doing that? No one as far as I can see.

 

[V4NT0M]

Can you summarise in a few sentences?

I haven't watched much of it at the moment, but the gist of it seems to be that selectively breeding dogs from limited lineage increases the risk of genetic disorders.

The same reason it is not generally advised to have babies with direct relatives.

 

[Flying Gribble]

Some breeds? There's a huge amount with health problems.

Rubbish. There are 210 breeds that the Kennel club recognises. Perhaps a dozen had major, prevalent, health problems that caused large scale revision of the standards recently. The majority of breeds needed no change, and of those changes that did occur the majority were just a word or two. My own breed had a single word added, in an area that has no relevance to either the dogs health or likelihood of winning at show.

Who's doing that? No one as far as I can see.

The RSPCA guy called it "a parade of mutants", and the general tone of the media is along those lines.

 

[V4NT0M]

It is obvious to anyone that those German shepherds in the first video are not walking as nature intended and for those to be in the show/winning it says something overall.

 

[Flying Gribble]

I agree. It was a show in Germany if I recall correctly.

Edit: Just re-looked at the video to refresh my memory and saw that it went to crufts afterwards. My point still stands though - don't tar all breeds with the same brush.

 

[V4NT0M]

OMG!

I'm just watching part 2, did I hear that woman saying that she had to go to a vet she had known for years to put the "healthy beautiful puppy" (ridgeback) down because it didn't have a ridge and the "young vet" wouldn't put it down. Does she even know what she is saying!!

And then she tries to justify saying that by saying "i'd rather that than it end up with the fighting people" omg what are you on?!

And I'm not an animal lover at all.

 

[Teki187]

OMG!

I'm just watching part 2, did I hear that woman saying that she had to go to a vet she had known for years to put the "healthy beautiful puppy" (ridgeback) down because it didn't have a ridge and the "young vet" wouldn't put it down. Does she even know what she is saying!!

And then she tries to justify saying that by saying "i'd rather that than it end up with the fighting people" omg what are you on?!

And I'm not an animal lover at all.

Got to love there claims that a ridgeback is meant to have a ridge.