I have noticed that Ms Harrison has been very quiet on the thread that is breaking all records. I think she has other things on her mind. Seems that she has been making unsubstantiated spurious accusations about a certain dog and is now making headlines herself and not in a good way. It is the front page of Our Dogs, wonder if it has made the front page of Dog World too.

Yes i posted this on the "thread" the other day and have noted how there has been no response, well glad we can see her for what she really is now a TABLOID journo and nothing more!

Sorry, never saw it. Hope she checks her facts out better and is very careful or I can see a case for litigation.

Hehe no worries its a longggggg thread, i meant no response from her :) same with pollys request for info as to whether or not she personally donated, would appear Saint jemima isnt quite the Saint she thinks she is.

Ohhh will go buy it specially to read it.

I think they call it Karma!! :) :) :)

I'm normally a kind, caring and charitable person - but in this case, I'll make an exception! :)

What goes around, comes around!! Maybe we can look forward to Crufts now without another expose of decent people who do their best for their breeds!!!

Interesting and terrible -have just read it online. Read DW earlier this evening but didn't even see a mention there.

We know that dog breeders don't like her, but it looks as though Vets aren't too keen either!!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterwedderburn/100071573/jemima-harrison-has-taken-vet-bashing-to-a-whole-new-level/

My goodness me.  The more I read the more and more this just seems like a one person crusade against the KC and pedigree dogs.
No room for anyone trying to do good, because they will be ridiculed and STILL be told it's not enough.

For many years there have been people who think that only their opinions and ideas are valid and consequently are totally unable to listen to anyone else. Pity really because if they worked with people they could be a force for good but if they get carried away with their own importance they are destined to crash in the end having wasted all that energy. 

I get DW but will make a special trip to get OD this week - well said Nova

Unfortuately, the one sad thing is that this may not make the National papers, so will not get the wider audience that it needs.
Unlike the programme and consiquently the bad press that all the dog world got.
It's not mentioned in DW this week.

I couldn't find it online - any chance of posting a link?

Thanks

For many years there have been people who think that only their opinions and ideas are valid and consequently are totally unable to listen to anyone else.

I agree but it cuts both ways.

I remember when someone took vets to task over their insistence that dogs were vaccinated annually that it caused quite a stir.  But more than one 'investigator' has found that drug companies fund vet placings at university/further education,  and/or research programmes and in return vets were obliged to support the use of said drug companies products and propaganda.

Other research highlighted all the downsides of regular (and un-necessary?) vaccination - cancers at the injection site and other problems. 

Others took vets to task on the way they promoted certain foods in their surgeries and again found that the large influential  dog food companies were funding vet research and education.  It was found that their food products were in many instances no better than many others but the prices for such 'specialists' food was at a premium.

Unfortunately, such practices will never provide an 'objective' role for vets when it comes to recommending drugs and food.

JH may have touched a sore point with breeders because she highlighted the unethical practices of some but can we afford to let that cloud judgement on what good comes from exposing unethical practices wherever they arise?

I have only read the link given here on the subject but it would appear from that that JH is concerned that too many vets are in the pockets of the KC and therefore will be unable to act impartially.  She may not be your favourite cup of tea but does that necessarily negate the relevance of her concerns?

Surely it needs a balanced assessment of just what she is saying and the fact that there is resistance to her (from vets) does not necessarily mean she is wrong.  Don't we need more information before making a judgement?

Pete Wedderburn is/was a staunch supporter of Jemimas is this changing? He was all over Facebook defending her saying how right she is/was?

> Don't we need more information before making a judgement?

I regularly speak to vets and not many actually agree with her ways of going about things and that she has been "exposed" to use her choice of words, I think many more rational people will now question her tactics.

No Polly I don't think so.

Certainly not judging by his previous blog entry.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterwedderburn/100073693/why-do-we-continue-to-prefer-pedigree-dogs-to-mongrels/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

> Certainly not judging by his previous blog entry.

On Facebook he and I clashed over several items especially any point Jemima had raised and he would quote her and say she was right, even when I was saying something which had been said to me by other better qualified vets!

Think the main problem with people who do not take into account the work that others are and have been doing for years is that the long term workers loose heart and give up. The fraternity of pure breed owners have been well aware that some of their houses needed repair and efforts were being made to sort the worst of the problems - now there is a reluctance to talk of these problems because of being tainted with being in favour of the extreme and sometimes short sighted ideas shouted from the media.

Those calling for moderation in all things dog should learn to apply it to their pronouncements.

How often have we said to JH that to have a debate you have to listen and take on other peoples ideas now she is paying a price. She listens to those who support her view and not to those who question it. Will she learn from this? I very much doubt it.

Even on her own forum 'for the love of flatcoats' on yahoo groups she would let you say anything you liked but would never consider that anything said there that did not totally agree with her point of view had any merit or truth. Having looked at the forum posts in its early days it had a over 400 posts a month registered, latterly it has shrunk down and I noticed there have been several months when only one post has appeared. People got fed up because if you did not agree with her it was like banging your head against a wall... nothing was achieved.

Agree with you Nova, she has put back the improvement in dogs by years and for what? Fame for herself? I know a lot of good breeders who have given up over what has been happening since her tabloid programme was aired. She has even said on here she used pet bred dogs in the programme as she could not find the problems in show dogs.

Its so unfair that she gets away with her slanderous ramblings just because she thinks it's ok to take info without making sure it was correct, if I was Tim ball and the other owners I would consider legal steps.

So would I but worse yet she used it at the APGAW investigation into pedigree dog breeding which she describes as a 'small meeting'!

Quote Susieque: "JH may have touched a sore point with breeders because she highlighted the unethical practices of some but can we afford to let that cloud judgement on what good comes from exposing unethical practices wherever they arise?"

Susieque - I'm afraid that you still don't understand why us responsible breeders were so upset by the programme. I'm sure that we were at least as horrified as the general public at some of the practices exposed ie breeding from animals known to have health issues and seeing the suffering of the dog with epilepsy and the CKCS with SM was just awful. But what has upset us so much about the programme is the fact that it gave the impression that all breeders of pedigree dogs were unethical and that so many opportunities were missed to help the general public in their search for a puppy of the breed(s) that they want.

If the program had been made, showing how important buying a healthy puppy was, talking about health testing, what to look for in an ethical breeder, being aware of puppy farms, delivered puppies etc, and then pointing out in a balanced way that there are a few breeds that tend to have more potential problems than others, then I think that she would have got great support from the vast majority of the dog world.

The totally unbalanced, sensational program that was aired has done untold damaged to those who have been striving to improve dog health for years. 

I don't know of anyone who had heard the name of Jemima Harrison before that program.  What some people are prepared to do just for their 5 minutes of fame is unforgivable!

> Quote Susieque: "JH may have touched a sore point with breeders because she highlighted the unethical practices of some but can we afford to let that cloud judgement on what good comes from exposing unethical practices wherever they arise?">

And for what it's worth, it's not just breeders that this has become a sore point with.

>I don't know of anyone who had heard the name of Jemima Harrison before that program. 

Wasn't she responsible for the freak show programme about the family that walked on all fours?

Quote Susieque: "JH may have touched a sore point with breeders because she highlighted the unethical practices of some but can we afford to let that cloud judgement on what good comes from exposing unethical practices wherever they arise?"

Agree you do seem to be missing the point, her anger and exposure was directed at the wrong people and will have no effect on those who are causing the problems but have to my knowledge caused those responsible breeders to give up in their efforts to breed better dogs with excellent health and conformation. So far from improving the situation (that was in hand anyway) she has made matters worse and handed the baton to the Puppy Farmers.

Pardon me for mentioning it but I am a JH as well but vehemently disagree with the statements and behaviour of the other JH

But what has upset us so much about the programme is the fact that it gave the impression that all breeders of pedigree dogs were unethical

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.

Could it be that being a breeder it is that much more difficult to remain objective when such emotive and subjective issues were raised?

I know lots of people the watched the programme and they didn't walk away with the idea that it involved every breed and breeder either . And if you look at the link posted here it seems that pedigree dogs are just as popular as ever while cross breeds and mongrels are not so.
So the general public are still choosing pedigree dogs it seems, despite what was highlighted in PDE.

I couldn't find it online - any chance of posting a link?


It's in Our Dogs this week. You can only see it online if you have an online subscription to them. It's in the members area.

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.

Weren't you on here in the aftermath when several posters, owners of pet pedigree dogs of OTHER breeds, not show dogs, told stories of how they had been verbally abused when out walking their dogs, just for the fact they owned a pedigree dog?

> 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.
>
>

Unfortunately that is exactly what the casual viewing general public got from the program, I discuss it almost daily and still come across those who see nothing wrong with other people breeding Willy nilly with no health tests, just that KC breeders are at fault.

Weren't you on here in the aftermath when several posters, owners of pet pedigree dogs of OTHER breeds, not show dogs, told stories of how they had been verbally abused when out walking their dogs, just for the fact they owned a pedigree dog?

It doesn't matter what the issue is you will always get extremist response from a minority.

I do sympathise and I do understand.  I know I've said it before but I will say it again.  It happened in dog training and many good trainers were tarred with the same brush as the bad.

Many people worked together to raise public awareness of the good practices and when APDT was formed it worked its socks off recruiting like-minded people who used fair, kind and effective methods.

Along came the first series of Caesar Milan and Dog Borstal and you had to be 'training' to know the backlash and the feeling of frustration that years of work had gone down the pan with the airing of thse shows.  Later series of Dog Borstal improved but both were shown at prime time TV and good trainers were appalled and the message these two progs gave out.

S**t happens and all you can do is be firm in your resolve to rise above it and stick to the principles that underpin the work good breeders have done and do do.

know lots of people the watched the programme and they didn't walk away with the idea that it involved every breed and breeder either . And if you look at the link posted here it seems that pedigree dogs are just as popular as ever while cross breeds and mongrels are not so.
So the general public are still choosing pedigree dogs it seems, despite what was highlighted in PDE.

What link are you refering to ?

It is association that you seem to have missed on tarring all breeders and owners of pedigree dogs. The program did not in any sense show a well balanced view. It was all about a bad element (which we all agree does exist ) but did not show the other side where there are many hundreds of caring and ethical breeders with the breed clubs that are working tirelessly towards the health and welfare of their breeds. Even owners of pedigree dogs have been abused as well as somebody else has just mentioned.

I have many conversations about this very subject with people that came out with the conclusion that all pedigree dogs are 'freaks' and unhealthly animals because of the way they are ALL bred. It is amazing how people can be so led towards an opinion like this by the media. People take what they see as fact as unfortunately that program was so one sided and focused on some extreme examples they didn't really have much else to make an informed opinion :-)

I think what angered me about PDE is that it showed unhealthy dogs being shown and for months later could hear people talking about how pedigree's were unhealthy, all pedigree breeders were bad and that cross breeds were more healthy.

It didnt show the love, care and endless devotion a great deal of pedigree breeders have towards their dogs and how much they want their dogs to be healthy.

Would health tests really be around if all pedigree breeders didnt care about the health of their dog and the pups they have? No.

Also I think they should make a cross breed dogs exposed and show the poor breeding of dogs that alot of people believe to be more healthy than pedigree's, do they health test? Some do but only a small few. Do they vet all potential owners to within a inch of their life? Unlikely.

Pedigree dogs exposed was very one sided, we all know these breeders exist but at least show the good breeders too.

Sorry for the rant.

>It's in Our Dogs this week.

I was in town earlier today and read the article (thank you WHS!). For a professional journalist what she did was shamefully amateur - even a cub reporter on a local rag would be reduced to making the tea for months for such an appalling, and so easily avoidable, blunder.

True colours will out.

Is there anyone who could summarise the article for those of us that can't get out to the shops to get dog world? What exactly has she done?

Basically she went along to a meeting of APGAW (apparently the minutes are on their website) with a few copies of a leaflet she'd produced stating that the top winning Shar Pei's sire and dam had both died of a hereditary condition and yet he was still being shown and siring litters. A little research would have shown that his dam is dead, but died of an accident, and his sire is not only still alive, he's still being shown and winning at Veteran level; neither dog has the condition referred to. These 'facts' were also published on her blog, and weren't taken down until several (presumably increasingly irate) emails had been sent from the dog's owners, who only found out about these lies, and how their good name had been besmirched, and a Facebook campaign launched which vilified them aftr a copy of this leaflet was sent to them.

Thanks. What's the journalistic saying. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Obviously Jemima's motto.

Oh dear what a blooper !

Just makes you wonder doesn't it about any truth behind any other facts she has quoted or written about doesn't it !

Oh well there is nothing like taking ones own credibilty down by ones own actions !

The actual minutes from the meeting (which she described as a "small meeting") can be accessed from here. It was the meeting on 14th December.

>Just makes you wonder doesn't it about any truth behind any other facts she has quoted or written about doesn't it !

It certainly does.

Bet it has not dented her feeling of self importance one tiny bit. A journalist in the very worst tradition of the gutter media, as someone said don't let the truth stand in the way of a good story and if they are no suitable facts available then make a few up. Lets hope that in future her pronouncements with be ignored by all but the very stupid as they have now been exposed as mostly make-believe.

> I couldn't find it online - any chance of posting a link?

Here it is.

link

I couldn't find it on-line with my PC, but found it easy on my iPod.

ETA - just realised that I found it only on my iPod, as that took me to Our Dogs mobile site, which is much easier to navigate than the standard site :) (I then just copied the URL from my iPod into my PC's browser & hey-presto :) )

Oh well done, ML. :-) Good sleuthing!

> JH may have touched a sore point with breeders because she highlighted the unethical practices of some but can we afford to let that cloud judgement on what good comes from exposing unethical practices wherever they arise?
>

I'm not a breeder nor do I show my dog, I also don't know any breeder or person who does show thier dog, but anybody I've spoken to about that programme were really shocked at the 'dreadfull state of pedigree dogs'. Nobody I have spoken to have taken the programme to be highlighting bad practice within the dog world, they have just come away with the notion that ALL pedigree dogs are bred by people that give no thought for thier health and that all pedigree dogs are suffering :(

I do agree that unethical practices need highlighting, but to do this in a productive way, that actually helps the dog world, it would have been wise to show the public that there ARE healthy dogs, bred by ethical breeders. Showing the public that ethical breeders are about and advising them how they should be looking for a puppy from an ethical breeder would have a productive impact, rather than frightening would-be buyers away from ALL pedigree dogs (which joe public take to mean 'pure-bred' not 'dog with a pedigree').

I think the people that would have taken the programme as merely highlighting problems that need addressing, would be people that were allready aware there are problems that need sorting. But for anybody that does not allready know that health testing is available and does not know there is a difference between ethical & unethical breeders, they have come away with the impression that the programme was an expose on how pedigree dogs are really produced :( :( :(

So sad that such a fantastic opportunity, to not only highlight the problems that need addressing, but also educate the public - so they are not inadvertanly giving thier business to unetical breeders - has been completely missed. :( :(

Interesting reading as it is shame they didn't let her go into specifics so it could have been minuted, She didnt really make any contribution that made any impact apart for reminding us she made the program and had evidence of wrong breeding practices in the Sharpei world ! 'Not much is done if a disease or problem is identified' what on earth is that comment meant to say ? So again a sweeping statement to try and indicate that if they have a health issue then all breeders just ignore it and carry on breeding :rolleyes:

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.

> Good sleuthing!

LOL, I have my uses :-D

But for anybody that does not allready know that health testing is available and does not know there is a difference between ethical & unethical breeders, they have come away with the impression that the programme was an expose on how pedigree dogs are really produced :-( :-( :-(

Very good post Mastifflover and extra interesting as it's come from somebody NOT involved with showing and breeding. As for the above quote -indeed, why else was the programme called "Pedigree dogs exposed" rather than "Bad dog breeders exposed" or similar?! The title alone told the public it was about ALL pedigree dogs.