I know this is a few years old now but appears still so relevant .... please watch

[Archiesmummy]

As a dog lover and someone who always thought the KC were a worthy name behind any dog breeder, having spoken to dog breeders this very week who appear to have no scruples at all when it comes to breeding their dogs and having watched the following, my opinion of the KC and many, not all, dog breeders has gone from admired to one of disgust.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZMegQH1SPg

There surely must be a change in the policing of dog breeding, bringing in stringent testing, and if an institution such as the KC associate themselves and condone the unethical breeding of, quite frankly, mutant dogs (in the words of vet Mark Evans) then they are nothing more than a disgrace to the dog world and I would rather any dog of mine not be associated to them.

Having spoken to unethical breeders only this week and having confirmation on another thread of mine the KC are as much use as a chocolate teapot, nothing appears to have changed much. Or has it? Please enlighten me.

 

[s4sugar]

This was shown on the BBC but not made by the BBC and court cases proved that the interviews were altered and the sick dogs used were not from ethical breeders.
The statistics were incorrect and this film put a lot of money in the pockets of backyard breeders, mutt breeders & puppy farms.

Trouble is Joe Public believed it; just like they believe their pet is the perfect dog to breed from and crossing two breeds guarantees you'll get the best of best breeds.

Sensationalism with an agenda -anti pedigree dogs however healthy and backed by animal rights rather than animal welfare.

 

[AprilBlue]

i know i don't know much about dogs but i just had to close the link down when at the start it showed that boxer. it looked in soo much pain and i can't believe people are breeding these dogs with the knowledge that in later life for the dogs, things like these will happen because of the genes.

 

[Archiesmummy]

This was shown on the BBC but not made by the BBC and court cases proved that the interviews were altered and the sick dogs used were not from ethical breeders.
The statistics were incorrect and this film put a lot of money in the pockets of backyard breeders, mutt breeders & puppy farms.

Trouble is Joe Public believed it; just like they believe their pet is the perfect dog to breed from and crossing two breeds guarantees you'll get the best of best breeds.

Sensationalism with an agenda -anti pedigree dogs however healthy and backed by animal rights rather than animal welfare.

Looking at the film and speaking to KC AB breeders very recently who bleet on about the KC and how they have to meet this criteria, etc, the film rings very true, IMO. I posted because I felt it very relevant to my experience. I wanted a true pedigree. I looked at KC registered breeders. The two, three, four I spoke to were all but crooks, IMO and the dogs breed and welfare where not at the forefront of their agenda. KC unethical breeders.

Any breeding should be licenced with regular checks. Those who truly care about their breeds will abide and do all they can. Call it separating the wheat from the chaff.

Okay, there are those who have an odd litter, hobby breeders who are neither in it for the money nor to enhance a particular breed but for people who consistently breed there needs to be stricter policing.

 

[{97702}]

This was shown on the BBC but not made by the BBC and court cases proved that the interviews were altered and the sick dogs used were not from ethical breeders.
The statistics were incorrect and this film put a lot of money in the pockets of backyard breeders, mutt breeders & puppy farms.

Trouble is Joe Public believed it; just like they believe their pet is the perfect dog to breed from and crossing two breeds guarantees you'll get the best of best breeds.

Sensationalism with an agenda -anti pedigree dogs however healthy and backed by animal rights rather than animal welfare.

Thank you S4ugar you have eloquently put into words exactly what I think of this sensationalist load of gutter press journalism

 

[MurphysMinder]

As s4s says, some of the images shown on that programme were to put it mildly less than accurate. For eg one of the shots of a gsd moving was in a veteran class (a class for old dogs) so the dog wasn't as strong on his hind legs as he no doubt was as a young dog. I know one of the judges whose interview was shown on the programme, his interview was cleverly edited to totally distort what he said. Yes there are some things in dog breeding and showing that need changing, but all this programme did was scare people into supporting the puppy farmers and bybs and their designer crossbreeds.

 

[Archiesmummy]

I have not been scared into supporting puppy farmers not supporting designer crossbreeds.

Doing my research I have come across very unscrupulous KC registered breeders. The programme highlighted a problem that my research supports. There are many KC registered breeders, puppy farmers by any other name, who do not care about the dogs they breed from nor the puppies they breed.

May I say I am fully aware not all KC breeders are like this but even one is one too many.

As for designer cross breeds, a cross breed will never be a pedigree. If people wish to pay extortionate amounts for a cross breed that appeals to them who are we to judge.

My annoyance is that the KC appear to put their weight behind unscrupulous pedigree breeders, puppy farms, call them what you will, who breed dogs of poor quality and many with health problems and appear to have no policing in place to ensure puppies are of a good quality and with minimal health risks. They must do, the give them KC registration and then don't do any checks. There surely should be a policy of minimum tests at least.

Cavecanem on here mentioned in one of my posts the stringent testing required and papers, etc. and it wasn't across the whole canine fraternity, it was for just one breed group. A few lessons could be learned, I believe, from our German? counterparts?

I posted this video as it appeared to have relevance to my recent experience. It was not the interviews that particularly hit a chord, it was the bad apples within the KC dog fraternity who did, those who trade on the KC name without an ounce of feelings for the dogs they breed.

 

[CorvusCorax]

Agree with S4S, PN and MM (for a change )

I have no agenda. I do not breed. My dog is not at stud. Neither of my dogs is registered to the Kennel Club. I compete without of Kennel Club rules/regulations.

The programme was inaccurate, very selectively edited, twisted the words of contributors and sent droves into the arms of puppy farmers and designer dog breeders, producing 'healthy' crossbreeds from parents with no health tests.

Jemima Harrison has been posting on another forum I frequent and she really does herself no favours.
The GSD fraternity has been campaigning for DECADES for more stringent health tests, they have been self-regulating for YEARS and a hard core have now gone outside KC rules and is running shows under German regulations which puts health and workability before basic conformation - but where was that in the programme?
Oh yeah, nowhere, better to show footage of an eight year old on a slippy green carpet and pass it off as an adult dog and suddenly people who know nothing about my breed are telling me they are all 'deformed' and 'crippled' on the strength of a few minutes of footage.

The amount of people who have watched this programme and decided they are now self-appointed experts on all matters dog breeding has staggered me - it's like me watching an episode of The Sky at Night and declaring myself an astronomer. It's terrifying how easily people swallow what they see on TV.
It's done far, far more harm than good in my opinions.

 

[Archiesmummy]

Sorry, the video was about Pedigrees. My grievance is not the pedigree breeders but the KC policing policies, or lack of.

Newby trying to learn and getting ahead of herself x

 

[CorvusCorax]

No, it's good to ask questions!!! It's just that Jemima Harrison has done a great deal of damage to the reputation of the breed I love, hence me getting a bit ranty x

 

[howsthat]

Would just like to know how the original poster got in touch with the "unscrupulous" breeders? Did you contact a breed club,as they are normally very informative and generally only recomend breeders that test for any hereditary defects that are applicable to that breed.Also did you contact any KC Accredited breeders who have to adhere to quite strict
conditions.Have you researched the breed(s) you are interested in so that you can ask the appropriate questions when you contact a breeder?

 

[milor]

KC registration is simply a record of ancestry for pedigree dogs - there is some talk about making health testing etc mandatory before allowing registration and I do believe this will come but it's really important that we have as complete a record of the dogs behind the ones used for breeding in order to track the health of a particular line etc - this is becoming even more important with new initiatives such as Mate Select which helps breeders calculate the co efficient of inbreeding for proposed litters

http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/mateselect/inbreed/Default.aspx

the KC system is the most complete and most comprehensive system available.

As for the programme you've linked to - well words fail me, as others have pointed out not only was it untruthful and sensationalistic but tell me why it focused ONLY on show breeders when they make up only a tiny fraction of all those producing dogs - here are some figures to get things in perspective for you;

40% of all dogs born are KC registered ( which means the majority are not )
of that 40 % only 2 % are ever shown - yep that's 2% - yet it's this miniscule percentage of dog breeders that the programme went gunning for

here are some other facts

it's this same tiny percentage of breeders that health test, that fund research, that import new lines to widen gene pools, that issue contracts undertaking to take back dogs they've bred, that sit on health committees , that help with specific breed rescue and that join quality assurance schemes such as the ABS.

In fact the overwhelming majority of dogs bought are bred in appalling conditions in puppy farms or in stinking hell holes by BYB's -- some of the dogs shown on the programme came from Puppy Farms ( such as the epileptic Boxer ) yet was this ever mentioned ? - no the blame was laid squarely at the feet of the show world - driving puppy buyers away from the one sector of dog breeder that mostly do it right straight into the arms of those that could'nt give a flying ferret about the health and welfare of their dogs and of course supported all those designer dog breeders who claimed the moral high ground in their adverts for Poo cross breeds !

Shame on the BBC for ever screening such a piece of journalistic rubbish and shame on you for believing and perpetuating it's lies !

 

[galaxy]

Op maybe there is a problem in the actual breed of dog that you were ringing about (chis as I recall) to give you such a bad impression? They are quite overbred as they are a fashionable breed owned by quite a few who do not give them a life a dog should have and therefore would attract a not so great breeder.

Certainly within a few of the gundog breeds that I have met breeders of, the breeders have been nothing but exemplary. They are all accredited kc breeders with excellent health tests who breed from good dogs with good results.

That program did not give the full picture and the kc did make changes afterwards towards making health tests more important.

 

[Dry Rot]

Milor said, "In fact the overwhelming majority of dogs bought are bred in appalling conditions in puppy farms or in stinking hell holes by BYB's -- some of the dogs shown on the programme came from Puppy Farms ( such as the epileptic Boxer ) yet was this ever mentioned ?"

If you have evidence of this, I hope you have reported it. If not, and you haven't, isn't it your statement that is sensationalising?

One of the fundamental principles of journalism is that the reader (or, in this case, the viewer) has a right of reply. If Jemima Harrison's video was so far from the truth, how is it that those who are offended have not made their own video exposing the "lies"? The show world seems to have no shortage of money to fund all that research into breeding and dog diseases so it can't be poverty that is holding it back.

I do not agree with the video's main theme that inbreeding is the cause of all ills. There are plenty of examples of successful inbreeding and it is a tool that has been used by all the great livestock improvers. What I do object to is the KC's attitude to pure breeding and pedigrees and the public's reaction was entirely predictable. Breed a Labrador with hip displaysia with a GSD with the same disease and it is likely you will breed a litter of muts with a high incidence of hip problems.

The International Sheep Dog Society (ISDS) used to have a policy of accepting dogs, often of unknown pedigree, for registration on merit. I believe that is the way to go. The KC, on the other hand, seems quite happy to allow the regulations for field trials and working tests to be manipulated by the clubs to make it easier for show dogs to win. I predicted that that would gradually lead to the destruction of pedigree working dogs twenty years ago and, sadly, I have been proved right. But I suppose it depends on your standards.

 

[Archiesmummy]

Shame on the BBC for ever screening such a piece of journalistic rubbish and shame on you for believing and perpetuating it's lies !

No need to say I am shameful, thank you very much. Constructive critisism I welcome but to get personal, thats not very nice.

I am new to all this and my passion sometimes clouds my judgement. Thats why I post, to get a perspective. Not be insulted. And no need for exclamation marks after either.

Also, I don't believe the show was just about show breeders, what about the pet homes shown, the boxers for example.

 

[Archiesmummy]

Dry Rot, an informative post that helps me, amongst others, thank you x

 

[s4sugar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrWjVFKuAg8&list=SPFECBFF99679A9F9D&index=3

 

[Crugeran Celt]

As s4s says, some of the images shown on that programme were to put it mildly less than accurate. For eg one of the shots of a gsd moving was in a veteran class (a class for old dogs) so the dog wasn't as strong on his hind legs as he no doubt was as a young dog. I know one of the judges whose interview was shown on the programme, his interview was cleverly edited to totally distort what he said. Yes there are some things in dog breeding and showing that need changing, but all this programme did was scare people into supporting the puppy farmers and bybs and their designer crossbreeds.

It appeared to me that the dog had a weakness in the back legs due to the stance and shape of the dog's spine and back legs regardless of age there is something wrong with the overall shape of german shepherds. As a child we had this breed and they were upright. One we had until he was 15 years old and no problems with weakness in his back legs. A relative of mine has also had 3 cavaliars and all have had major health problems and all from different breeding lines. I have no idea how accurate the programme was but there can be no doubt that there are problems with some pedigree dogs and these problems are getting more common. I do wonder if this is why the 'designer' crosses are becoming more popular as breeders realise they have a problem so are cross breeding in the hope to eradicate the inherited health issues they see in their dogs. Surely something needs to be done and I was amazed by the attitude of the breeders who were 'upset' that the winning cavalier's owner had been questioned about the dog's health. Surely you would think that they would want to know in order that they didn't breed from that dog themselves and it certainly shouldn't have been allowed to compete let alone win!!

 

[{97702}]

Surely something needs to be done and I was amazed by the attitude of the breeders who were 'upset' that the winning cavalier's owner had been questioned about the dog's health. Surely you would think that they would want to know in order that they didn't breed from that dog themselves and it certainly shouldn't have been allowed to compete let alone win!!

As has already been pointed out, the interviews on this programme were carefully edited to represent a situation that did not actually happen.....this was the case with interviews with prominent CKCS breeders, as subsequent court cases clearly established.

 

[Dry Rot]

As has already been pointed out, the interviews on this programme were carefully edited to represent a situation that did not actually happen.....this was the case with interviews with prominent CKCS breeders, as subsequent court cases clearly established.

They can do wonders with video these days but I didn't know you could actually film something that doesn't exist. That is quite something!

Do you have any links to reports of that court case as I would like to learn more?

 

[Crugeran Celt]

As has already been pointed out, the interviews on this programme were carefully edited to represent a situation that did not actually happen.....this was the case with interviews with prominent CKCS breeders, as subsequent court cases clearly established.

As I said regardless of how realistic the interviewing came across it does not take away the fact that some breeds are in trouble health wise. It also does not take away the fact that all the german shepherds shown were weak in the back end. Also as I said had this breed myself as a child and they did not have this problem at all, I am in my late forties so it hasn't taken that long to create this problem in the breed. No body I don't care how much breed knowledge you have can justify that some breeders are breeding inherited problems just to make the dog look right regardless of the health of the dog, it is wrong there can be no other opinion on that and there are problems that cannot be ignored either. I am sure there are very reputable breeders out there but there are also those whose search for what they think is perfection is clouding their judgment. I know of a lady who takes in rescued pugs, every dog she has had has been given up due to the owner being unable to cover the extensive vet fees needed due to inherited problems. Something wrong there you must agree.

 

[Crugeran Celt]

As has already been pointed out, the interviews on this programme were carefully edited to represent a situation that did not actually happen.....this was the case with interviews with prominent CKCS breeders, as subsequent court cases clearly established.

Am I also to assume from you that the cavaliar in question did not have the inherited brain condition?

 

[MurphysMinder]

Crugeran colt,show winning GSDs 40 years ago were far longer in the back than those nowadays, and certainly less capable of doing the job they were bred for. This is a top winner of the day, not exactly upright is he.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=ta...w=169&start=0&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:85


I would not argue with you that some breeders, in all breeds, are breeding problems, but far more imho are trying to improve the breed.

 

[s4sugar]

That CKCS had a not quite perfect MRI scan and was being carefully used on selected bitches with perfect MRI scans to preserve bloodlines (all done under the scrutiny of the breed club & RVC ) Progeny were being tested (@ nearly a grand a time) as part of the research into the condition.
Having a microphone shoved in your face when you are busy does not help anyone make a statement -less so when the questions and answers get edited.
http://www.thecavalierclub.co.uk/start.html shows the club being open about scanning.

On the other hand you get the puppy farmers churning out pups from untested stock who can honestly state they have never had a dog fail a test. Hard to fail when not been tested.

CKCS are not the only breed with syringomyelia and some other breeds it is seen in are the ones that are often crossed with untested Cavs to produce designer mutts - often citing the programme as the reason for doing the cross breeding.

 

[Crugeran Celt]

Not sure about showing German Shepherds 40 years ago but can only go by the ones we owned and none of them had a sloping back end and legs that wobbled and buckled under them. I really do not know much about dog breeding at all but I do know plenty of people who have pedigree dogs with major health issues and their vets have informed them that these issues are probably inherited. I have a very healthy pedigree springer and I know plenty of people with very healthy pedigree dogs but it does seem that there is a problem with some breeders that needs to be addressed.

 

[MurphysMinder]

As I have already said there is no doubt there are dogs with health issues, and some breeders don't care at all and keep churning out pups from unhealth stock. Puppy buyers do need to be educated as to where to go for a healthy pup, and the KC could do a hell of a lot more to improve this situation. However, this programme didn't help at all in my opinion.

 

[Dobiegirl]

The onus is very much on the puppy buyer, they need to thoroughly research their breed and breeders. In the Lancashire Heeler for example there are pups advertised on Preloved without any health tests and they are charging more than responsible bred health tested ones. If people stopped buying from these irresponsible breeders they would soon clean up their act. As this has been mentioned many times in the past people spend more time reseraching the purchase of a new cooker or fridge than they do before buying a puppy.

 

[Crugeran Celt]

That CKCS had a not quite perfect MRI scan and was being carefully used on selected bitches with perfect MRI scans to preserve bloodlines (all done under the scrutiny of the breed club & RVC ) Progeny were being tested (@ nearly a grand a time) as part of the research into the condition.
I don't think this is good enough, the dog surely should not have been bred from at all. If any of the off spring have a problem what is done with them? Also how is this dog with a health issue allowed to be entered into a show and win best in show with a health problem that can be inherited? Would the owner of this dog ensure that any bitch he is bred with has had all medical checks done and would she be up front about this dog's scans? I realise that the programme could be manipulated to make it look bad on the breeders but that does not take away the fact that at the end the breeders were more upset that the owner of the cav had been approached about his health issues than about the health issues themselves.

 

[{97702}]

That CKCS had a not quite perfect MRI scan and was being carefully used on selected bitches with perfect MRI scans to preserve bloodlines (all done under the scrutiny of the breed club & RVC ) Progeny were being tested (@ nearly a grand a time) as part of the research into the condition.
I don't think this is good enough, the dog surely should not have been bred from at all. If any of the off spring have a problem what is done with them? Also how is this dog with a health issue allowed to be entered into a show and win best in show with a health problem that can be inherited? Would the owner of this dog ensure that any bitch he is bred with has had all medical checks done and would she be up front about this dog's scans? I realise that the programme could be manipulated to make it look bad on the breeders but that does not take away the fact that at the end the breeders were more upset that the owner of the cav had been approached about his health issues than about the health issues themselves.

I fail to see what relevance there is in the fact that the dog was still being shown (and winning) A dog show is an assessment of which dog, on the day, most closely matches the breed standard in the opinion of the judge. Why does that have any bearing on any medical condition the dog may be suffering from

Yes, it was widely known in the CKCS showing world about the MRI scan results well before this ridiculous programme was shown. And it was the showing people who would be using this dog at stud, not any pet owner who wished to have a nice litter from their bitch. All responsible CKCS breeders have their bitches MRI scanned before they are bred from, as part of the programme overseen by the CKCS club.

As far as the reaction of the breeders which you object to so much, I would be bloody furious if some gutter press journalist chose to approach me in the way they did for this programme and would no doubt react in a similar way in the heat of the moment. Which does not mean that I would not have the best interests of the dog, and the breed as a whole, as my main priority.

 

[CorvusCorax]

Crugeran Celt, I don't think anyone could deny that there are some shockingly over-angulated and hingey-backed German Shepherds out there.

There are also lots of long, low, English-bred 'German' Shepherds carrying numerous lines to known epileptic producers. There are lots of people churning out 'old fashioned, big boned' German Shepherds when the breed was never originally big-boned.
Also, it's a relatively young breed.

Some of the 'wonderful' dogs of 40 years ago had just as many, if not more problems than they do today (why do you think hip and elbow scoring was introduced in the first place?) and I am sure MM can tell you, my mother certainly would, that characters have improved immensely.

I do go on Facebook and see pics of dogs with hundreds of comments about how amazing they are, and I wonder if I can see the same dogs as everyone else and I hate the way people breed for 'trends' - BIG heads, MAHOGANY reds, etc, there will be another trend along shortly I am sure.

However the fact remains, the dog shown in the documentary (which I have actually seen in the flesh - does go like a pair of scissors behind but a much nicer picture side-on) was an aged dog being portrayed as an adult competing on a regular basis.

I can't believe that on the strength of one programme people can decide that ALL GSDs have sloping back ends and wobbly legs.