Was just trying to help a pet owner out who has a Yorkie cross jack Russell.  \having trouble with the coat, as she has the long Yorkie topcoat and also a thick curling undercoat, which isn't moulting!  I explained about stripping undercoat, but don't really know how they re to tackle it alongside the long outer-coat????

I did suggest they may need to section the coat and then only strip out the obviously dead undercoat, but don't know how easy they will find it.  I did advise that what they strip should come out quite easily so not to grip with all their strength.

With our Afghan x Long Legged JR I also had trouble with the undercoat being overly thick and not dropping in spring/summer especially.   I used a normal dog comb with rubber bands threaded through the teeth close to the bit at the top (the tang?)   it helped to grip the undercoat without stripping the lovely long topcoat.   Best to use it by lifting the coat in sections and working working from the bottom up in layers ;)

These days I'd use a Coat King, but they aren't cheap and being very sharp blades in the curve you have to be very careful not to cut yourself and/or the dog - I tend to catch myself with them rather than the dog.

Very effective though when used correctly, following the coat direction as it only removes undercoat.  The people at HUB International would advise on which one to use.

Thanks will let them know about the rubber band.

Afghan x Long Legged JR

I dare not even ask how lol

Owners left her in the back garden whilst in season, thinking she was safe, she wasn't :(   Then didn't think it would end in pups as she was 'past it' at 10   This was back in '83.   Don't even know if the jab was available then.   It's what happens when you get a dog owner who lets their Afghan run loose not worrying about the consequences :(   Where there's a willy there's a way ;)

These days they'd give pups a silly name and try to make money :(  Back then they gave three pups away free and kept the smallest/pretty one, which I then had at a year old.  

Tried to put it on to record if miss it and it doesn't even states it on.

the programe I would like to see is 'designer cross breds exposed'

Need a LIKE button here!!

'I'm not sure why you are giving her more publicity'

Well you must be fairly sure as you have not put a question mark against your words...

I never started the thread and the FB page only came into existence yesterday or the day before. I don't think ignoring things makes them go away.

If you feel making a comment on this thread is giving her publicity then it may be as well if you don't contribute to the thread and let it die a death..not sure why you commented at all:)

I did not put a question mark because it wasn't a question but a statement of fact :).  I don't know why you would want to give her any more publicity.  Do you support her views?

> If you feel making a comment on this thread is giving her publicity

I don't think commenting on this thread is giving her publicity, the board tends to be read by people already aware of her and her views, however providing a link to her facebook page will give her a lot more hits and that will raise her profile.
Ignoring her web pages etc will reduce her profile and may limit her ability to get her programmes commissioned so well worth trying in my book.

'I did not put a question mark because it wasn't a question but a statement of fact .  I don't know why you would want to give her any more publicity.  Do you support her views'?

Given the rest of my post I would have thought it obvious that I don't. You may have a point but tbh I don't consider posting it on this site counts as publicity. Articles such as the one in the Telegraph this weekend certainly do.

I prefer people to make their points by explaining their arguments, not overly keen on short worded statements. I feel one is more inclined to persuade people of the sense in their words that way:) Otherwise it is kinda irrelevant and it could be seen that your post along with the question tagged onto this one are purely argumentative for the sake of it and I'm sure that is not the case.

> I don't consider posting it on this site counts as publicity.

I think if you had simply posted that she now has a facebook page it would not have  but I am sure I am not the only one to click on the link to find out it was her own page.  All those clicks are registered which will raise her stock and increase her chances of getting work commissioned. 
I could not see anything in your post to indicate whether you wanted to draw attention to her page in support of the programme or not you just went on the comment on the RSPCA "freedom foods"
I hope I have explained my points sufficiently this time :)

I think if you had simply posted that she now has a facebook page it would not have  but I am sure I am not the only one to click on the link to find out it was her own page.....

Well if that is how FB works then you are quite right it would have been better. I didn't think clicking and reading mattered unless you clicked that you 'liked' a page.

I think it would have made more sense if you had explained all that in the 1st place, cos next time I'll think twice.

It wasn't just the Freedom Foods, there was also the thing about the breeder that appeared in 'Dogs Today'. Obviously not obvious enough but I hadn't thought posting an FB link made one a supporter either...you live and learn :0

Anyways I'm glad that we have cleared that one up....

From a short article in yesterday's Mail on Sunday it would appear Pugs are once more going to feature heavily - apparently a Vet from Sweden (I think, but may be wrong on country) is interviewed in the programme calling for breeding of pugs and bulldogs to be banned, future matings only to be allowed to long nosed dogs to produce improved airways.  Once more the assumption is being put forward as a fact that no pug can breathe!  Shame they were not at our Team Challenge night on Saturday to see pugs of all ages and sizes flying around an agility course time after time!  Not a sign of puffing or panting or tired pugs, and whilst we do have 2 pug crosses taking part the vast majority of pugs in the team are show bred, quite a few were shown at Crufts before starting agility so certainly meet the current breed standard.  Very frustrating, anyone organising any shows want a pug display team to show just what they can do?

Apparently the bit filmed about GSDs has been 'edited' out:

Dear David

Not sure if this will be a relief or a disappointment to you, but am emailing to let you know that at the last minute we had to drop the GSD sequence from the film.

I feel very sad about it but we were overlong by 10 minutes and in the end the BBC execs took the difficult decision about which sequence to lose (I found it totally impossible as didn't want to drop any of it).

The plan is to include it as a DVD extra and will put up on to YouTube.  Will of course send you a copy.

I am yet to be convinced about the shape of the current showdog, In the film, I acknowledged the GSD breeders commitment to health. I also said that I thought that - in my "uninformed" and "ignorant" point of view of course :-) - that there had been some improvement in the dogs in the ring.

Pedigree Dogs Exposed - Three Years On airs on Monday night on BBC Four at 9pm. I hope you will let me know what you think of it.

Very best wishes

Jemima

anyone organising any shows want a pug display team to show just what they can do?

Gwen I think you've hit upon a brilliant idea there -why not ask the KC if in future you could put something together for the special events ring at Crufts? I bet LOTS of people would love to see a Pug display! (Got a bit a lot more interesting than the bored slow motion Goldens that for some reason seem so popular.)

BTW, when I still lived in Sweden, the first vet I worked for was a Pug breeder end exhibitor.

Teams from some breed clubs compete at Crufts in the team agility. They do of course have to qualify for this on the agility circuit.

We were talking to someone at the KC about a display, but for this year at least some of our pugs are a bit too young, and we didn't want to tread on any Agility peoples toes.  They know we are happy to do something next year, as we are working with them on  a "study of show dogs who do other stuff" (could do with a better title!).  Happy to provide some light relief and let the pugs show off at other shows this year.  On Sunday they are at a local National Trust dog day (Wallington Woofs).

We could not get breed club backing for an agility team, but have formed a small dog agility team for a local club - however we have to wait till all member pugs are over 18 months for them to compete in qualifying heats. It's going to be tough going, as with KC agility there is no mini or micro category, so the pugs are running against Cockers, Shelties and other much bigger "small dogs", however our superstar pug has just gained his Agility Warrant Bronze and is now gr. 5, so hoping he can teach the pups a thing or 2!

I thought this was very balanced, I did not like the first but this was more factual and less sensationalist. It highlighted the fact that the KC are struggling to do more without the backing of breed clubs, a huge improvement on the first.

(apart from the RSPCA vet who really wound me up!)

> (apart from the RSPCA vet who really wound me up!)

ditto

Curly tails in the pug standard causing spinal problems got me, as I have a curly tailed breed required to have a tight curly tail, but these are not screw tails, they are dead straight when pups are born, and gradually curl.

So curliness in itself is not a health issue.

ditto Cavaliers and too small skulls.  Cavaliers are in fact one of the largest toy breeds, it isn't as simple as small skulls in miniaturised canines that causes SM.

The high levels of inbreeding in some breeds and huge numbers of litters sired by some dogs did disturb me.  I am in a numerically small breed that over it's over 130 year history in this country has never had higher than 400 puppies registered annually. 

With such small numbers breeders have consciously or unconsciously tried to avoid such intense inbreeding and we have always imported fresh blood every few generations, even in the more difficult quarantine days.  My highest COI has been around 13% and I used an out-cross after that. 

Unfortunately the COI's in our breed (and otehrs with imported blood) will show artificially low due to often only 4 or 5 generations of a pedigree being complete in KC records, though we are fortunate with a Scandinavian breed, where they do try to keep inbreeding levels low.

When was he last practicing as a vet anyway - hes a tv presenter who USED to be a vet as far as I am aware. He's full of wild ideas and bold statements but then, he can be, he hasn't actually got to back any of that up with realistic or reasonable, practical stuff.

Yeah, IF we could start again with showing and make it different, that'd not be a bad thing, but to throw away what we have now and start from scratch - as ideal as you might think that would be it ISNT going to happen so why bother mentioning it.. except to be sensationalist.

On the whole I was neither massively impressed or horribly shocked. There was the typical re-hashing of the previous shows footage, there was a begrudging amount of time spent on the Dalmatian issue with the good work being done there played down and reduced by the statement that it isnt enough. Ditto a brief mention that there ARE good breeders but it isn't enough...

It also made it look like this is the first time the KC have allowed such a thing to happen, when it isn't - given Bruce Cattanach was IN the show you would think to mention his boxers and how those were allowed (oh but then breeding for no tail is evil I would assume).

Absolutely NO mentioning directly that puppy buyers do have a responsibility to do their homework and buy responsibly, with puppy farming chucked in at the last second in one sentence.

So - how about a PET Dogs Exposed now - highlighting the hard hard job pet dogs have to do, and how the very VERY vast majority of the dog buying public has no idea where to buy from, tend to buy from puppy farmers, backyard breeders and pet superstores rather than reputable breeders, and how dogs are suffering for it?

>> (apart from the RSPCA vet who really wound me up!)ditto

ditto for me too, although I did smile at the polishing a turd comment
:-0

I think we all know that he will only be happy when the only dog shows are those judging waggiest tail and best sausage eater :-( and the only dogs are 'bitsa' types with no distinguishing features at all :-(

I felt realy sorry for that boxer breeder, she was trying so hard not to start crying when she was talking about the dog she lost to that kidney problem. She shows that people who breed and show dont think of there dogs as just show animals but loved pets, which is what a lot of people seem to think people who show are like.

> Absolutely NO mentioning directly that puppy buyers do have a responsibility to do their homework and buy responsibly, with puppy farming chucked in at the last second in one sentence.So - how about a PET Dogs Exposed now - highlighting the hard hard job pet dogs have to do, and how the very VERY vast majority of the dog buying public has no idea where to buy from, tend to buy from puppy farmers, backyard breeders and pet superstores rather than reputable breeders, and how dogs are suffering for it?

Like!!!

A brilliantly brave woman who evidently cares about dogs and dog health.  I greatly enjoyed this programme and found it positive that there was some suggestion of a way forwards at the end (no matter how unachievable it may seem).

Actually there was a sentence about people thinking before desiring and purchasing unhealthy types of canine.

> Curly tails in the pug standard causing spinal problems got me, as I have a curly tailed breed required to have a tight curly tail, but these are not screw tails, they are dead straight when pups are born, and gradually curl.
>
> So curliness in itself is not a health issue.
>

But pugs are born with straight tails too, the curl gradually - my 10 week pups have an almost complete circle now, hope to have a
double twist by 6 months.

I have not watched it yet, as I thought I might be so annoyed I would not sleep, have recorded it for future viewing perhaps.  Meanwhile while it was showing I had my 8 year old pug bitch at agility for the first time, she is a retired show bitch (placed at Crufts) mother, grandmother and great grandmother.  She had a great time, did jumps and obstacles, tackled the weaves at a brisk trot, and was upset to have to leave the arena as I was short of breath, she could have gone on for ages more. 

So we don't know what it is that doesn't cause spinal problems in some curly tailed breeds (a lot of ferals and mongrels have curly tails too), but does in Pugs, and bulldogs, Bostons etc???

This is what gets em the over simplification that desiring any feature and breeding for ti is the root of a particular problem (though I will have to agree that extreme brachy features and also achondroplastic ones do cause deficits).

(apart from the RSPCA vet who really wound me up!)

id like to know how he would do a dog show that was based sowley on health, unless he is maby psycic or has x-ray vision. Many helath problems you wouldnt know about by watching a dog in the ring, the cav on the program that they say has SM and won the show, if he hadnt been scanned no one would have known if he had it or not as there was no way to tell in the ring. Does he think that every one who enters a dog in his health show would/could pay out to have the dog tested/checked for every single health problem known to dog kind? otherwise it would be impossible to judge a dogs health anymore than it is now at shows. As for him saying showing takes no account to temperment i guess he doesnt know the breed standards state what the breeds general temperment should be like.

> Does he think that every one who enters a dog in his health show would/could pay out to have the dog tested/checked for every single health problem known to dog kind? otherwise it would be impossible to judge a dogs health anymore than it is now at shows.

No he said they should be scrapped not fixed.

I would just like to say, myself and my partner followed as much advice as we could and bought a puppy from a reputable breeder.

Our Monty's father is Walkon Mickey Blue Eyes, and the program made a point of mentioning this breeder a few times. The breeder we bought from assures me that she has taken every possible step to maintain the health of the puppies, as far as gene pools etc goes. We did the inbreeding test and our dog came out at 27.3% which is much higher than the breed average.

I think it is unfair to blame all potential buyers for our "lack of homework" as we followed the advice from the kennel club etc. There was absolutely no mention about the amount of inbreeding in certain kennels until we saw the program tonight.

Now, I could not care less about some of your obvious hatred for this woman who has created these programs, and I think these opinions are best kept to a more private forum. All i care about is the welfare of our dog and the last thing I need is to sift through a ton of personal attacks.

I respect that some of you feel she did not mention much about "All the good breeders" but this was a program aimed at the darker side of pedigree breeding. If it had shown 30 minutes of good breeders going about their daily business, it would have been 30 minutes that could have been spent giving more constructive information.

Some have also mentioned that "If you are doing it right, there is nothing to worry about" and indeed there is not! If you honestly want what is best for the breed then you will not mind a few less sales to people who are not willing to do the homework and decide that you are indeed a GOOD breeder. It works both ways.

This has not been a direct reply to theemx but i could not find the link to add a generic reply.

Regards,

Paul Heyhoe

No he said they should be scrapped not fixed

yes he said current dogs shows should be scrapped but then he said that creating a show that phocouses on health on welfare adsoultly would make a huge diffrence. Its that type of show i was talking about. you could only spot obviously health problems in the ring.

If ANYONE spent 30 minutes dedicated to showing the general public what a really GREAT breeder SHOULD be doing and was like (and there are some!) that would be a HUGE service to dog-kind, it really would.

How many even relatively clued up buyers would know to ask to see the prospective puppies pedigree, and ask why the breeder had gone for particularly close breedings. It ISNT rocket science to look at a pedigree and see the same name cropping up several times, anyone should be able to do this and SHOULD do this - I am not saying some close breedings are bad, they are not (and lets separate out the concept of DOG breeding to close relatives, with human incest - human incest is illegal for moral and social reasons, the genetic implications are no where NEAR what people assume) - but what they will do is show up recessive genes. Those genes may be good, or bad.

WTG theemx!

>Many helath problems you wouldnt know about by watching a dog in the ring, the cav on the program that they say has SM and won the show, if he hadnt been scanned no one would have known if he had it or not as there was no way to tell in the ring.

Absolutely right.

>As for him saying showing takes no account to temperment i guess he doesnt know the breed standards state what the breeds general temperment should be like.

I scolded him fdor his lack of knowledge of the temperament clause in the standards too. He really doesn't know what he's talking about. In three years he's gone from slightly 'odd' mild hysteria, to having mad stary eyes loopiness. In another three years he'll be foaming at the mouth.

do you like dogs or cats, tea or coffee, white chocolate or dark, pedigree or cross breeds, should not be about one or the other it should be as far as the dogs are concerned about health. end off

I thought Jemima's programme was much more balanced than I expected - I agree the vet made some sweeping statements about mutant dogs  and not being bred for temprement that were a ridiculous but on the whole her commentary I thought was balanced.

she acnowledged there were people in the breeds and breeders who loved their breed and wanted to make changes for health.  She demonised the breed clubs a bit too much in my opinion - I'm sure there are some that are stuck in the 50's but I only have experience of my own who lobbied the kennel club for health tests, had some developed themselves and managed to irradicate VWD (a blood clotting disorder) after only 2 litters because of joined up thinking and entirely without the KC's help.  It has lobbied for health tests and would make sure anyone breeding from an unfit dog was permently disowned, couldn't sell a puppy and no-one would allow their dog to be used with theirs.  They are also currently embarking on an outcross programme to get a greater genetic diversity (although some people do object of course).

The KC keeps a register of dogs parentage and history - they aren't there to check the quality of every dog.  The assured breeders scheme is now meant to be the mark of quality and shows that health tests have been done. 

In 3 years how much can really happen?  Health tests are being developed but that'll only be 1 generation and they won't have bred yet - of course progress is slow - the human race is very gradually getting taller but it didn't happen in 3 years.

I thought she as very fair when talking about all the steps the KC have put in place - ban on close matings, new health tests and research into breeds, the assured breeders scheme, changing many breed standards, looking closely at certain breeds and working with the clubs to change things.

Do i feel that a dog with health problems should be bred from - of course not and I know that most people on here feel the same.  I wish she'd mentioned that many reputable breeders would not even consider it.  In a breed where 70% of dogs havea  problem though it is very difficult.  It must be hard for breeders and the club to take a step back and see all their hard work go to ruins - loose lines etc. and start from scratch with just a few dogs which to their minds may not be of great quality (entirely speculative). 

Culling pupies - ridiculous, how many of us here actually know anyone who would even consider it!

I think she showed breeders as overall caring and compasionate people who love their dogs.  She was investigating the darker side of pedigree dogs so of course she didn't spend much time looking at healthy dogs - I wouldn't expect her to.

It would have been nice for her to give guidance on what to look for and how to research if you want to buy a pedigree dog that is healthy.

Overall I thought it was well done and showed the progress being made - it broke my heart to see those poor dogs suffering.  I think she would have been able to make it more balanced if her first programme hadn't been so sensationalist that more people would have been willing to join in the debate. 

Missed it due to work, reckon I can get this up on iplayer?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01cqp75/Pedigree_Dogs_Exposed_Three_Years_On/

There you go

On reflection, I would say that last nights programme still set out to deter the general public from buying a pedigree dog, particularly those who come from show lines. That was the overall message.

I wish somebody would actually point out that the vast majority of cavalier king charles spaniels live happy healthy lives and have a good expected lifespan.
Or is that too boring ?

As mentioned by a previous poster, a great follow up to that show would be "Designer cross breeds exposed".

Thanks Anne. Forgot to record it so will catch up asap. Which idiot vet did they have? I took more pleasure than perhaps I should in telling a RSPCA person who came collecting at my door a few weeks back that I had evil mutant pedigree dogs so couldn't support them, then firmly closed the door. :-)

> I think she would have been able to make it more balanced if her first programme hadn't been so sensationalist that more people would have been willing to join in the debate.

That is the point if this was the first programme she probably would have had pretty wholesale support, especially if she had left the loony vet out.

An earlier poster complained of the hatred for the woman, I do wonder if they had seen the earlier programme, and why the majority of good breeders were so offended.

Yes there are some that have their heads in the sand and cannot accept they may have issues with their dogs, especially if they have devoted their lives and decades to breeding a line.

The bit that still gets most of us is that the majority of pedigree dogs bred in this country are not bred by or from show lines (other than way back in pedigrees), and the majority are not even Kennel Club registered.

The kennel club is not a legislative body, and can only influence those people who choose to be governed by any policies they implement.

As for first degree relatives, I know no-one who would deliberately carry out such matings, so a rule wasn't needed.  I have only known of accidental matings of that nature with the puppies being registered but endorsed not for breeding, now such litters will simply not be registered, but the pups may still exist, and possibly bred from by unscrupulous people, with no record.

Just tagging on at the end here, so not replying to you Lucydogs

Ok, I've watched the programme, the first programme made me angry for all the previous reasons stated over the years.

The second programme......... I'm sorry folks, but I have had a complete change of heart and I never thought I would say this, but can we just forget that we think this is about bashing the show world and just think for a minute about the dogs, JH is changing our dogs lives for the better, I don't care about the one sided views and sweeping statements from the vet and others (well I do, but it does not out weight the message for me now) at the end of the day the interest of pedigree dogs is at the heart of this programme thanks to her and it is thanks to her as much as I have not agreed with the way some things have been done, the KC have made changes for the better, most of us do agree with a lot of the changes, we do want the KC ABS to work and more so not just be an idea, but implemented to the fullest with the back up of the breed clubs.

We do need fresh blood bringing in and we do need if possible to cross some breeds yet again to bring changes to their appearance and inside health if the gene pools are too small.

This programme will not hurt our dogs it will improve on health and welfare and stop those who do from burying their heads in the sand.

Over the last year in particular I have come to understand that I do live in a goldfish bowl, I live in a world where I only mix with reputable breeders where healthy pups are bred with longevity of life. But that is not the world, that is only mine and many of yours world too!

There is a much bigger and and nastier picture out there............ it's where our vets are coming from, the vets who I have always looked at and thought are you all brainwashed? What are they talking about, pedigree dogs are healthy? The small world I live in they are I've never understood where all this negativity is from........... but, I for one am starting to listen.

BYB's and puppy farmers the majority of breeders today are ruining dog health by not understanding health and lines, but my goodness so are some in the show world, the show world is most connected with the KC and where the lineage begins which is why it is targeted by this programme first - I've come to understand that now.

Yes, many of us are good breeders, lots of us do the health tests and would never, ever breed from a dog with a genetic fault, but we are a minority, hopefully the public will start to learn to look out for us and with the KC being forced as it has been to improve on health in breeds we might get somewhere. But it needs pushing further, if the programme does that, well done to JH.

She did mention that many are working behind the scenes and she did mention at the end about puppy farmers etc.

She should definitely do a follow up show on puppy farmers, to show what people are getting from these places too, but the KC are the first port of call for all of our dogs and they have needed shaming into doing something.

I think that we just need to take the rough with the smooth, yes the show is once again just focussed on show dogs and show dog breeders, but we are supposed to be at the top of the ladder when it comes to quality and health and our love of dogs, and a lot of people in the show world do need a size 10 boot up their bottoms, they really do, the rest of us...... will just have to cope with the fallout and show that we are above those who are criticized; and show those who do ask that we always do right by our breeds and are nothing like those who are shown not to.

It's IMO the only way forward, the dog world needs a shake from the bottom to the very top.

I don't care about the one sided views and sweeping statements from the vet and others (well I do, but it does not out weight the message for me now)

And you don't think the general public will listen the MOST to a VET? Why was his ignorant rubbish repeated, and even added to? He's acting like some religious cult fanatic and therefore undermining anything good that may be in the rest of the programme.

Just adding on to the end..

but i wouldn't agree it was more fair in its comments.

It entirely blames the KC for one, insisting they need to enforce rules and do them now, but they are just a mere registry they are not a police force and apart from refuse to register litters they cant enforce breeders do anything.

The program STILL didnt explain HOW to go about finding a healthy puppy. It states that some breeders do the right thing but how is the GP to know what questions to ask?

In the first section it addresses a recent research paper that 70 per cent on CKCS suffer from SM, and heart murmurs  but it doesnt say how they have come to that conclusion. How many dogs were tested for example, and in what time period how old were the dogs, were they from a specific line..so many questions in that statement.

It talked about the COI in certain breeds, so lets take CKCS i dont know what the COI is in that breed but if you were to cut out the 70 per cent of the said unhealthy dogs from today in that breeding program you are left with 30 per cent to breed from, now they could suffer from other issues so take off another 10 per cent to be fair you have 20 per cent left in the breeding program which are healthy the COI would shoot up. Thats not to say i agree with using unhealthy dogs but its a slow slow process it wont happen over night.
and to use the COI of the Cesky terrier is laughable as most of the GP wont know how few of them are around.

It touched upon puppy farm in half a sentence, made no mention of designer dogs which could be equally as unhealthy.

There are a few things i did agree with which was the Bulldog issue for example this breed needs to be seriously addressed however comparing it to a 'leavitt bulldog' was ridiculous.

Another thing was the amount of litters allowed by a stud dog. Where as i can see, if a stud is a good example it will be more in demand than others maybe we should limit a stud to at the most 2 litters per year for lets say 4 years then be allowed to freeze the dogs semen for future. If the dogs puppies grow up and there is nothing sinister to appear whilst the stud is in old age or as the puppies are growing up then the semen should be allowed to be used more frequently.

I don't believe she wants the best for dogs it clear on her blog that she dislikes dog shows and thinks everyone should have working dogs because they are bred purely for health ofc, well I don't live in the country I live in the city I don't want a working high drive dog I want mine to be companions first and foremost, I hate this cookie cutter one size fits all notion.

It entirely blames the KC for one,

But, the KC set the breed standard, the KC register litters from unhealthy and genetically impared Dams and Sires, they have previously had no health checks on them. Behind the scenes many have been grumbling and many have known some lines have been in trouble, but they were still allowed to breed from them. All hush, hush, all quiet all hoping it will just go away and not looking at the implications.

The KC have the power to refuse registration, they have the power to say how many times a bitch can be bred from, they should have stepped in sooner to protect the reputation of a KC registered pedigree dog, instead we are all shamed by what is going on and the door was left open for someone like JH to do as she has.

The KC needs putting in order, the show world needs putting in order and then it can filter down to the largest majority of breeders who are the BYB's and puppy farmers, there has to be something and someone for the public to aspire to that has to be the KC.

Instead of taking up over 25% of this programme with footage from the last one they should have shown the original maybe the night before then new footage would not have needed to be cut.

Mark Evans does seem even stranger this time around and I see he is no long RSPCA Cheif Vet, wonder what he is doing with his time now.

On the whole this was less biased although those with the breeds mentioned in detail may not think so, dachsies got a passing mention but no great detail re concerns.

All dogs are different, there is a breed for everyone, I wouldn't have bully breeds or big dogs, there will be folk out there who would not have a dachsie,even I don't like all the coats, each to their own.

well i tried watching it this morning and fell asleep half way thu,, Big Yawn,, sorry,,, pedigree bashing getting boring now,, what i really wanted to hear was about these disgusting puppy farms that are still being licensed to breed any dog without a care in the world,, so ok if they want to ban Crufts and the KC,, (sorry people ) go for it,, but any issues with any dog will not go away their would then be absolutely NOWHERE to buy a a decent healthy dog then and no one who gives a crap at all,,,

seem to me that at least the KC do have rules are trying where as puppy farms are purley just banging them out for the money,,,

personally i thought the program was crap and i not finished watching it yet,, it has not touched on the main issue,, or what i feel should be the bigger issue and thats farms and byb,,

I'm in absolute agreement with your post Carrington. I am often horrified at the way JH is treated on this forum, so tend to just stay out of the discussions. Yes, the first programme could have been better  but I think this follow up proves that the 1st programme did do some good :-)

haahaa just tryed to watch it again to see the end and it popped up saying "This content doesnt seem to be working",,, lol your telling me mate!,,, i'm off to get some good ole pie & mash with that green stuff :-)