Crufts and Kennel Club exposed! Dog owners must read.

[wordy]

There isn't of course, but the documentry painted a very one sided view of pedigree dogs and the KC. From what I can remember it made little or no mention to the 100+ healthy dog breeds that have benefitted from having standards, and accreditting breeders who have their dogs hip & eye scored and screened for hereditary dieases to ensure only healthy dogs are bred from.

Who I buy a dog like an Akita from. A guy who's selling them in the local paper for about £400, who knows nothing of his dogs linage, parents health condition & temprament. Or a KC accredited breeder who has their dogs pedigree, knows the temprament their dogs parents, has had the dog screened for Hip/eye problems etc and is selling them for £800? Guess which one I did

 

[KaHn]

Don't believe everything the kennel club tells you, (or rather don't believe anything the kennel club tells you).

Just a few common health problems with common breeds of dogs:


Siberian Husky - Hip Dsyplasia, glaucoma, cataracts


Then of course there's all the problems mentioned in the video with other breeds.

Since when do Sibes get Hip Dsy?

Hip dysplasia is not often found in this breed, though as with many medium or larger-sized canines, it can occur.[10] However, Siberians in general have remarkably good hips. The Orthopedic Foundation for Animals currently has the Siberian Husky ranked 143rd out of a possible 150 breeds at risk for hip dysplasia, with only two percent of tested Siberian Huskies showing dysplasia

KaHn

 

[Sankari]

There isn't of course, but the documentry painted a very one sided view of pedigree dogs and the KC. From what I can remember it made little or no mention about the 100's of healthy dog breeds that have benefitted from having standards, and accreditting breeders who have their dogs hip & eye scored and screened for hereditary dieases to ensure only healthy dogs are bred from.

"The 100s of healthy dog breeds"? The Kennel Club only recognises 210 breeds. According to you, this would mean that ever single breed is healthy - and we know that is simply not the case.

These morons are deliberately breeding deformed animals to meet an artificial aesthetic standard arbitrarily determined by idiotic human beings. The German Shepherds in that first clip couldn't even walk properly. Doesn't that disturb you?

 

[wordy]

"The 100s of healthy dog breeds"? The Kennel Club only recognises 210 breeds. According to you, this would mean that ever single breed is healthy - and we know that is simply not the case.

These morons are deliberately breeding deformed animals to meet an artificial aesthetic standard arbitrarily determined by idiotic human beings. The German Shepherds in that first clip couldn't even walk properly. Doesn't that disturb you?

My mistake, I should've put over 100, I'll correct that.

Yes it does bother me, as I've said breeding to the detriment of a dogs health is inexcusable, I'd think the vast majority of people would agree that. In fact I'd like the footage of the Ridgeback breeder used by the RSCPA as evidence so they can try and get her banned from owning animals.

However there are a large number of healthy breeds that have benefitted by KC standards, pedigree lists and research funding by the KC.

Do you not think it was a biased, one sided peice of journalism?

 

[Sankari]

My mistake, I should've put over 100, I'll correct that.

Yes it does bother me, as I've said breeding to the detriment of a dogs health is inexcusable, I'd think the vast majority of people would agree that. In fact I'd like the footage of the Ridgeback breeder used by the RSCPA as evidence so they can try and get her banned from owning animals.

However there are a large number of healthy breeds that have benefitted by KC standards, pedigree lists and research funding by the KC.

The documentary does not dispute the fact that there are a large number of healthy breeds. However, it does questions the belief that they have benefited from KC standards. KC standards are purely aesthetic. They have no bearing on the health and wellbeing of the animal. How many Rhodesian Ridgebacks have benefited from the KC club's standards? How many Boxers? How many German Shepherds?

What examples can you produce to show that a large number of healthy dog breeds have (somehow) benefited from the arbitrary application of aesthetic standards by an elite dog breeding institution which doesn't even care if showdogs are no longer able to control their back legs properly?

Do you not think it was a biased, one sided peice of journalism?

I haven't finished watching it yet. But since the purpose of the documentary was to expose unethical practices in the pedigree industry, I hardly think that "biased" and "one sided" are appropriate terms. The purpose was clearly stated at the beginning of the documentary, and it was pursued objectively.

Your comment about the documentary being "one sided" presupposes that there is an alternative view which proves that these unethical practices are perfectly legitimate. But I can't see how this is possible. Is there a legitimate side to inbreeding dogs until they are racked with epilepsy and spinal deformities? Is there a legitimate side to inbreeding dogs until their faces are so warped that they can't breathe properly?

What would you like to have seen in the documentary?

 

[wordy]

The documentary does not dispute the fact that there are a large number of healthy breeds. However, it does questions the belief that they have benefited from KC standards. KC standards are purely aesthetic. They have no bearing on the health and wellbeing of the animal. How many Rhodesian Ridgebacks have benefited from the KC club's standards? How many Boxers? How many German Shepherds?

none and again I agree that those have been bred for asthetics to the detriment of the breed, and that is inexcusable.

What examples can you produce to show that a large number of healthy dog breeds have (somehow) benefited from the arbitrary application of aesthetic standards by an elite dog breeding institution which doesn't even care if showdogs are no longer able to control their back legs properly?

I can use my own dog as an example, and I've quoted parts of the standard.The Akita

General Appearance
Large, powerful, alert, with much substance and heavy bone

Neck
Thick and muscular, comparatively short, widening gradually toward shoulders. Pronounced crest blends with back of skull.

Forequarters
Shoulders strong and powerful, moderately laid back. Elbows very tight. Forelegs well boned and straight when viewed from front.

Hindquarters
Strong and muscular with only moderate angulation and turn of stifle. Well developed thighs, strong hocks, well let down turning neither in nor out.

Feet
Thick, well-knuckled, very tight, turning neither in nor out. Pads hard. Nails hard.

Akitas are a big, heavy boned dog, and as such you've expect a frame with a lot of muscle to be able to support it's frame, it stands to reason that a well mucsled dog would be healthier than a skinny dog that doesn't have enough muscle to support it's frame.

I haven't finished watching it yet. But since the purpose of the documentary was to expose unethical practices in the pedigree industry, I hardly think that "biased" and "one sided" are appropriate terms. The purpose was clearly stated at the beginning of the documentary, and it was pursued objectively.

Your comment about the documentary being "one sided" presupposes that there is an alternative view which proves that these unethical practices are perfectly legitimate. But I can't see how this is possible. Is there a legitimate side to inbreeding dogs until they are racked with epilepsy and spinal deformities? Is there a legitimate side to inbreeding dogs until their faces are so warped that they can't breathe properly?

What would you like to have seen in the documentary?

No there isn't but in the documentry they spend a lot of time picking apart the Kennel Club. If they are going to do that then they should be presenting the good that the KC does, but they only show the negative.

I'm of the opinion that journalism should be unbiased, and as such shouldn't have the aim of exposing this, that and the other. If should hightlight the bad and good with pedigree dog breeding as a whole and allow the viewers to make up their own minds.

 

[_dogma_]

I think watching this was really sickening It may not be every dog in every breed but surely these types of problems should be address. Instead they're allowing unhealthy, imbred dogs to enter the showring and win (the Cavalier King Charles with spinella miglia).

It may be biased but I hardly think the KC Chairman helped any with his comments and he just didn't seem to care even when given evidence of the problems that certain breeding practices caused.

He does have the power to change the standards but won't. If breeders were to breed outside of new guidelines they wouldn't be show standard and the animals wouldn't be registered so it would be an incentive to breed healthier dogs.

 

[Sankari]

Notice the way that those two KC representatives couldn't give an answer to the question about whether or not a dog could be allowed to win despite the presence of a congenital disease.

That says it all. They don't care about the health of the animals; they only care about aesthetics.

The whole thing is grossly, criminally unethical and immoral.