A question please, before I pen a letter I would like some feedback on whether Im being unreasonable!! If you discovered that one of the columnists from a "dog paper" had been approached by THAT tv programme to help them, and then went on (in another non dog paper) to say how  much he supported that programme.......would you consider that they are the right sort of person to be writing for a dog paper??

It would be a conflict of interest - if they spoke about it in another paper, but not in their own.  Are columnists employees?  Or are they freelance?  As if an employee then their host paper would have something to say about it I would have thought. You are not being unreasonable.

Nope, if they truly believed that all things in pedigree dogs is so bad they should be saying so in the dog papers & of course, produce evidence to back up the facts they claim are true.

Definitely not. Would love to know who it is, have a coupe of suspicions.

This is an interesting question, I know a lot of people ended up on opposite sides in this on going debate. I think ifthe writer is employed then the editor might be toning down their views in their paper but would have no control over them in another paper. A freelance reporters offerings are often edited very closely, to ensure accuracy.

At Our Dogs we like to look at every side of the argument, and prefer to publish both opinions in the case of a dispute. When we were asked to review the programme Pedigree Dogs Exposed I went to the screening, and we decided for fairness that I would write a review but inserted into the article would be interviews with Jemima, and others who were pro the programme and people who disagred with the programme. Hence Jemima and Beverley Cuddy were in that weeks edition among others and over the ensuing weeks, we aired the thoughts of a number of people from the KC, the RSPCA, and others. We felt it was important to look at the debate, and allow our readers to consider all sides of this issue.

If we cannot publish both sides of an issue we will follow it up where necessary and allow our readers to make their own minds up about an issue. In some cases it gives us the opportunity to ask questions we think need addressing.
However what we do find is that some people read into an article or a series of articles what they want to regadless of how we report it! :-)

Have you written to the editor of the paper concerned either as a private heads up or as a letter to spark further investigation and debate among a wider circle of readers?

well the program was corrct in what it was saying, it just went about it in the wrong way, it didnt show any breeds that were doing the right thing, it was very biased, it has resulted in good cor the KC but once Crufts is on tv again i hope that the G.puplic will put its trust back into the KC.

anyway. no i dont think he should be writing for the paper.

Yes, absolutely the right sort of person. He has his views, believes in them and is entitled to air them. The reader then must decide their own stance as a result of that article.  We do still have freedom of expression I believe, and freedom to agree or disagree with the person expressing their views whether in a dog publication or not.

So I don't see why you think he shouldn't be writing for a dog paper? Not everyone in the dog world disagrees with Pedigree Dogs Exposed, so why shouldn't they be allowed to say so?

chinablue the point is that he hasnt aired the fact that he was involved in the programme, in his dog paper column..... only in another unrelated publication!!!  Im sure the average dogpaper reader would like to know a columnist has been involved...... dont you?

If he has not made this clear in the dog paper he writes for why not write to the paper and publically ask him about it and if it is true what you have read in the other publication? Doing that he would have to answer and then readers could make up their own minds? If this man is writing breed notes you could always submit notes for publication. In Our Dogs paper we have two regular correspondents for flatcoats for example.

Is it relevant?  Is his view likely to be any different than it would be if he hadn't been involved?  Would some readers by biased towards what he writes if they knew he had been involved, or would there be a witch hunt,  I don't know.  All I can say is, involved or not, it's up to the readers to agree with what he writes, not agree with it or whatever.  I really don't see what the issue is.

I'm wracking my brain here as to who you're referring to... Can only come up with David Hancock, who certainly helped with the programme (and featured in it). But David's views of the Kennel Club and dog-breeding are hardly headline news. He's been a noisy critic for years - and I imagine was employed by Our Dogs at least partly because of these 'controversial' views as well as his amazing historical knowledge and breed-specific expertise on bull mastiffs.

Jemima

Hi Sam
Sorry, I really don't see how it is relevant.

He has his views, believes in them and is entitled to air them. The reader then must decide their own stance as a result of that article.  We do still have freedom of expression I believe, and freedom to agree or disagree with the person expressing their views whether in a dog publication or not.


Precisely!

Heavens above, one can't help but wonder if readers/exhibitors will soon be asking if the breed notes authors/judges have anything to declare or if they have changed their underwear recently!!!

Is this possibly a case of sour grapes against a judge......?

Is this possibly a case of sour grapes against a judge......?

What a ridiculous statement -I'd say an apology is owed to sam here. And of course we don't want anti pedigree people writing in either of our dog papers -they are ABOUT pedigree dogs, after all. You only have to pick up any  tabloid to get the anti views.

>>And of course we don't want anti pedigree people writing in either of our dog papers -they are ABOUT pedigree dogs, after all.

I don't know if i would call them anti pedigree?? Maybe there are just people out there,experienced dog people, who care about the health and future of our breeds,and feel they can be both with an unbiased  attitude.Bottom line being the dogs health and welfare before modern day looks.

>would you consider that they are the right sort of person to be writing for a dog paper??

I'd perhaps consider he may have valid opinions for both sides,which i see as a positive,not a negative.An open mind is so much needed when it comes to "that program".I don't think either side should be 100% regimented,as IMO both sides have valid arguments,and they should be meeting somewhere in the middle.

>on whether Im being unreasonable!!

Maybe just a tad :)

fleabag, im tempted not to asnwer such an insulting suggestion. I dont hold sour grapes (??) against any judge!  To my knowledge this person doesnt judge "pedigree" breeds as he hates them all too much! Seeem an odd choice of writer for a basically "pedigree" publication!

I think it is good to listen to all sides in a debate, as long as we do not stop listening to all sides and become entrenched in one opinion and then eventually become arrogant in our ranting! I have so often heard breeders tell new owners and novice breeders, that they "never stop learning" and some even add, "The day you stop learning and think you know it all is the day you will find that you really do not know anything at all".

If there is one sure fire way to stop people listening to what you are trying to get across, all you have to do is to see only one side of an issue, and insist you are right. So perhaps this is a mistake this columnist is making and eventually anyone who might have read what he writes will simply just say "Oh it's him again" they will sigh and pass on to a more enlightened columnist who does try to see all sides of an argument who is capable of adding more to a debate.

Polly, David Hanock is probably the foremost dog historian in the world, with a great passion for mastiffs and an encyclopaedic knowledge of dogs.  He definitely is NOT anti-pedigree - just anti some of the practices that have damaged some pedigree dogs.  He's also a real gentleman and writes with courtesy and style.

Jemima

I was making a general comment on how writers and other media people can alienate those they are trying to reach. I have never mentioned David Hancock whose views and experience I am well aware of.

I mention the breeders comments about learning because unless people are prepared to listen and consider all aspects of any debate they will never learn anything. It is true that when a writer or other media person does not look or consider others points of view as valid in some greater or lessor degree, then readers/listeners/viewers think to themselves, "Oh no so and so is off ranting again" and they stop listening or stop reading that columnist, which is sad because they might have something very valid to say.

I find it interesting that nobody here except you have mentioned anybody by name, since although Sam is thinking of a particular writer, the rest of us were merely asked our opinion on whether some body who holds certain views should write for a dog paper, which we have answered as best we can from our own experience.  At no point have I said that I doubt the experience or knowledge of or do not agree with any particular columnist. So I find your comment somewhat peculiar.

Given that I had mentioned David Hancock, your comments did sound specific to him and I was anxious that if I thought so, others would too, hence why I defended him. (I'm still presuming it's David you mean, Sam?)

Opiniated columnists are always both loved and loathed - Jeremy Clarkson being a prime example in the general media - or of course your own Robert Killick in Our Dogs being another. Editors usually like them because their views stir debate and provoke a response from readers. I think as long as the balance overall in a magazine fits the editorial brief, it can withstand some individual differences of opinion.

Jemima

> your comments did sound specific to him and I was anxious that if I thought so, others would too, hence why I defended him.

Are you really defending this person or just here to "sully"the waters again ? Presumably you were thinking if the cap fits-name names or were you anxious to defend a contributor to your next work of muddled fact/fiction & bump up one of your supporters ?

>> Opiniated columnists are always both loved and loathed - Jeremy Clarkson being a prime example in the general media - or of course your own Robert Killick in Our Dogs being another. Editors usually like them because their views stir debate and provoke a response from readers. I think as long as the balance overall in a magazine fits the editorial brief, it can withstand some individual differences of opinion.
>

Yes this is true, opiniated columnists are loved or loathed, And Robert has written for Dogs Today as well as Our Dogs. We do try to make sure we always look at both sides of a debate in Our Dogs, and when we did the review of Pedigree Dogs Exposed, the editor, and myself talked it over as to how we would cover both sides of this debate, so I suggested that we invite Beverley Cuddy and yourself among others to appear alongside the main review, and we later asked Mark Evans for an interview too.

I am sure most readers of any paper or some viewers of any TV programme these days are well educated enough to decide for themselves what is true and what is is not. The difference is that what is in print can be retained more easily and referred back to over time by readers which allows them time to consider all aspects of any debate. TV tends to be instant, and often people cannot refer back to a programme once it has been aired. Internet users can review a programme by going to iPlayer or similar places, but people who are not on the internet cannot, so as they do not take in the whole programme they take in the sensational bits or the scary bits or the highly emotional bits or even the really funny bits. I am sure we can all recall some bits from most tv programmes but we cannot recall totally every part of the programme.

Papers like Our Dogs can open a debate in a number of ways which other media cannot. How many times has anyone here watched a TV programme or listened to the radio and wanted to scream at the device an opposing view? At least in the paper as I stated at first you can write a letter to the editor or to the columnist and hopefully you will get a reply. If not it may be that somebody else has already written a letter covering your comments so a reply is given that way.

Well said.

> And of course we don't want anti pedigree people writing in either of our dog papers -they are ABOUT pedigree dogs, after all. You only have to pick up any  tabloid to get the anti views.

This seems to be a common misconception - that anyone who agrees with anything that pedigree dogs exposed covered or doesn't agree with what some breeders are doing are anti pedigree. I was called 'anti dog' on one thread because I agreed with most of the programme content. This is not anti dog, or anti pedigree. This is anti breeding practices which are detrimental to the breeds and the individual animals themselves, for which breeders and judges are accountable. A lot of people here just can't seem to grasp this concept at all.

A closed shop where everyone agrees with anything and everything that is done in the pedigree dog world? Is that really what you want?  No one should question or have a different opinion?  These magazines are also read by people who have a real passion and enthusiasm for dogs without being breeders, and I for one would not want to hear just one side of anything. It is this type of tunnel vision that got many breeds into their current difficulties.

yeap well said here to

ChinaBlue well said! :) I agree 100% :)

It seems on this topic people are either fully on one side,or the other.Personally I'm down the middle,and agree with certain parts of both sides.

Hear hear

What I don't get is, did this reporter write these views in their column, or were they only written for a completely different publication?  Regardless who agrees with what, if he/she won't write it in their own column then they sure as heck shouldn't be putting it in another one.  It's unprofessional and counterproductive. IF this is the case.

> It's unprofessional and counterproductive. IF this is the case.

Actually it isn't unprofessional at all. Many journalists will write a story one week pro a particular issue and the next write another article supporting the other side of the issue, for those professional journalists as Jemima stated on a forum before, they are paid to write articles on various things with a slant towards one side of that issue or the other side of the issue.

As the dog press is geared to a specialist readership it is less likely for a reporter to write pro or anti any issue as in the general media, however what many reporters might do in the dog press is to voice opinions loudly in one magazine and a little more low key in another. So for example if writing for Dogs Today I would probably look at health issues from one point of view but in the press like Our Dogs or Dog World I'd look not just at the issues but at factors that might affect those issues as well.

A good example is the proposed introduction of what is being called the Lua dog, a pointer cross dalmatian. Even if every breeder and our KC decided that this was definately the way to go and this is possible, then breeders will face a big problem if they want to export progeny from a dog which has one of these crosses in the pedigree as other international Kennel Clubs will not accept a pedigree which has a known cross or even a dog in the pedigree which is noted on the KC pedigree as 'unregistered'. While the breeders involved and our KC might think this is a good idea, they still have to work with Kennel Clubs they have reciprocal agreements with to persuade them to accept these dogs registrations. Things are never as black and white as we like to think.

You see, perhaps it's just me then :-) ?  I would never say something in one publication that I would not be prepared to say in my regular publication?  Especially if I wanted to be taken seriously.

> You see, perhaps it's just me then :-) ?

No it's not I will say what I think in the paper and on the forums and if asked to write for another paper I would still be the same. That is a luxury most dog press writers have over the general media, who as professional writers in mainstream media have to write every story with the spin on it the editor will like. It might be that a writer might be more out spoken in a magazine geared to the pet owner, as we know here they are not always happy to listen to good advice or may not understand or be prepared to take good advice. So to keep the pet owning public interested the editor or reporter might might have to be more outspoken.

In the dog press we can be outspoken but as I said earlier if we keep saying the same thing over and over again our readers will simply turn over the page to something else. How often have you seen an article for instance and thought after reading a couple of sentences oh I have heard this before and moved on to something else? So as our readers are more likely to take in details which affect our hobby, we can hold our opinions and we can explore them further looking at all aspects that a member of the general public would not want to read about.

A good example is the proposed introduction of what is being called the Lua dog, a pointer cross dalmatian. Even if every breeder and our KC decided that this was definately the way to go and this is possible, then breeders will face a big problem if they want to export progeny from a dog which has one of these crosses in the pedigree as other international Kennel Clubs will not accept a pedigree which has a known cross or even a dog in the pedigree which is noted on the KC pedigree as 'unregistered'. While the breeders involved and our KC might think this is a good idea, they still have to work with Kennel Clubs they have reciprocal agreements with to persuade them to accept these dogs registrations. Things are never as black and white as we like to think.

There was only ever one outcross to a pointer in this line of dals - and that was 12-14 generations back.  The LUA dals are registered, but with the United Kennel Club with whom the KC does not have a reciprocal agreement.  However, they could be registered under other existing KC protocols - namely if two champ show judges agree the dog is a good example of the breed. As the person applying is herself a champ show judge, she's half-way there - although I believe she's not taking that route, but rather that the dogs absolutely should be registerable on purely health grounds. The real resistance on this one comes, sadly, from the breed club which is still trying to claim there isn't enough scientific evidence to support the application (not true - there's plenty). However, the KC sounds sympathetic and I think it will be hard for them to not make the right decision. After all, breeders who think the dogs are "impure" don't have to use them.

Oh absolutely, people take a journalist less seriously if they bang on and on and on about the same thing - there have been several good examples recently lol.

Just to show you how difficult it is when other KC's don't recognise either a breed or agree on certain area's of the standard.  I have a young male who is well thought of overseas, with many enquiries from potential owners, great when looking to increase the gene pool of our very small breed only problem 1 missing molar!  This is an American imported problem but a minor fault in my book compared to a disease that arrived with the American's, in the UK this is not a disqualifing fault BUT with FCI it is ergo he wouldn't be allowed to breed or show under FCI kennel clubs!

Ok you can say so what? Its only 1 dog but in reality its a fault in many American bloodlines to a lesser or greater extent, here in the UK we are vilified for NOT diversifing our bloodlines and have FCI member countries such as Sweden thrown in our faces as the way to go!  The very people who are putting more restrictions on the genetic diversity of many breeds one has to wonder just how they are going to cope when their American imports start to show similar faults. 

We the breeders at grass roots level have to deal with these issues on a day to day basis and try to find a balance sometimes these things take time, not like the BBC would have you believe on Breakfast news the other morning!

> There was only ever one outcross to a pointer in this line of dals - and that was 12-14 generations back. 

Yes as I understand it this is the case and while I agree there is a case for registering such dogs, the point I was making is that, if the AKC and FCI would not recognise these dogs any breeder using one might in the future end up in a situation where none of the progeny from that line can be exported and registered with an overseas kennel club as one breed who have this problem are already aware of. The case needs to be made that perhaps when outcrosses to another breed or to an unregistered dog of the breed or to a pack hound that all KCs need to agree that progeny can be registered.

As we are discussing what a paper might be able to look at I simply used this as an example of one factor which might have to be taken into consideration. It is one aspect which a specialist paper for example can explore since most readers of pet dog magazines might not completely understand why we cannot always get things done immediately. In the breed I mentioned earlier the introduction of one unregistered dog has caused a lot of upset when dogs sold overseas were bred from and the resulting progeny were not accepted for registration even though the dog concerned is way back in the pedigrees.

What's the breed, Polly? (In fact, there must be a few, no - just thinking about the bull terrier/mini bull croses and the bloodhound packhounds)

As I understood it (perhaps wrongly?), if accepted, the dogs would be *registered for three gens and then allowed full registration? If so, why wouldn't the dogs be recognised by foreign KCs under the reciprocal agreements?

> As I understood it (perhaps wrongly?), if accepted, the dogs would be *registered for three gens and then allowed full registration? If so, why wouldn't the dogs be recognised by foreign KCs under the reciprocal agreements?

KC Rules & reg 2009/2010 B(3.23)2.c

"Dogs of breeds already fully recognized, whose breeding is either impure or unverified, may be accepted for registration on the Breed Register. The registration for a dog so registered will be annotated with an asterisk to indicate impure or unverified breeding. Such dogs will be similarly identified in the Breed Record Supplement. Except for cases under this Regulation will only be considered if the dog has been bred under authority granted in advance by the General Committee."

21. Proviso

In certain instances Regulation B2b may be varied on the authority of the General Committee. The breeds concerned are listed in Annex "D"

Annex D refers to Chihuahuas & Belgian Shepherds

The UK KC only has reciprocal agreements with the American Kennel Club as it is the senior American Club

>However, they could be registered under other existing KC protocols - namely if two champ show judges agree the dog is a good example of the breed.

Can you point me to the KC Regs that cover this ? It used to be the case many years ago(i.e. over 40), but haven't heard of anyone doing this recently.

I understand the dal breeder who has requested to import and register a LUA dal has been told this by the KC. Or at least that this would be the first stage of the application to register. (But I'm reporting this second-hand so may be wrong.)

> I understand the dal breeder who has requested to import and register a LUA dal has been told this by the KC. Or at least that this would be the first stage of the application to register. (But I'm reporting this second-hand so may be wrong.)

So this is just hearsay then ? Hm I thought with your extensive knowledge of the Kennel Club you would have known which Regulation covered it, I, as a mere mortal, cannot find any reference to registering dogs that have no certified pedigree simply by having two CC judges say it is a member of the breed it is supposed to be in the 2009/2010 regulations, I do hope you haven't jumped into print or similar stating this is a fact, without a definitive reply in writing from the KC.

I think also that if this was possible the owner would not be able to be one of the two judges

Well it's a little more than hearsay as it's what the applicant herself has reported. It may not be the whole story but the KC considering the request and will be ruling next month. Either there is some existing protocol, or perhaps the request is so persuasive that they will be introducing some new protocol.

The backcrossed dals are a triumph, I think, and a lot of incredibly hard work and experience from long-standing US dal breeders who love their dogs has gone into restoring the normal uric acid production that they lost somehwere along the line (as a result, it seems, of the culprit gene being linked to the ticking pattern). These are beautiful pedigree dogs, free of an unpleasant and sometimes fatal breed health problem, indistinguishable from KC/AKC dals and capable of competing and winning at the very highest level. What not to embrace and celebrate?

>indistinguishable from KC/AKC dals

In all the comparison photos I've seen it's not been difficult to tell the difference. Obviously people who don't know the breed well would have more of a problem.

If the ultimate aim is to rid the breed of the rogue gene, relying a single crossbreeding would result in a catastrophic narrowing of the gene pool. In practical terms the advance blessing of the KC would be needed (as in the case of the bobtail boxer experiment) before several crosses using various dalmatian bloodlines to unrelated suitable (ie not too close to the pointer standard!) pointers in order to maintain as much genetic diversity as possible.

Of course the visible differences AKC dalmatians and British KC dalmatians don't help!

No, this project has been very carefully planned to not reduce diversity (although one can't argue that it has increased it either). There is no narrowing of the gene pool (or not any greater than exists already in dals). Back in the 1970s, a dalmatian was bred to a single champion pointer. There was only ever this one pointer used. The resulting progeny with normal uric acid was then backcrossed to AKC dalmatians.

I'm not a dal expert, but these dogs win in America in events where AKC and UKC dals are allowed to compete together - even when judged by AKC judges. 

And just to say that the two-judge rule does appear to still exist - at least according to Jeff Sampson. Check out what he says at 29 mins in on this webcast:

http://www.webchats.tv/chats/Petcare/wwwthekennelcluborguk

>AKC and UKC dals

But not UKKC dals?

Well no, because they're in different countries...  But of course there's nothing in the LUA dals that would prevent them from being bred on to conform more with the UK showlines (is there much difference?).

>(is there much difference?).

The standards are different - with overlaps of course - and the dogs from North America and those from Europe each have a distinctive 'look' which distinguishes them from each other.

> In all the comparison photos I've seen it's not been difficult to tell the difference.

There is a good breeder od Dalmatians not 10 miles away from me & TBH I could tell the difference quite easily, mind you as JG wrote there are obvious differences between UK Dalmatians & American ones anyway let alone between the LUA ones.

> And just to say that the two-judge rule does appear to still exist - at least according to Jeff Sampson. Check out what he says at 29 mins in on this webcast:

Do you mean this ?

J: And also we have registered dogs within breeds that would otherwise not be registered but clearly are members of that particular breed, so you know we can go to expert judges and say does this dog look like this breed? We have in the past taken their advice and registered those dogs

No mention of this being the currently considered & with DNA testing being available, it should not go on looks alone, I know of one Standard Poodle cross Border Collie that can & does pass for a Bearded Collie(show type) I recognized it as a cross without a problem-but then I have owned & bred Bearded Collies(pre Potterdale). To a non specialist or a specialist who has only had contact with the modern Bearded Collies she would appear to be a Bearded Collie.

Should have added

The registration of the LUA Dalmatian is not the same as trying to register an"impure"pedigree dog of known parentage that is not registered with another KC that the UK KC has reciprocal agreement with as a dog of a specific breed. If this breeding had been done in the UK as soon as the dogs were 4th generation from the cross, just as Bruce Cattanach did with his Boxers. No need to rely on the "visual expertise"of two CC judges.

There is a DNA test for Canine Hyperuricosuria , I sure you know about this of course.

I have no problem in doing a cross to develop Dalmatians that are at worse carriers, but it should be done within the the Regulations of the UK KC