RSPCA Pulls Out Of Crufts

[voicesforhorses]

"The RSPCA has suspended plans for a stand at Crufts and is calling for new measures to tackle the unacceptably high levels of disability, deformity and disease that threaten pedigree dogs."

http://www.voicesforhorses.co.uk/news/read_686_RSPCA-Pulls-Out-Of-Crufts.html

 

[echodomino]

Oh boo hoo the show will go into melt down. Can't stand the RSPCA, they're always interfering with things that don't concern them. They were originally established to rescue and rehome strays nothing more.

I know something needs to be done to sort out the health problems in pedigree dogs before someone tries to shoot me!

 

[voicesforhorses]

I am not the biggest fan of the RSPCA but in this I wholeheartedly support them.

 

[SSM]

Would they not be better with a stand and since they love spending donation money on literature - swamping the place with literature regarding breeding and defects.

 

[Skhosu]

I think I do approve of a stand of some sort, they can't do wrong for doing right .

 

[MurphysMinder]

Didn't realise they still had a stand at Crufts anyway (not been for years). Remember a big fuss a few years back when they had their "pile of dead dogs" posters on their stand at Crufts, thought they had been given the boot then. Shame more bad publicity for all the good breeders, who will no doubt be tarred with the same brush as the ones who cause so many problems in their respective breeds. Maybe might make the KC sit up and be a bit more pro-active in monitoring breeding practices but I very much doubt it.

 

[voicesforhorses]

Why is this bad publicity for good breeders?

 

[MurphysMinder]

Since the programme many pet owners and the general public seem to think that it is all dog breeders who are causing problems. I have heard of very caring breeders, who carry out all necessary health checks, who have had people cancelling bookings for puppies. Didn't particularly mean the RSPCA pulling out was bad publicity, more the fact that the headlines will no doubt say "all pedigree dogs deformed" etc again. As I have already said, I hope this will make the KC take some responsibility, eg. to be an accredited breeder it should be compulsory to carry out health checks, not just suggested, and only animals who reach an acceptable grade should be bred from.

 

[Acolyte]

Oh gosh, I am sure Crufts will be devastated

Whilst I fully accept that there are problems occuring in the breeding of pedigree dogs which the Kennel Club need to get a grip on and sort out, I also totally agree with Echo Domino's comments about the RSPCA

 

[voicesforhorses]

MurphysMinder
Thank you for coming back. I understand what you mean but as far as I understand it is not that breeders should carry out health checks - it is what is acceptable under those health checks that is the problem. If the KC had canine welfare as a priority to begin with good breeders would not be paying the price of exposing the bad ones. I appreciate some may be losing money through no fault of their own but surely a good breeder will be glad that rotten dog breeding is being more been exposed.

Acolyte
Not sure sarcasm works but the point Crufts wont be devastated says it all…….don’t you think?

 

[CorvusCorax]

I couldn't give a toot about Crufts or the RSPCA (I am following the Sieger - where only the best of the best, physically and mentally get to the top and are allowed to be bred from) but it's the inference that all mainstream breeders are mating brothers to mothers to fathers to sisters (a statement made very flippantly by Martin Clunes in his recent documentary) that will damage the reputation of responsible breeders for your average punter - who might then decide it is better to go and get a 'yorkiedoodle' or something from a man down the road selling them unvaccinated out of his shed for £200.

In the past we have had dogs neutered and even PTS, causing much heartbreak, to avoid such trauma happening to someone else - and we are not the only ones .

If the RSPCA wanted to make a stand, they should name and shame the people they know to be making a quick buck out of faulty animals and (generalising, whoops!) in the past there have been people at Crufts who were little more than glorified puppy farmers.

 

[Acolyte]

[ QUOTE ]
Acolyte
Not sure sarcasm works but the point Crufts wont be devastated says it all…….don’t you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sarcasm tends to work for me, that is why I use it

No, I'm afraid in this case I dont think it says it all If it were a dog charity I respected and admired - Blue Cross, Guide Dogs for the Bind, Dogs for the Disabled - then I would be concerned, but the RSCPA have removed themselves so far from their original purpose, turning themselves into a political pressure group instead, that I have no time for them now.

BTW - it might be worth you looking back at a few threads on here - as the daughter/sister of dog breeders, albeit responsible and caring ones, I am hardly likely to side with the RSCPA on this one am I

 

[hellsdarkrose]

[ QUOTE ]
Would they not be better with a stand and since they love spending donation money on literature - swamping the place with literature regarding breeding and defects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what I was thinking.

Won't this have substantially more impact.

 

[Skhosu]

I agree with the RSPCA though, the pedigree dogs shown at crufts, the breed standards are encouraging problems. Why do we berate the RSPCA for being concerned about this?

 

[Acolyte]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the RSPCA though, the pedigree dogs shown at crufts, the breed standards are encouraging problems. Why do we berate the RSPCA for being concerned about this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I do not berate the RSPCA for this - I simply do not respect them as an organisation for the reasons given above

 

[Ravenwood]

I think the RSPCA need to have a rethink about their goals and aims.

They seem to have become too political and lost the original aim of saving abused/abandoned animals.

Their stance with hunting has done them no credit and I don't think it is their place to interfere with breeding standards. If they have a stand at Crufts with the aim of ensuring that all dogs have a healthy and caring home - they are surely, preaching to the converted.

 

[JanetGeorge]

The RSPCA is FAR more concerned about headlines - and milking donations from 'dog lovers' than it is about actually TACKLING the hard problems!

Pulling out of Crufts is a win-win situation for them - they save the cost of running and manning a stand - and they get a nice big 'shock, horror' headline SHOWING they are 'concerned'! And of course if they DID put on a display of extreme pedigree problems, Crufts would ban them anyway - as they've banned 'Our Dogs' magazine for criticising KC. And if they did a 'soft' display, appealing to the 'bad' breeders to think again, no-one would take ANY notice at all!

 

[echodomino]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the RSPCA need to have a rethink about their goals and aims.

They seem to have become too political and lost the original aim of saving abused/abandoned animals.

Their stance with hunting has done them no credit and I don't think it is their place to interfere with breeding standards. If they have a stand at Crufts with the aim of ensuring that all dogs have a healthy and caring home - they are surely, preaching to the converted.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's kind of what I was trying to say only I couldn't word it like that!

[ QUOTE ]
it is what is acceptable under those health checks that is the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how to word this so I'll just use my example and hope you can see what I'm getting at - it's only small but it's a start. Take hip scoring as a health check, each breed has an average score which is acceptable to it. The lower the score the better. So the low score is acceptable under that health check.

[ QUOTE ]

Not sure sarcasm works but the point Crufts wont be devastated says it all…….don’t you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sarcasm worked in my 1st post

 

[MurphysMinder]

Voices for horses -Yes it is what is acceptable under health checks that counts. And the KC don't care what is acceptable, they happily take money off anyone to register a litter. And as I have already said if it makes the KC stop registering inferior stock then brilliant, but I don't think it will. However the RSPCA are I think just trying to headline grab a bit here. If they are concerned about the state of pedigre dogs why will they not act on a local "breeder" who has been reported to them on more than one occasion. She breeds litters constantly from substandard stock, none of whom have had any health checks, and because the dogs are fed and housed the RSPCA aren't interested.

 

[voicesforhorses]

Like I said before I am not the greatest fan of the RSPCA for many of the same reasons mentioned but at least (headline grabbing or not) they are doing something. Where are the other canine charities /organisations? Perhaps they don’t want to go up against the KC? Perhaps it will take a politically motivated, attention seeking, cold blooded organization like the RSPCA that is big enough and wealthy enough to be politically ‘incorrect’ when it comes to naming and shaming the KC, who bottom line are the biggest perpetrators of sick and deformed dogs.

In the article it states:

“The RSPCA has commissioned an independent review of the science in this field, and will be discussing its findings with relevant experts and stakeholders later this year. Amongst a raft of specific recommendations, the following themes have been identified as possible ways forward:
• An overhaul of the rules and requirements for pedigree dog registration and competitive dog showing (including breed standards). Health, welfare and temperament should be prioritised over appearance.
• The development and implementation of health and welfare-focused breeding strategies for individual breeds. This should include pro-active steps to increase the genetic diversity of dog breeds.
• More data collection and scientific analysis on causes of disease and death in dogs
• Education, especially of would-be owners, to encourage demand for dogs which have the best possible chance of leading healthy, happy lives as pets.”

In an ideal world good breeders would have demanded the KC do this themselves. Even better the KC would instigate its own independent reviews, knowing that unchecked self regulation becomes self serving. But it’s not an ideal world anymore than the RSPCA is ideal, but in the absence of any other organization making a stand they have my support.

MurphysMinder
Regarding the local breeder using substandard stock - I think it is generally recognised that on a domestic ‘complaints’ level the RSPCA are next to useless but that is as much to do with what they are legally allowed to do - or not - as the case may be. Legislation to ‘protect’ & ‘prevent’ in relation to animal welfare is still woefully inadequate.


Hacking Hack you said “If the RSPCA wanted to make a stand, they should name and shame the people they know to be making a quick buck out of faulty animals and (generalising, whoops!) in the past there have been people at Crufts who were little more than glorified puppy farmers.”

These ‘glorified puppy farmers’ are endorsed by the KC! I don’t believe picking off bad breeders will help dogs. For long term sustainable change surely the KC has to be called to account.

 

[MurphysMinder]

If the RSPCA achieves some of these improvements it will be a great start. I just hope the KC listen to them, maybe the RSPCA have got enough weight behind them to have some success. You state "in an ideal world good breeders would have demanded the KC do this themselves". I can't speak for other breeds but some 25 years ago a group was formed called the GSD Improvement Foundation. AMongst their aims was to only have the kc register puppies from animals that had a low hip score, etc. The KC would not have anything to do with it, and the GSD group even considered breaking away from the KC, but people were reluctant to do this because the general public still saw the KC as being all important. The GSDIF eventually folded, but the current GSD Breed Council has been battling for years to get the KC to adopt more rigorous standards before accepting breeding stock for registration. I could be wrong but I think it is down to the Breed Council that hips scores (where available) are now shown on registration papers. I know there are other breeds who are also battling on against the dinosaur of the KC so I truly hope something comes of all this.

I would be interested to know the RSPCAs proposed welfare standards for dog breeding, as I said in my earlier post, their idea of what is a "good" breeding establishment on welfare grounds, and mine, are very different.

 

[voicesforhorses]

Lets hope the RSPCA’s stand against the KC will encourage breeders who have been battling with the KC to continue to fight for improved standards across the board. Maybe there is a chance now for many different elements to come together and pave the way for positive change.