> Hi Katt,
>
> Regarding the ABS and bad breeders, this scheme is under review, and I have often found in the past that when the KC does not say much it doesn't mean it is doing nothing. As I posted earlier it has already removed 50 plus members from the ABS lists in the last few weeks.>

Hi Polly,
This is a good start.

What I would like for them to put in place is when a caller first enquires more info on the breeder they should be told straight away. E.g. questions like: has anyone made complaints about this breeder. What type of complaints etc. Far too many places state that they can not give you information due to the data protection act. The only time you will receive the information if you get other authorities with more power involved.

In my case the KC and the authorities did know about the breeder and family's dealings this included the selling of very sick animals, falsified documents, the refusal to hand over documents, and other questionable practices. Known all this information these types of breeders should NOT be allowed on the KC books or be allowed to breed in my opinion. I detest saying this as my family and I love our boy and we wouldn't be with out him but if I was told the correct information from the start I would not have had any dealings with the breeder

> In my case the KC and the authorities did know about the breeder and family's dealings this included the selling of very sick animals, falsified documents, the refusal to hand over documents, and other questionable practices.

The KC could well use information like that to decide if a breeder should be inspected and perhaps removed from the ABS but if it is just accusations rather than something determined by a court they could not be expected to pass that on to enquirers for obvious reasons.
In the past court cases have led to breeders being banned from registering litters but again if it is unproven they would have to recognise that some accusations are spurious.

On the matter of independent review, given that we are agreed that it is the law that must be changed, then shouldn't we be pressing for the review to be carried out by Defra as part of their remit to cover welfare of animals? Defra would tender for consultants to undertake a full review. The other potential route has to be to take this to the appropriate HoC Select Committee.

Now, it could be argued that we are too sentimental about dogs and there is nothing to seperate them from any other animal when it comes to farming and therefore just basic welfare matters but I think we can safely assume Defra would show no such sentimentality.  They are the last people I would wish to get involved.

> The KC could well use information like that to decide if a breeder should be inspected and perhaps removed from the ABS but if it is just accusations rather than something determined by a court they could not be expected to pass that on to enquirers for obvious reasons.
> In the past court cases have led to breeders being banned from registering litters but again if it is unproven they would have to recognise that some accusations are spurious.

Hi Isabel,

It should not only apply for the ABS it should apply to ALL on the KC books.

I can only speak on my case. All info was proven many complaints made before, this person was well known by near all authorities and prosecuted and cases won.

A simple solution would be if questions asked state amount of complaints or praise made and what type that have been made but if complaints are not proven also state this.

It is not against the law to rate a service, product or someone and the results made public. They do this all the time be it a holiday package, hotel, foods, a celebrity, singer etc. This surely would help puppy purchasers know what they are getting themselves in for.

> but if complaints are not proven also state this.

I think there are very obvious dangers to that and the KC would clearly risk getting into a case of slander if the complaints were shown to be spurious.

> I think there are very obvious dangers to that and the KC would clearly risk getting into a case of slander if the complaints were shown to be spurious.

This is true but not if it was done on a type of rating system and all records, names, addresses, email are kept on database.
Also other information say informations from vets, license inforcement officers, dog wardens, DEFRA, RSPCA etc. If all agencys worked together this surley will stop puppy farmers/bad breeders.

> This is true but not if it was done on a type of rating system and all records, names, addresses, email are kept on database.

I don't see what difference that would make.  It would not provide evidence that the accusations were accurate.
If welfare laws are being broken there are more appropriate agencies that the KC to investigate and bring charges.  When relevent convictions are obtained the KC have banned breeders.  Do you know why that did not happen in your case?

> I don't see what difference that would make.  It would not provide evidence that the accusations were accurate.
> If welfare laws are being broken there are more appropriate agencies that the KC to investigate and bring charges.  When relevent convictions are obtained the KC have banned breeders.  Do you know why that did not happen in your case?

But I bet breeders would love it when enquiries are made that all the future puppy purchaser was told was nothing but praise.  In my opinion it has to cut both ways, if proof is obtained and handed over or that far too many complaints have been made questions should be asked and the situation dealt with and kept on record.

In my case I believe it was to do with lack of communication and the person knowing every trick in the book. The comment of the person knowing every trick in the book came from two big authorities, this as I found out seemed to be the case.

> But I bet breeders would love it when enquiries are made that all the future puppy purchaser was told was nothing but praise. 

I don't think the KC offer recommendations regarding individual breeders either do they?
What was your breeder convicted of and have the KC declined to take any action now you have offered that information?

> If welfare laws are being broken there are more appropriate agencies that the KC to investigate and bring charges.  When relevant convictions are obtained the KC have banned breeders.

I would imagine most puppy farmers and bad breeders who breed and keep their dogs in poor conditions could be closed down tomorrow, the laws exist, they are not enforced.

I don't agree with the DDA, but where i live there are dogs of very obvious Pit bull type, some could easily pass for American Staffords and no-one prosecutes the owners (thankfully for the dogs sakes) but they are nearly all owned or bred by some of the less desirable elements of our society, so I worry about their welfare and why they are being kept by these obvious druggies or gang member types. 

The poor bitches as young as a year old I have seen have great hanging undercarriages from rearing too often or large litters.  Who would stop these people breeding?

> I don't think the KC offer recommendations regarding individual breeders either do they?
> What was your breeder convicted of and have the KC declined to take any action now you have offered that information?

They where more than happy to sympathise and when contacted by the authorities to state truth. After a long time I was told they had blocked the breeder from ever being able to KC register my dog as the breeder refused to hand us the KC papers.

I will not state in public about the rest as I know there are many that could use the information as an attack on the KC, this I do not want. As I see the KC as a way to improve dog welfare in the future.

I don't think JH is correct at all.  Simply by buying a responsibley bred puppy is a two fingers up to the puppy farmers, one less customer, so we all do our bit even if it is only small.  As mentioned earlier the media are a very useful tool if you want to get a point across (or a personal vendetta in some cases) if only a certain production company would do an expose on puppy farms etc.  The excuse that it has already been done before is pants, the fact is that had that production company done an expose on puppy farms then the KC phones would be ringing off the hooks with people wanting to buy responsibly bred pups.

A certain magazine editor who supported "that programme" has come up with a rather frightening "blueprint" for a new KC Registration Scheme on another forum.  I can PM a link to anyone who is interested.  The concerns raised on the subject seem to be going unheeded.

> I will not state in public about the rest as I know there are many that could use the information as an attack on the KC

By implying there was a conviction that the KC are chosing to ignore I think it would be unfair at this point not to reveal what it was.

> After a long time I was told they had blocked the breeder from ever being able to KC register my dog as the breeder refused to hand us the KC papers.

I think that is a very reasonable course of action.  Why were they not letting you have the papers?

>> I will not state in public about the rest as I know there are many that could use the information as an attack on the KC
> By implying there was a conviction that the KC are chosing to ignore I think it would be unfair at this point not to reveal what it was.
>

I noticed people dont talk about certain things on this website as some threaten to sue, I do not know how much info I am allowed to give on this forums so I gave you a pm with some info.  If you wish more info about the breeder I am more than happy to give to you in pm,  you can type the info into google where you will get the information you want.

>> After a long time I was told they had blocked the breeder from ever being able to KC register my dog as the breeder refused to hand us the KC papers.
> I think that is a very reasonable course of action.  Why were they not letting you have the papers?

Yes reasonable in one way, I was never told why I was not given the paper work that is rightly mines even with the license inforcement officers help 

> I noticed people dont talk about certain things on this website as some threaten to sue

A conviction is in the public domain.

> A conviction is in the public domain

Not all convictions are in the public domain.

As I stated in pm you're rather aggressive in your approach to me as if you're attempting to make me out to be a liar. You know if you where not this aggressive in your approach people would be more forth coming towards you but carry on I have sent you information in pm after your search for the convictions that are in the public domain feel free to contact the local License inforcement officer, trading standards and DEFRA where you may get the other info you want, contact the KC if you please I'm more than happy to give you the Sire and Dam's names and numbers but I doubt you will be given any more info than I have.

Isabel when we have named names even though it has been fact a  number of us have had threatening e-mails to sue, which unfortunately I am not able to cope with, have enough going on in my life without going through something like that!

I don't think I have been aggressive at all just very patient.  The name that you have given me in PM has shown nothing on Google as you suggested and the Kennels has come up also with nothing but one review where the website has removed the content as unable to confirm.
I don't know of any convictions that are not in the public domain other than perhaps those concerning national security.

> when we have named names even though it has been fact a  number of us have had threatening e-mails to sue, which unfortunately I am not able to cope with, have enough going on in my life without going through something like that!

The suggestion has already been made that the KC have not taken action where they should.

Hi katt

if you don't wish to elaborate on something - anything - then dont :) 

I think most of us appreciate that some members have particularly enquiring minds but I'm sure all are very capable of tracking down the info sought while respecting your preference to shy clear of a more in depth expose ;)  I've little time or inclination for in depth research on a multitude of subjects but I know how to find the answers if I really want them.

Teri

> but I know how to find the answers if I really want them.
>

It certainly isn't through any lack of will that is preventing me finding it, Teri :-)

Well I'm sure it's not lack of ability Isabel ;)

> Hi katt
>
> if you don't wish to elaborate on something - anything - then dont :-) 
>
> I think most of us appreciate that some members have particularly enquiring minds but I'm sure all are very capable of tracking down the info sought while respecting your preference to shy clear of a more in depth expose ;-)  I've little time or inclination for in depth research on a multitude of subjects but I know how to find the answers if I really want them.
>
> Teri

Teri as I stated to Isabel in pm I am very careful in what I write. I enjoy and respect this website a lot of people have given me great advice and help in the past, I also know threats to sue has happened and in no way would I wish to get anyone but myself into trouble.

Sometimes on this website you get jumped over for whatever reasons some have- this is something I do not tolerate. I have discussed my case numerous times on this forum I have also been asked to take it to pm, the search function can be a very useful tool if used wisely.

As stated before I am more than happy to provide the information needed just ask in a manor that that is not in an aggressive way and that does not imply I am a liar or trouble maker.

> just ask in a manor that that is not in an aggressive way and that does not imply I am a liar or trouble maker.

Fair enough.  How would you wish the request for information to be worded?

> I don't think I have been aggressive at all just very patient.  The name that you have given me in PM has shown nothing on Google as you suggested and the Kennels has come up also with nothing but one review where the website has removed the content as unable to confirm.
> I don't know of any convictions that are not in the public domain other than perhaps those concerning national security.

your using the wrong keywords.

Not all convictions are in public domain or make the likes of newspapers or online websites. You have to go to the local court house to view them.

> The suggestion has already been made that the KC have not taken action where they should.

The KC have refused my dog ever to be registered by the breeder they have done something and this a a start in my book.

Chill out kiddo - this may be an info exchange however such exchanges are voluntary (I hope ;) )

I have used the keywords you gave me.  A court house is the public domain.  If the court has ruled there is nothing to prevent you telling me that outcome, by PM if you like.  It is clearly impractical for me to go even if I had the faintest clue with courthouse it was in :-)

Can we get this thread back on topic please - the PM system is there for continuing any off topic discussions

Not sure I have wholly understood your reasoning--isn't the point here to to be able to make a dispassionate argument for the end of puppy farms because they are actively contributing to bad practice in terms of canine health--not just in the day to day care of dogs, but in encouraging indiscriminate breeding leading to serious genetic problems?

The practical issues speak for themselves. I can't imagine why sentimentality is needed--and I'm struggling to think of any case law being established on the basis of it.

[ttwhen we have named names even though it has been fact a  number of us have had threatening e-mails to sue, which unfortunately I am not able to cope with, have enough going on in my life without going through something like that!

The suggestion has already been made that the KC have not taken action where they should. .

My comment has got nothing to do with the KC, it is other registrations that were involved.

Jay15, you appear to have addressed your post to me but I have no idea if that was intentional or what point you are referring to.  The board layout can be quite confusing :-) so it does help if you include a quote or at least name the intended poster.

I can understand why the GP have these ideas in their head that the KC & exhibitors don't care, a prime example is my boyfriend, who always refers back to "the rspca vet said.....mutants.......freaks.........inbred" and i guess in the eyes of the GP vets know everything about everything especially the rspca vet & the all mighty BBC!

Has JH made any comments since the programme?

> Has JH made any comments since the programme?

You could ask her.  I see she has posted her today.

Ok, Jemima - if you are out there in internet land (or cyber space :) ), what are your thoughts on the programme & the aftermath? Did you achive the goals you set out? And why did your programme seem so negative to the exhibtors of pedigree dogs? You tared us all with one brush.

This thread has now got very confusing so here's a reminder of the subject of this topic copied from Polly's first post :

I have just had a conversation with some show breeders, they say that they have been told that in the eyes of the pet owning public and general rescues, that Show Exhibitors & the Kennel Club are too lazy to do anything against puppy farms! The public think because of this that Jemima is right that show exhibtors simply do not care, they would rather be at a show than actively get involved in any form of anti-puppy farm activity.

Please could any further discussion address this issue ie is there a public perception that show breeders do not care about puppy farming and if so, is this perception accurate?

> The public think because of this that Jemima is right that show exhibtors simply do not care, they would rather be at a show than actively get involved in any form of anti-puppy farm activity.

I don't recall Jemima even mentioning puppy farmers in that programme, more's the pity.  Has she commented in this way somewhere else or is this what you think the public have simply deduced from what ever else she has had to say about show breeders?  If so the public seem to be more aware than she is, in understanding there are show breeders and there are puppy farmers and the latter are far more needy of censure and control that the vast majority of show breeders.

>I don't recall Jemima even mentioning puppy farmers in that programme, more's the pity.

Nor do I remember her ever making the point about how easy it is to get the health tests done that would minimise the possibility of health problems.

The epileptic boxer was a huge red herring. Any dog, of any breeding, can develop epilepsy for a number of reasons; and the only epileptic dogs we have at work are crossbred terriers - not KC at all!

Jemima did not mention puppy farmers in her programme, and she does rescue a lot of black retriever type dogs from pounds in Ireland another point she did not share with the public. However the public have added two and two together and made five!

They think that because the programme told them that pedigree breeders did not care about health testing and were happy to use dogs affected by debilitating disease problems that we are also therefore too idle to do anything about puppy farmers, in many cases they see commercial breeders with a large kennel and think we are all like that, owners of several dogs and breeding for money and to get a dog to show which will somehow win us lots more money. They imagine the winner of Crufts gets lots of free food, and other goodies, plus wins a lot of money and gets that lovely big silver cup....... Mmmmm where did I go wrong???? lol my lot just cost me the earth and some! My bank manager is not a happy bunny! EVER! lol

"you appear to have addressed your post to me but I have no idea if that was intentional"

Thanks Isabel--I've learned something about the technology now! I was responding to your earlier point about Defra being the last organisation you'd want to see handling an ndependent review regarding puppy farming. If it helps, Defra would be very unlikely undertake this work as an internal exercise--the research outcomes would be described in a brief and issued for tender--so there is scrutiny at every level.

What we have here is pure "sensationalist television".
If Jemima Harrison cared as much as she would have us believe then why has she not donated some or all of her fat fee to the KC Charitable Trust ?
As we all know the KC the BVA and our breed clubs have been working together for a good few years now with the various health schemes, why did the program not mention this ?
Their questioning of Ronnie Irving was frankly aggressive and they didn't give him a chance to answer their questions properly.
The program told us that when a King Charles is diagnosed with Syromengelia it is immediately euthenased.
Why then was one suffering "for the cameras" ?
Was it an affected dog ? in which case she is guilty of prolonging it's suffering in the name of television, that would make her guilty of gross cruelty and she should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Or was it that the dog was trained to roll around and make noises to command ? in which case she is a liar.
Why was it neccessary to interview the worst of what is a minority in the show world ?
Why did she feel the need to insult living relatives of the 20,000,000 plus people who died at the hands of the Nazis in Concentration Camps ?
Perhaps becuase her content was flawed and she needed a shock tactic to make her point.
She never asked the question "where have all these genetic diseases come from", she could have investigated properly and found that conventional vaccines, the liquid they are packed in and our vaccination protocols are to blame for much of the genetic damage we see in dogs today (a reason why I switched to Homeopathic Noseodes years ago).
She wouldn't take on the drug companies and The RCVS but breeders and the dog show fraternity are fair game.
As has been said she did not have a go at Puppy Farmers, very strange from someone of her background (Animal Rights Activist).
Lets face it they hate dog showing, fox hunting and they even hate the countrys biggest pastime, FISHING !!
I am not into fishing so no axe to grind there !
These nutters even frown on people swatting insects.
So we were on a loser from the start, I suspect that even if we had perfect genetically clean dogs she would have found something to whinge about.
Now it is our turn to hit back, I have complained to the BBC whose response was frankly a joke.
Then I lodged a complaint with Ofcom who are investigating the many thousands of complaints that were made.
I also complained to the Police about the racially insulting content of the program, they are awaiting Ofcom's response and will act accordingly.
As someone who has been showing dogs for twenty years and just started to breed my own line,  it was bad enough having to endure the programs bias but I am also a Jew and to have to watch the insulting remark that Pedigree Dog Breeders and the KC are like Hitlers Eugenicists was unforgiveable and may yet come back to haunt Jemima Harrison and her (not so) Passionate Productions.

> it was bad enough having to endure the programs bias but I am also a Jew and to have to watch the insulting remark that Pedigree Dog Breeders and the KC are like Hitlers Eugenicists

A very nice point, Mike - that might just be the one that gets through to the BBC!

I received the same tone of response as did everybody else who complained to the BBC, I believe - hardly worth the paper it would have been written on - and in fact my feeling was that had it been on paper, they would have used the double-leaved perforated variety!

You have a made an extremely valid point - and I would hope that they - the BBC and Passionate Productions will look into the use of such emtionally-charged words and retract them!   Such a subject should surely be produced in a factual, dispassionate manner.

Margot

Whatever they do Margot, the trouble is the damage is done, sales of Pedigree dogs are almost at a standstill whilst the unregistered ones bred by the puppy farmers are still selling.
Her program has kicked all responsible breeders in the teeth whilst providing a boost to the incomes of the very places we would all like to see closed down.
It now needs a brave program maker to make a program which redressess the balance.
The RSPCA, Dogs Trust and PDSA will lose out financially over their decision not to attend Crufts, most people I have spoken too will be donating to the KC Charitable Trust instead.
The KC should not be bullied by the BBC either, there are many channels who would love to televise Crufts and would do a much better job of it.
These organisations really need to wise up.

miked well done you.  I'm not very good at words and I have to admit that all that is going on at the moment has made me deeply sad for all dogs not just those in the show world and has even made me think shall I continue with the hobby that I've worked so hard for over the last 20 years or so.  I have health tested my dogs for a number of years now like many of us on here do.  I haven't a clue what this woman was trying to accomplice, if it was to make puppy farmers bigger and to make the GP think this is the kind of people they should go to she has done what she wanted.

I do share a lot of your sentiments miked but I am not sure that it was stated that when a King Charles (Cavalier I presume you mean) is diagnosed they are immediately euthanised.  I think I would have taken note and questioned it at the time.  As I understand it dogs that suffer from the condition can be managed and for that reason I doubt that the dog appearing to be in pain was trained in any way but at worst they were deliberated exacerbating the condition by using a collar on the neck.
I would also take issue with your statement

>conventional vaccines, the liquid they are packed in and our vaccination protocols are to blame for much of the genetic damage we see in dogs today

I think that is an extremely unlikely theory myself.

"Whatever they do Margot, the trouble is the damage is done, sales of Pedigree dogs are almost at a standstill whilst the unregistered ones bred by the puppy farmers are still selling."

Just interested Mike - are there any statistics to back that up?

Julie, the only way I think you could tell is if breeders waiting lists have shrunk, or that breeds of dogs that had no problem selling, now breeders are stuck with litters (from what I have heard this has happened with CKCS breeders due to the health scare, so I am not sure it would apply to other breeds).  It's a difficult one to gauge and I don't think we will ever fully know - however being told by my out-laws that it was cruel to own a pedigree is evidence in itself.  Stats are also open to interpretation, you can make them say whatever you want, so I take stats with the pinch of salt that they deserve, unless I am given the raw data to calculate fully myself.

>conventional vaccines, the liquid they are packed in

Missed that bit.

The conventional vaccines are freeze-dried, and the liquid used to reconstitute them is distilled water ...

Re Boxers I've certainly heard of breeders that have got puppies way beyond the 8 weeks
that they'd normally be looking to go to their new homes.

Not sure if it's because of 'that' programme where the red herring of the Boxer with epilepsy
and if 'jo public' think that the majority of Boxers have epilepsy and not to buy a Boxer
or if to be honest it's some that don't want one with a tail, I've heard plenty say that too.

Our breed's genetics advisor has not seen data to make him believe that we are looking at
a hereditary problem within our breed. Of course things change with data that comes forward
but at the moment it doesn't look like we have a problem in our breed to epilepsy.

Off to get my youngsters heart tested today - keep your fingers crossed my own vet that is a cardiologist
says that they both should grade clear but it's always a nailbiting time until you get to hear the grading
(even with parents that have tested clear for AS).