Thanks for that. :) 

The owners were very lucky that someone posted them one of these 'few' flyers or they would never have known!

As JH's information has been found to be so unreliable, I hope that she's no longer allowed to sit on this important panel again.

No wonder our Parliamentarians come up with the wrong answers if they've got idiots giving them misleading information on which to base their judgments. :(

It is quite worrying if this is the tip of the iceberg what else has gone before that is unreliable at best and totally untrue at worse.

Oh dear!  What a pity!! It couldn't happen to a more appropriate person :D :D :D

Now when will somebody let the Red Tops know?????

I find it funny how she can sniff out a thread to spout her rubbish a million miles away, yet on both threads where she has been asked personal questions regarding her own contributions to research and funds she is nowhere to be seen, it's says it all about her. She is a trouble maker of the worst kind and now she can't stand up to her actions.

Now when will somebody let the Red Tops know?????
She likes publicity!! :)  I hope that somebody will.... :) :) :)

And it will hopefully give those who blindly follow something to think about too! :(

Good grief, I hope the dogs owners sue JH, I certainly would. I generally stay out of the arguments surrounding PDE as I could see some truth in the programme although it should have (imo) helped the gp understand how to choose a healthy pedigree. Anyway, that aside, not to check the information she was given, to distribute this leaflet and to use photos of this dog on her blog, then to not apologise or remove the photos until forced to do so is absolutely appalling.

Well noone has any need to discredit her she's done that herself single handedly :)

I wonder if she will come back on here and try and defend herself like she always does?

Peanuts

It'll be fascinating to see how she interprets her actions.

We all know that trying to get JH to justify what she says is like trying to pin jelly to a wall!

I'm not holding my breath!

> I wonder if she will come back on here and try and defend herself like she always does?
>

We're waiting !!!

> Good grief, I hope the dogs owners sue JH, I certainly would

As the owners and breeders of the Sire who was 'accused' live in Corporate America it would not surprise me if proceedings were being talked about.

> Although I do see what you are saying I watched that programme more than once and never got the impression that it referred to problems in all breeds and that all breeders were at fault.

My elderly neighbour was in tears when she berated me about being a pedigree dog breeder, her words, "You don't have to tell me about the wicked dog breeders they are so wicked and evil they breed those show dogs and they are all sick". She was distraught because she had got a cavalier from the hearing dogs just before her husband died and she thought her precious pet (who by the way is still healthy) would suffer terrible pain and a slow death.

I also covered a news article for Our Dogs in which a perfectly healthy cavalier puppy was KILLED at a vets because the owners were so worried after seeing that programme. I have since heard of many more people taking their cavaliers to the vets to be put to sleep as they did not want it to suffer even though it was perfectly healthy! But that is acceptable is it?

I have since heard of many more people taking their cavaliers to the vets to be put to sleep as they did not want it to suffer even though it was perfectly healthy!

That's brought tears to my eyes, especially having lost my 15 year, 2 months and 2 days old cavalier last year, and now having a very healthy 13 month old whose parents and grandparents are heart tested, MRI scanned clear of SM etc etc. My vet adores him and always says she'd love to have one herself, and is so happy with all the tests Monty's parents/grandparents have had.

Sorry to make my post so upsetting Marianne, but it is true. It upset me just listening to the people concerned in the puppies case as they really believed that by having it put to sleep they were helping it by not letting it suffer a slow and agonising death. I will pm you the story.

i am still upset by all the ads for cavs and none mention mri scanning! on the plus side, a work colleague just got a cav puppy and its her first ever dog but its parents ARE mri scanned

Thanks Polly. Reading it now I do remember it -I'd probably pushed it to the back of my mind not wanting to remember something so awful. :(

I know the breeder of the cavalier puppy in question.

The owners found their puppy in the garden, in a state of collapse, foaming at the mouth and was rushed to their vet.

The vet said that there was a possibility that it could be SM as the breed are prone to it, never asking if the pup could have eaten something toxic. He then went on to tell the uninsured owners that if it were SM they would be looking at a bill of thousands of pounds ...so they all decided that being PTS was best alround.

Yes it seems unbelievable...but sadly true.
The worst part was the breeder was informed after the fact.

> It seems like there were some very good points made in the section on breeding and the message I got that there is good work being done and also many other work planned but it all again boils down to the BYB and Puppy Farmers that are the ones they should be targeting. The chap form the RSPCA said some very valid comments. 
>
> As they said it is not a thing that is going to change over night and their are short and long term objectives all of which have to be done on a collaborative approach not just a one woman campaign slating people and making generalisations.

the last paragraph in this article shows the problem: http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/mobile/news/news.php?pageNum_Recordset1=1&totalRows_Recordset1=89

She is still spouting her tripe on her blog tonight i see, shame she hasn't got the courage to come here and own up to what she has done.

> We all know that trying to get JH to justify what she says is like trying to pin jelly to a wall!
>
>

Just had a vision of trying to do that , very funny ( sorry could not resist )

Peanuts

So the general public are still choosing pedigree dogs it seems, despite what was highlighted in PDE.

What link are you refering to ?

The on eby Tessies Tracey - about 17/18 down from the top!

I also covered a news article for Our Dogs in which a perfectly healthy cavalier puppy was KILLED at a vets because the owners were so worried after seeing that programme. I

Unfortunately Polly, one thing that did stick in my mind about PDE was the fact that breeders took perfectly healthy Ridgeback pups to the vets to be destroyed (culled I think they called it).  The reason, - they didn't have a ridge!  Veterinary evidence had proved that the ridge was a form of spina bifida and that the spine had tiny 'holes' in that created a breeding ground for infection and so all dogs with the ridge were in fact 'unhealthy' and it was the ridgeless ones that were OK!  The breeders were adamant that they wanted the healthy ones put down and worked to find 'old' vets that were willing to do this rather thn allow the healthy but ridgeless pups to survive.

Where's the difference

suzieque, the thing that upset me most about the ridgbacks was the breeders who insisted that the ridged dogs were better hunters! i suppose thats how they justified the killing of healthy pups, what utter rot!

> vets to be destroyed (culled I think they called it).

I don't know of any breeders doing that, however most when using that word mean they are culling it from the breeding stock, or put another way they are removing the dog from the breeding pool usually by placing it in a pet home, having explained to the pet buyer that the puppy did not have the required ridge of hair. Equally interesting is that on the other thread Jemima who gave members of the public the totally wrong idea of what was meant by culling, used the same word herself in the context of culling from the breeding pool by not allowing it to be bred from which is exactly how most breeders would use the word.

I do know some working dog owners will cull puppies and adult dogs if they do not work efficiently and in this instance they do cull as in kill. You won't hear about it as these dogs often do not go to the vets to be put to sleep they simply 'disappear'. So you support this then? But not show breeders who 'cull' from a breeding line by placing a puppy in a pet home?

> suzieque, the thing that upset me most about the ridgbacks was the breeders who insisted that the ridged dogs were better hunters! i suppose thats how they justified the killing of healthy pups, what utter rot!

Who knows if they are or are not better hunters? Do we hunt lions in the UK? I think not, so perhaps the reference the breeders have to take is from the country of origin which might believe this. Anyone can write to twist things and make tv programmes to twist things, on another thread from last year Jemima said she used the boxer and cavaliers from litters which were not show bred as she wanted to make a programme which was sensational......

I think Tina S if you got to know a breeder from this forum really well enough to see how much love, care and thought they put into breeding you would see a very different picture to the one shown in Pedigree Dogs Exposed.

She is still spouting her tripe on her blog tonight i see, shame she hasn't got the courage to come here and own up to what she has done

Well it seems that the only way to make her take stock will be for the American owners to take her to court. I really hope they do. She says she was ill informed, well in my opinion she has been very ill informed on lots of different things. Keep saying it about 'why doesn't she do a programme on Puppy Farming' but she never addresses the questions so I have to presume (maybe I am ill informed) that she hasn't got too much of a problem with them, just with the breeders who are trying their best to produce good, healthy puppies.

Well, in many ways, JH has a vested interest in the continuation of puppy farming - and I state categorically here that in no way am I insinuating that she or her "charity" make any money out of the rescued Irish puppy-farmed dogs that she brings over to the UK, her profile does depend upon her Rescue work ......

> The owners found their puppy in the garden, in a state of collapse, foaming at the mouth and was rushed to their vet.<br />

Had this very situation happen to one of my puppy buyers several yrs ago, thankfully they rang ME first so were able to advise the vet they'd been taking daffodil bulbs up and hubby had trodden on one, washed it away with water which obviously the pup 'investigated'.  Admittedly my breed's not a Cavie but any Vet worth their education would have investigated further to see what sort of toxin it was possible said pup found, ingested. 

Not only do we have lazy Journalists but Lazy Vets too far up their own rearends to check any further, unlike a lot of older more experienced vets who automatically go for the more obvious cause in a puppy.  Maybe I'm getting more cynical in my old age but unless I've got a reptile at the Vets (few specialists in herps unfortunately) I cross examine said vet and if not happy ask for senior partner to be brought into consult too!

I think a fund to support any legal claim made by owners/breeder could be started, if they  won, a donation from the  compensation to some canine research could be made! Plenty of publicity on both sides of the pond would go a long way towards redressing the balance showing just how many ethical great caring pedigree show/pet breeders there are.

Quote Susieque: "Unfortunately Polly, one thing that did stick in my mind about PDE was the fact that breeders took perfectly healthy Ridgeback pups to the vets to be destroyed (culled I think they called it).  The reason, - they didn't have a ridge!  Veterinary evidence had proved that the ridge was a form of spina bifida and that the spine had tiny 'holes' in that created a breeding ground for infection and so all dogs with the ridge were in fact 'unhealthy' and it was the ridgeless ones that were OK!  The breeders were adamant that they wanted the healthy ones put down and worked to find 'old' vets that were willing to do this rather thn allow the healthy but ridgeless pups to survive.

Where's the difference"

Firstly, Susieque, I have had RRs for over 25 years. I have never had a ridgeless puppy put to sleep and nor have any of the people that are my friends in the breed. OK, a couple of older breeders may have done this (and thought they were doing it for the right reasons, to protect the breed they love) - but some parents abuse their children, are you going to tar all parents with the same brush?

Secondly, you have been taken in by the INCORRECT so called "fact" that was broadcast in that programme about the ridge being a form of spinabifida - it is NOT, SO ALL RIDGED DOGS ARE  NOT UNHEALTHY. The BBC actually had to apologise for this error, but strangely enough it didn't get the publicity that the programme did :(

I still don't understand what the objective of this person is (Jemima Harrison).

It would seem it is to get rid of pedigree dogs altogether, or only have rough types of dogs, something Retrieverish, Collieish spanielish, Terrierish, toyish (though once you got rid of the purebreds you would find even this hard to do).

She along with many of the academics are great with the theory, few are cognisant with the practicalities.  This is why most of us have respect regarding breeding matters for vets an geneticists who are themselves dog breeders.

I would like to see this lady start breeding her own line of super health disease free dogs (oh wait a minute she would have to start with the dogs available) and see how she got on in 20 years time.

Yet the vast majority of causally bred dogs, which make up the bulk of the canine population are the result of irresponsible or ill informed breeding, mostly for the money the breeders can or thinks they can get.

Where I live I see about 30% of dogs that are recognisably of a breed, another 30% that are Staffy cross something (legal or illegal who knows) and the rest are mongrels or crosses of something.

I don't think even one in 10 is a Kennel club registered pedigree dog (I do live in a major city), and probably only a handful of those are of the kind of responsible breeding we are talking about here, which for JH is still not enough.

Last year the KC registered 257,000 puppies.  Lets assume that all registered pups survive for 10 years that gives a KC registered population of 2.6 million dogs, out of the estimated 7 million.  That is just one in 4 dogs that technically the KC have some involvement in. 

We all know that many of these are also not bred as the majority of us here do.  I'd be curious to know what proportion were bred by Accredited breeders, which most would agree is the minimum benchmark of quality breeding.

Must ask them.

So even if everyone that uses the KC system (the numbers would be hugely reduced) had some means of creating perfection (nature doesn't manage) it would still have little effect on the health and welfare of all dogs or even all pedigree dogs.

As soon as any of these well bred dogs are removed from the hands of responsible breeders the future stock quite quickly can deteriorate due to lack of proper selection.

Would she like all puppies born to be chance bred, that we let our bitches wander off and find a mate (who could well be her brother, father uncle, as after all the local population re unlikely to travel far). 

Do we then let them dig a den in the garden and whelp the pups unaided, to prove they can, and then let most of the pups die, leaving some fit or lucky ones.  Oh yes Puppy farmers pretty much do this, yet often the pups they rear have lots of issues, primarily social and temperament but health too.

Would she like all puppies born to be chance bred, that we let our bitches wander off and find a mate (who could well be her brother, father uncle, as after all the local population re unlikely to travel far).

Do we then let them dig a den in the garden and whelp the pups unaided, to prove they can, and then let most of the pups die, leaving some fit or lucky ones.  Oh yes Puppy farmers pretty much do this, yet often the pups they rear have lots of issues, primarily social and temperament but health too.

I asked someone else this question as in reality most dogs are really not choosy with who they mate (i can remember as a kid there was always dogs running free mating with anything that moved), it seems really we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I haven't read the Our Dogs article, so am not aware of exactly what it says. But just so you have the facts of this case..

I was contacted a few weeks ago by several people extremely concerned about Shar-pei breeders continuing to use dogs that had produced Shar-pei Fever or were very closely related to dogs that either had, or had produced, Shar-Pei Fever.  The sources were very plausible and I decided to use two of the cases as an example of how things still needed cleaning up in certain areas at an APGAW meeting in December. 

One of the cases is true. The other was not. I did double-check the info - but the person with whom I cross-checked the info also turned out to be wrong. At the APGAW meet, I stood up and talked briefly about both cases. I took five copies of a flyer containing the info with me but in the end gave out only two -  one to Dogs Trust and one to Bill Lambert. As soon as I found out that my info was wrong, I immediately contacted Bill (and Dogs Trust) to say that I had made a mistake and asked them to please not forward the flyer to anyone.

And that would have been it if one of the recipients (and I am guessing it was not Dogs Trust) had not forwarded the flyer to Tim Ball. Now I understand the reasons. If I was Tim Ball, I'd want to know too that someone had been dissing me and my dog, and I would be as cross as he clearly was when he emailed me not long afterwards.

I of course apologised profusely. I was - and am - genuinely upset that I got it wrong. I may - in the view of some here - present information in a one-sided way, but I am usually extremely careful about specific accusations about a particular dog. I don't like it when I am accused of something that is not true (eg in this very thread the insinuation that I fuel the puppy farm trade by taking stray/abandoned dogs from Ireland) and I don't expect anyone else to, either.

I also apologised to the dog's American breeder - an apology that she very graciously accepted.

The information was never posted on my blog. Our Dogs got that wrong - and went ahead and published that bit despite me telling Vince that it was wrong (he had forwarded me that paragraph for some reason - but not the rest of the copy). I did have a picture of "Wrink" on my blog at one point but only as an illustration of how much the Shar-pei has changed over the years (compared to the traditional Shar-pei). Tim asked me to take it down. I hesitated because I felt the use of the pic was justified to show the conformation changes - but then decided that it was the least I could do in the circumstances and I changed the pic (within 24hrs of his asking).

So, to sum up, I made a bad mistake. I should have made much more effort to corroborate the information and I didn't. After I found out I was wrong, I did my level best to limit the damage and when that failed, I apologised as profusely as I could to the owner and breeder.

It doesn't undo the upset, I understand that.

Jemima

Another "mistake" you made, Jemima, was in saying that the ridge on the Rhodesian Ridgeback (and the Thai Ridgeback too) was a form of spinabifida. That untruth is still being quoted by people who've watched your programme :(

And I am not saying that everything is rosy in the field of RR breeding - but it really doesn't help when incorrect "facts" are broadcast in front of millions of viewer. I bet a minute proportion of that number actually heard the BBC's apology for it :(

The information was never posted on my blog. Our Dogs got that wrong - and went ahead and published that bit despite me telling Vince that it was wrong (he had forwarded me that paragraph for some reason - but not the rest of the copy).

Isnt it awful when people only tell a one sided story and don't get their facts correct.

Yes, we didn't get that right - but we would never have made the association in the first place if it wasn't for the fact that many Rhodesian Ridgeback sources (books/websites) refer to it in this way. Eg:

http://www.rhodesian-ridgeback-pedigree.org/articles-informations/breeding-and-genetics/inherited-conditions-in-the-rr-by-vicki-moritz.html

"[Dermoid sinus] is the inherited condition most commonly thought of in association with Ridgebacks. It is related to the formation of the ridge and similar to spina bifida in humans."

http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/120676

"Health conditions known to affect this breed are hip dysplasia and dermoid sinus which is the canine version of the human condition, spina bifida."

http://www.petresort.myzen.co.uk/diamondridgeridgebacks/Dermoid%20Sinus%20Ridgeless%20and%20Culling.htm
" It is not the ridge that is a mild form of spina bifida, as reported in some newspapers recently, it is the Dermoid Sinus."

And here is a comment post-PDE from ridgeback breeder Ann Woodrow (who was featured in PDE and is author of a well-known book on the Ridgeback)
http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/News/2008/Aug2008/News150808/comments.htm

"Dermoid Sinus, a form of spina bifida, is a problem we have inherited."

More correctly, we shoud have said that the ridge predisposes the dog to a condition similar to spina bifida. I don't suppose that would have helped much by way of people's perception, but it would have been more accurate. As for culling - I accept (and we said) that it happens less than it did - but the most recent ridgeback survey in the US still lists "ridgelessness" as being the leading cause of death in Ridgies.

Jemima

What goes around, comes around!

Puts questions on just about everything, doesn't it?

> More correctly, we shoud have said that the ridge predisposes the dog to a condition similar to spina bifida. I don't suppose that would have helped much by way of people's perception, but it would have been more accurate. As for culling - I accept (and we said) that it happens less than it did

What it boils down to... you were incorrect in many of your statments.... perhaps all of them

you have done more damage to dogs, than any puppy farmer ever could
You have helped those who breed X's for £££'s immeasurably,
You have singlehandedley brought every decent breeder into disrepute

based on what?   you deliberately chose dogs bred from either byb or puppyfarmed to show on your programme, and led the public to believe these were from responsible breeding... that, really is beneath contempt... 

>Yes, we didn't get that right -

hmm, you didnt get much right, did you?

So why didn't you contact the owners of the dog, a) to ascertain whether the information was correct, and give themselves any chance to explain, and b) to apologise as soon as you realised you had used inaccurate information. 

I personally would be fuming if anyone used any information and/or photographs of my dog(s) without contacting me.  Let alone made unfounded accusations about the health of them. 

> I did have a picture of "Wrink" on my blog at one point but only as an illustration of how much the Shar-pei has changed over the years (compared to the >traditional Shar-pei).

this was not stated on your blog... did you also get permission from the owner of the photo to cover you on the copywright?

and why did it take you 24hours to remove the photo?

Everything you have written and spoke about is based on dreadful lies and deceipt... what a sad sad state of affairs Jemima

If you had only just gone for the truth and nothing but the truth, decent breeders would have been right behind you, but you went for sensationalism and headlining instead... or should that be byelining?

did you really do this for the canine species Jemima

It also bring into question the magazine in which you are published.. such shame on them for lack of fact checking

Hope they sue you,I would

We all make mistake's Jemima, you have admited yours and done your best to put it right and apologised which was accepted. Thats all you can do, its yesterday's snow, done with.

There are only a few people who are insinuating that you fuel the puppy farm trade, it's just rubbish. Sometimes people will say anything to try to discredit someone because they don't agree with them.
Not everyone is like that.

Carry on with your good work.    

Always someone else's fault isn't it Jemima!  It used to me 'I', now it's 'we'!!

Quote Jemima: "Yes, we didn't get that right - but we would never have made the association in the first place if it wasn't for the fact that many Rhodesian Ridgeback sources (books/websites) refer to it in this way."

I'm sorry Jemima, but can you not read?? No one is denying that the dermoid sinus is in all likelihood related to the ridge. However, other breeds of dog, Thoroughbred horses and indeed people - none of which have ridges - have all been known to be affected by dermoid sinus. The quotes very clearly state there is a link - NOT that the ridge is actually a form of spinabifida - very different things indeed.

The owner of the dog had to phone her to get an apology though? 

Completely agree, some people will say anything to discredit someone because they don't agree with them, which is exactly what Jemima has been doing for quite some time!!! 

>So why didn't you contact the owners of the dog, a) to ascertain whether the information was correct,

That would  be the logical and most obvious thing to do. Anything else is hearsay and gossip - ie scandalmongering. Not something any reputable journalist would want anything to do with.

>It doesn't undo the upset, I understand that.

So how do you plan to undo the damage you've done to other reputable people?

I of course apologised profusely.

have you thought of resigning jemima?

"We all make mistake's Jemima, you have admited yours and done your best to put it right and apologised which was accepted. Thats all you can do, its yesterday's snow, done with.

There are only a few people who are insinuating that you fuel the puppy farm trade, it's just rubbish. Sometimes people will say anything to try to discredit someone because they don't agree with them.
Not everyone is like that.

Carry on with your good work.   "

Strange,  Jemima has two protectors and the rest protagonists.  Hmmm.   Says a lot on a Dog Forum, doesn't it?

I know that I would far rather have the respect of my peers than that of the general public .......

>I haven't read the Our Dogs article, so am not aware of exactly what it says

Here it is.

> I took five copies of a flyer containing the info with me but in the end gave out only two

The Our Dogs article quotes you as saying " 'I took only five copies of it with me and returned with two" and that you sent a copy electronically to a fourth person. Then the electronically transtmitted copy was "cross-posted, by a known individual, onto a social networking site, where a total vilification of Tim, Joy and Wrink ensued."

>The information was never posted on my blog. Our Dogs got that wrong

Hmmm, this is a topic about poor research/misinformation, yet you are saying an article about you is wrong  after you have said you never read it

The article doesn't say you posted the leaflet on your blog.

This is something that simply should not have happened. You have made yourself a rather loud voice regarding the welfare of pedigree dogs, you should be making SURE that what you are shouting about is FACT.
IF you had checked the information from your 'reliable source' with the dog in questions owners/breeder and that turned out to be wrong, then it would be easy for this to be accepted as a mistake. By not checking with the people who should know the truth about the matter, you have only shown yourself to have a blatent disregard for the actual facts, showing a preference for any story that will back up your case :( :( :(

>Then the electronically transtmitted copy was "cross-posted, by a known individual, onto a social networking site, where a total vilification of Tim, Joy and Wrink ensued."

The honourable thing to do would be to post a total retraction on that same website, making sure it was high-profile enough to reach all the people you've misled by it. A private apology for a public witch-hunt is just not acceptable.