Perhaps, with regard to the Shar Pei incident, she should be asked to resign from APGAW- you might put pressure on the group for that to happen. One would have to be absolutely crystal clear about the facts though.

However, she is an independent TV Producer. The more she is discussed on forums like this the more attractive she becomes to any broadcaster. Believe me, they love nothing more than controversy and rage inducing subjects/persons.

>One thing I have learnt since I joined CD, that is the problems with pedigree dogs is far worse that I had thought.

Jocelyn - you've said this before and a few of us replied to you but you declined to respond...

If you are gathering your data from CD then your research is seriously flawed.  You are getting information only from people who bother to post, and only about the dogs they wish to discuss.  Some posters also use information gleaned from a lifetime of dog owning, some of which is anecdotal.  It is by no means representative of dogs as a whole or indeed even of the dogs that CD members own, given that there is little point on a forum discussing our fit and healthy dogs...

I'm not sure this is the right thread for this debate but if you'd like to start a new one I'm sure you'll get many views that echo mine.  You might also want to remind yourself of the topic of this thread and consider that it is just that sort of woolly thinking/research that started this entire debate in the first place

> Remember there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Good pooint, but don't you think that equally the more chance the good breeders get to put accross thier side of things, the better it is.?

There are people that, allthough initailly came away from the programme with the worst impression of pedigree dogs, have enough about them to listen to facts and understand how the programme gave a biased snap-shot.

Ignoring Jemima wont make her, or her influence, go away, but coming up with knowledgable, experienced, counter-facts to her biased works, will have an effect on atleast some people for the better. If changing the minds of only a few people at a time is all anybody can do from the forum, then atleast the message is getting through slowly, rather than not at all.

> The more she is discussed on forums like this the more attractive she becomes to any broadcaster. Believe me, they love nothing more than controversy and rage inducing subjects/persons.

Oh yes, when you put it like that it makes more sense to ignore her :( :(

Grrr, flippin' media - all about sensalisation instead of facts in context

If you are gathering your data from CD then your research is seriously flawed.  You are getting information only from people who bother to post, and only about the dogs they wish to discuss.

Just like vets see almost only sick dogs. Why would anyone sit here and discuss dogs that are healthy, well behaved and a pleasure to live with? That give birth easily to pups that have no problems? That's boring to write and boring to read and nothing to discuss or ask advice about.

Why not get admin to help set up the ultimate guide to Puppy buying? DT are doing all that stuff. At the very least have a dedicated section for puppy buying with tips from top breeders. If it is properly linked SEA wise it should pop up when anyone does a google search.

There is so much energy going to waste here. Hope this does not offend anyone, but the real passionate production should be on this forum.

Why not get admin to help set up the ultimate guide to Puppy buying?

Great idea!

>I have made several contributions to this thread and am starting to feel that my opinion is of no concern to good breeders (as I am not pro-active in canine welfare), but I shouldn't feel like that. I am a member of the public - the public have vast power to change things. Allthough I appreciate why backs have been put up on this thread, the general tone is giving the message that the publics opinions dont count, which in turn gets the publics backs up against breeders in general. I know this is not the intention, but it how things are starting to come accross<

To say you have done nothing for dog welfare is not true, as can be seen by the following line from your own post.

> In general I don't think the level of anybodies involvement is relevent in the discussion of canine welfare. Even a mere pet-owner, like myself, who does nothing active for dogs welfare (other than stress the importance of a good breeder to anybody who will listen!) are entitled to an opinion.

And what you do is helpful to canine welfare, you try to educate the public you do not come on here and simply argue with people for the sake of it. I always read your posts because I think they are useful and done with the best intentions providing good information, so far I have read nothing like that in either Suzieque or Jocelyns posts.

> so far I have read nothing like that in either Suzieque or Jocelyns posts.
>

I wonder if I gave them a link to my page on Champdogs they would come on here and apologise for patronising ( yes indeed..patronising) me and other health focused breeders.

I doubt it though..dont you?

I'd probably get a remark like 'preaching to the converted', when I was probably 'converted' before they were born.

I suspect the reason they post here is they get an inteligent argument rather than the " Oh but I like cute puppies" they would get elsewhere.

We are too kind, too willing to tolerate denigration from people who nothing about us and what we do.

We are too kind, too willing to tolerate denigration from people who nothing about us and what we do.

And sadly, a current thread - which I sincerely hope will be pulled shortly - illustrates this point only too well :(

And sadly, a current thread - which I sincerely hope will be pulled shortly - illustrates this point only too well :-(

Im not so sure it should be pulled, it shows what we are up against :-(

Ohh I hope it stays Lokis Mum to show the difference between responsible breeding and backyard breeders. :)

not replying to anyone in paticluar just clicked westcoast's as your on the end

Proberberly a realy stupid question but....
Is there no way to get a program made and aired about the diffrences between bad and good breeders and how to find a pup? Is there anyone on here who knows someone in the business if you will, who knows how to go about it. there would be plenty of people on here who could be interviewed as good breeders and for info on health testing they do ect and im sure someone must know vets and others willing to speak. i know this would cost but maby people could donate a small amount of money or reaise money to help pay for it. (no clue how much it would cost)

Just an idea.

We know Jemima Harrison.  I'm sure she's got what it takes.  It would certainly be an opportunity to put right a few wrongs! :)

yeah :)
but could the breeders here and Jemima work tougher? ( well that is if she was to take up the idea hint hint ;) )

Well I don't think that I could work with someone that I don't trust but others might.... :)

Who amongst us would trust her as far as a dog can pee?    Might be able to count them on the fingers of one foot!

Trouble is, she has completely discredited herself so far as responsible breeders are concerned - and now her reputation is somewhat tarnished.

St Jemima of the Rescue's halo has slipped somewhat!

prehaps its something that should be discussed thurther, im sure trust has been lost on both sides but im sure if some could put it in the past (easyer said then done i understand) then maby a truce could be called and a program or something could be made with with the help of both parties. :)

I'm sorry but i would rather carry on doing the things i do within our breed club and via rescue than further her career anymore.

> I have made several contributions to this thread and am starting to feel that my opinion is of no concern to good breeders (as I am not pro-active in canine welfare), but I shouldn't feel like that. I am a member of the public - the public have vast power to change things. Allthough I appreciate why backs have been put up on this thread, the general tone is giving the message that the publics opinions dont count, which in turn gets the publics backs up against breeders in general. I know this is not the intention, but it how things are starting to come accross :-(

appologies if that is what is coming across :), probably expressign myself/ourselves too narrowly.

> i still cant understand why we 'arent breeding for a litter of pups that cant be affected'. surely that is the ultimate aim in the long run? i

What you have to remember no-one ever deliberately breeds for problems, sadly nature is a  fickle thing and things can appear unexpectedly or rarely, and then appear more often and people suddenly see it isn't just one of those things it is becoming an increasing issue.

The vast majority of health issues are not simple inherit acne, or are recessive, so you can't tell an animal is capable of producing a problem until it is mated to another with the same problem gene or combination of genes and problems are expressed in SOME offspring to SOME extent.

So often it's a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted,a dn of course you can;t continue a bred without breeding from the dogs you have.

Gene pools are not just restricted by the over use of certain dogs with desired characteristics, but inadvertently when trying actually  to avoid problems found in the past.

For example a fictitious example a dog produces puppies with a kink in the ear.  Breeders find this not endearing bu unattractive so decide not to use him for breeding.  then people decide they best not use any of his sisters sons, in case they get kinked ears, pretty soon they have bred out kinked ears, but instead they have dogs with crooked toenails as no-one noticed that a lot of the dogs that were chosen for breeding had this issue until ti became common.

By this time the dogs with the kinked ears who had especially good nails had died out.

Now I am using kinked ears and crooked toenails as illustrations for health issues, not cosmetic ones.

> For example a fictitious example a dog produces puppies with a kink in the ear.&nbsp; Breeders find this not endearing bu unattractive so decide not to use him for breeding.&nbsp; then people decide they best not use any of his sisters sons, in case they get kinked ears, pretty soon they have bred out kinked ears, but instead they have dogs with crooked toenails as no-one noticed that a lot of the dogs that were chosen for breeding had this issue until ti became common.
>
> By this time the dogs with the kinked ears who had especially good nails had died out.
>
> Now I am using kinked ears and crooked toenails as illustrations for health issues, not cosmetic ones.

Good example and well put.

>What you have to remember no-one ever deliberately breeds for problems, sadly nature is a fickle thing and things can appear unexpectedly or rarely, and then appear more often and people suddenly see it isn't just one of those things it is becoming an increasing issue.

This is another reason why good breeders should be applauded for keeping in touch with all their puppy owners.  How else could they see things haven't worked out in the way they may have hoped. 

Even the most careful of pet owners might not realise that, as in Brainless' example, ears weren't falling or standing correctly, or nails were a bit crooked.  The owner may also be unwilling or unable to see something as a breed problem because it doesn't matter to them or to the health of their pet.  Some problems may not manifest themselves in the first few months but take time to show. It takes the dedicated breeders a lot of time to stay in touch with their owners but they do it for all the right reasons

It's just a shame that owners educated by that programme may think that most breeders are uncaring or blind to the potential problems in their breeds.

It's just a shame that owners educated by that programme may think that most breeders are uncaring or blind to the potential problems in their breeds.

Is that not the problem that too many are (not saying good breeders responsible,ethical breeders on this board who have been very vocal in defending good breeders and rightly so) but surely you can all admit there are a vast many breeders that do not care a hoot providing they produce a litter of puppies and the £ sign when they offer them for sale. It is not just the puppy farmers/commercial breeders that are irresponsible by churning out litters of puppies by the thousands, many with known hereditary conditions, there are breeders that would not like to be thought of as being irresponsible but are still breeding from dogs and producing puppies with hereditary conditions, conditions that they could have screened the dam and sire prior to a mating taking place.  I am not talking kinked ears and toenails (maybe important if one is trying to produce a puppy to eventually show) but I am refering to known hereditary conditions in the breed. There needs to be more responsibilty
placed on all breeders to only produce a litter from screened parents, at least that would be a start.

> I am not talking kinked ears and toenails

The 'kinked ear & toenails' was given as an example to represent health problems. It was also gvien as an example how one may be concentrating on erridcating one heanlth condition 'kinked ears' and not notice that a lesser(?) health problem had inadvetantly been selected for by selectively breeding to avoid the first health problem. ie. it's not as easy to breed out ALL health problems as it appears on the surface.

And not without severely reducing the gene pool.

but surely you can all admit there are a vast many breeders that do not care a hoot providing they produce a litter of puppies and the £ sign when they offer them for sale.
Certainly Pat.  There was another example yesterday on here of people breeding a litter every year for 6 years 'because the Kennel Club says it's OK' although many of the pups produced were crossbreeds and nothing to do with The KC.

But to me health screening the parents is still not good enough.  To produce health puppies you need to know the dogs behind them and their health status.  And how would the average pet owner (and they are the ones who produce the most puppies!) ever know what's behind 'Little Fluffy' and their friend's dog round the corner if they're not involved with dog activities of some kind?

And to say that The Kennel Club should only registered pups from tested parents STILL won't stop Joe Public producing puppies or the 'I don't need KC Registration because I only want a pet' buyers.

Prospective owners who want a well bred puppy WILL research, will look on the KC website, where there is a good article about how to find a well bred puppy, as there also is on the RSPCA website.  Those who don't care won't look anywhere other than the local paper of free internet site for the cheapest puppy and I don't see what responsible breeders can do to change other peoples' attitude.  And quite frankly, those people probably not stand a chance of getting a puppy from me so they will look for a puppy producer who doesn't care where their puppies go... :(

There is no answer to stop backyard breeders or their customers wanted inferior puppies.

it's just a shame that owners educated by that programme may think that most breeders are uncaring or blind to the potential problems in their breeds.

Exactly!

Yet staring them in the face, was that poor couple with the epileptic Boxer, if anyone should have been put off Boxers it should be them yet what did we see a gorgeous, cute Boxer puppy watching it's elder house mate fitting. This couple obviously did not have the impression that pedigree Boxers were in trouble or that breeders were uncaring or blind. They still went out and got another one, sensible people.

Prior to showing the Boxer we were told that 100's of people face these problems. :-D (I don't have the boxer related BRS for 2010) But I know thousands and thousands and thousands are born.

This show was so prejudiced, it's like going into a hospital showing all the sick and dying people there, saying what a state the human race is in and forgetting about the millions outside living, loving and growing old together.

Tragedy!

The GP were hoodwinked in the worst possible way.

>This show was so prejudiced, it's like going into a hospital showing all the sick and dying people there, saying what a state the >human race is in and forgetting about the millions outside living, loving and growing old together.

>The GP were hoodwinked in the worst possible way.

Well put Carrington.

And the real shame is that those arguing in favour of the programme will never see the truth of that :(

I watched a programme about sick dogs and puppies from puppy farms.  The devastated owners had gathered all the info they needed to make a complaint.   But not one of them admitted it was partly their fault for not researching the breed and the breeder.  It was all the breeder's fault.  But without the puppy buyer the breeder wouldn't be able to carry on selling poorly bred pups

If the maker of that programme had wanted to make a difference, it could have been done - and very effectively.  Instead, sensationalism and personal aggrandisement were more important

The sad fact is that if the film had been more honest and educated JP as to how to spot a bad breeder/Puppy Producer/BYB and what to look for in a responsible breeder, how to find them, how to find out about testing, what progress good breeders were making in working towards tests with the AHT etc.   the programme maker would possibly now be even more famous for actually changing the way dogs are bought and bred.  

One has to wonder at the motives of the person who could have, but didn't :(

so far I have read nothing like that in either Suzieque or Jocelyns posts.

wonder if I gave them a link to my page on Champdogs they would come on here and apologise for patronising ( yes indeed..patronising) me and other health focused breeders.

I am not quite sure what it is that you've not read in either mine or Jocelyns posts that you are referring to.

Neither do I know what you mean by patronising you as I have never replied or referred to any of your posts on this thread so if you have taken offense at something said then I can assure you, you have been mistaken in your assumption as it is only by chance that I came on the board without logging in and saw your posts.  Usually I can't.

I really don't know what you want.  It seems if you are given support and recognition for your stance and ethics on breeding for health then we are 'patronising' but if we disagreed with that principle then no doubt we would still come in for criticism.  Just what do you want?

The only area where we seem to genuinely differ is that I have said I watched PDE and didn't get the impression that it was a ctiricism of all breeders or that health problems were endemic in all breeds of dogs.  Whereas breeders on CD seemed to feel that the GP believed all breeders of pedigree dogs were breeding badly and all breeds were affected.  As a member of the GP this didn't come across to me. 

> The only area where we seem to genuinely differ is that I have said I watched PDE and didn't get the impression that it was a ctiricism of all breeders or that health problems were endemic in all breeds of dogs.&nbsp; Whereas breeders on CD seemed to feel that the GP believed all breeders of pedigree dogs were breeding badly and all breeds were affected.&nbsp; As a member of the GP this didn't come across to me.&nbsp;

I have read but not replied to this thread as I felt we were covering old ground.  Decided to add something here which has been said before, because some of the newer posters don't seem to see the problem.  It is not that we feel the programme tarred ALL breeders with the same brush but that it Tarred AND Feathered good breeders and let the  worst offenders off scott free - the puppy farmers.  This has sent droves of the "GP" into the arms of the worse places they could get their family pets from, in the mistaken belief that to do so was the wise move to make, because after all "That TV Programme" made it clear that show dogs were unhealthy and buying from a show breeder meant you would get a pup who would develop genetic problems.  The puppy farmers and dealers leaped on this assumption with glee, and incorporated this ethos into their advertising and websites.  Jemima Harrison's ongoing  journalistic endeavours have kept this erroneous point of view to the fore, so that whilst she did a great disservice to ethical breeders she has done an even greater one to the  puppy buyers who fell for her point of view, straight into the hands of the places guaranteed to sell them unhealthy pups, usually from untested parents.

one of the few truths that has come out of this debate is that we must all find a way of working together - stop point scoring and stop expecting breeders to perform miracles on one hand and stop denying that some change needs to happen on the other

The thing is...the programme WAS made...and there is no going back. There ARE problems in some breeds and many people already knew that before ever watching PDE. The only question left now is how to move on...move forward from it.....(and another question... who knows someone in the business who could make a TV programme about the good breeders...?? (or maybe even produce a DVD that could be sold to interested people....like the one produced by Canine Health Concern..??)

I remember watching PDE and crying over it...as I always do when I see any suffering in any form..... but it didn't make me think that ALL pedigree breeders are the bad guys. I only had to look at the beautiful healthy dogs at my feet to know that. I watch Crufts every year...my eyes search the screen attentively for any glimpse of a border collie and I love all the Border Collie bits.....and I can remember being sooooo proud when Skye the Border Collie won reserve best of show. (Naturally I thought she should have won altogether :) ) While I'm watching out for BCs though....it doesn't stop me appreciating other breeds....big....small....medium....strong....healthy...toned...lean...muscular...long coated....short coated...HAPPY dogs.....

I also remember watching in 2003 when the peke won Best of Show...and having seen many beautiful dogs in the rings prior to that I do remember thinking....bloomin' eck.....how can that dog possibly be judged as the best in the show...?? Someone posted a link that contained that 2003 winners pic.... cant remember which thread now....and I was newly horrified.....!  I don't wish to offend people who may love pekes...but come on..... lets get real about it. NO way is that dog capable of enjoying a dog's life.....and no way under any circumstances could it have been considered to be the BEST DOG IN THE SHOW...??

Understandably theres a lot of emphasis on DNA testing...and analysing each and every cell under a microscope...BUT... to me a fair few problems ARE conformation issues. Hard and fast...no getting away from it......physical issues. Faces that are too flat. Too many skin folds. Drooping eyelids. Ingrowing eyelashes..Legs that are too short for the frame. Back too long...too sloping. These animals are absolutely bound to suffer from Hip Dysplacia and elbow problems and joint problems.....breathing problems eye problems etc.  It doesn't need a geneticist to work that one out.

Although I do know my own lines and know exactly where problems came in and what was done to prevent them being carried on and I began my own KC journey with geneticly clear dogs..... the lasting impression for me both from PDE and some of the Crufts winners was....

Something needs to be done to help the quality of life for some of these dogs.....

And.....although I may drive other people insane with this.....if there is a breed that is ALREADY suffering ill health due to conformation issues....SO IT ALREADY HAS breathing problems...muscular problems....joint problems.....heart problems.... it is not going to be helped one little bit by an inadequate diet..... nor all the medication that it needs to be on...to help with pain control....the medication it needs to be on for eye problems....skin problems etc. The GAs it needs to attempt to put right some of these problems. And then on top of that the added stress to the system of booster vaccinations.... etc....

And then......they have puppies.....

I've just read the shar-pei thread...people were already worried about over vaccination (amongst other things) in the breed in 2003!

So you DON'T want the truth? Weird. I thought that was what this entire thread was about.  Speaking the truth and not making it up to suit -like a certain person did.

The difficulty with  'truth' is that it depends on whose 'truth'.  The 'truth' is as varied as the people who featured in PDE, the maker of PDE, and viewers of PDE, pet dog owners, breeders etc.

The vets involved in the care of the cavaliers had their truth just as the owners and breeders did.  The owners of the boxers had theirs, the judges of the GSDs had theirs, breeders who were rightly upset by what they saw as damaging to their chosen field (I no longer know what term to use to describe it, sorry) have theirs, those who see people watching PDE as gullible and taken in by the whole prog. have theirs, those who watch such programmes and are more discerning and less gullible have theirs.

There is no single 'truth' and  the 'truth' to each person is based on his experience/knowledge/understanding of reality.

The truth in this instance can never be black or white but a million shades of grey.

I didn't join this thread to 'oppose' those who feel so damaged by the PDE prog.  I joined in to make the point that I didn't take it to be a universal condemnation of breeders and pedigree dogs and neither did others.  For as many who can find someone taken in by PDE I bet I could produce just as many who realised that ,although there are problems, they are NOT universal.  Not all TV audiences are gullible, some can think about and question what they see.  In saying that I am not trying to create friction but to show that the damage you may feel has been done may not be as total as you fear.

 

"Not all TV audiences are gullible, some can think about and question what they see. "

Unfortunately, those of us who work in rescue have to deal with the fall-out from those who are gullible and who continue to buy from totally unethical breeders in the mistaken belief that they are somehow avoiding the health problems which have turned dogs bred by breeders who show, into a "parade of mutants!" The truth is that they are infinitely more likely to buy a pup which will develop health issues from puppy farmers, backyard breeders or naive/stupid/greedy "pet" breeders.

I've been asked privately as to why I don't think there is a single 'truth'.  So here it is.

To my knowledge (so it's my truth) no-one has found a way to identify every single breeder, of any kind ,on a local (UK) or global(Worldwide) scale  so we don't know how many breeders there are.

No-one has formalised any set of criterion against which to assess all these breeders on a scale varying from excellent to appallingly bad and all the levels in between.

No one has found a way to identify every dog, pedigree or otherwise and assess it for physical/health defects varying from none, through few to many in any given breed.

Nor has anyone done the same to assess the severity of those  defects from minor to life threatening and everything in between. 

No one has made any comparisons to those issues pitting pedigree against cross breed against mongrel.

No one has identifed whether each and every one of those defects are as a result of in breeding, close breeding, or bad breeding.

No one has found ways of identifying,assessing and classifying which of those defects are as a result of exaggerating breed specific traits to match the breed spec/win at shows.

Without ways of being able to quanitify any of the above there can be no 'truth' only our interpretation of it.

To no-one in particular, but an interesting alternative view:
http://www.actavetscand.com/content/50/S1/S6

yep I've read this before - I hope that Sheila Crispin and those on the DAC will take on board some if it's comments too - the ONLY way that breeding regulations will work is if you keep good breeders 'on side' and not ask the impossible  or expect us to eliminate great swathes of our gene pool

Yvonne

Sorry I've only just caught up on my OD reading and just saw the article.  It is now available publicly online at this link http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/News/2011/Feb2011/pedigree.htm

I'm only just starting to read this thread, so unsure if it's been posted yet, but on the off chance it hasn't been I thought I'd post it as I looked it up so I could post it on my Facebook page and send to a couple of American email lists I'm on.

To say I'm outraged at the sheer hypocrisy of the woman (even a Google search would have turned up that the sire was still alive, and she later references his OFA records in her 'apology' - both of those things would have taken 3 second to look up).  But what frustrates me more (sorry guys I know you all vented 3 weeks ago) is the fact the general public won't see that she has completely made up statistics so will still totally believe in her credibility.  The fact she didn't bother to research these 'facts' but just latched onto them because they backed up her beliefs to me says that nothing she has to say can be viewed as credible.  NOTHING!