has anyone seen these horrific photos on facebook of lowchens and the terrible state they have been in
i dont do face but have been told by many many dog lovers that these photos are very disturbing and wonder WHAT is going to be do about this situation
apparently this  on exhibitors choice and voice

Are these the ones that belonged to a chap who was supposedly a KC judge ?.

yes absolutely disgusting they should be named and shamed if this happened to humans there would be a public outcry Hope the K/C and RSPCA  get off there  Backsides and DO SOMETHING

does anyone have link of where i can donate money certainly NOT to RSPCA

Have been told from from someone in one of their breeds that RSPCA  took a number of dogs off them but left around 12? . They were not prosecuted as not enough evidence !! WHAT ! and yes they are show people in more than one breed and judges. Most of the pictures have been taken down and they were threatening prosecution if people carried on showing them. If this is all true I am disgusted with RSPCA, our legal system and actually the KC , when are they going to grow some teeth ?
OMG what a situation, why these people are allowed to continue to show or breed under kc rules I cannot imagine and why the whole book wasn't thrown at them I really don't understand. Owning one dog looking like this should be enough let alone a whole pack

totaly agree i think 99% of dog peole too  think rspca and k/c need a dam good wake up call

Totally agree welshie. KC are just after your money, they are as much use as men's boobs no use whatsoever.

KC are just after your money, they are as much use as men's boobs no use whatsoever.

So I assume you would be happy to never show, never register puppies, not have hip scores recorded etc? Not have any pedigree breeds at all? As it would be of no use? I would like to know what people think the KC can actually DO if there is no official, legal ruling saying animal cruelty has taken place. They are not the law, they cannot punish people without proper evidence. I don't know the ins and outs of this case, but you cannot go on what is posted on Facebook, thinking that is evidence. If the KC did, they would leave themselves wide open for legal action.

Agree in this country people are presumed innocent until proved guilty.

If the authorities and both the RSPCA and Kennel club could; not gain this then they can do nothing.

If there are those who have evidence it is vital they come forward.

This post is an example of pure heresay, as the poster says they did not even see the supposed photos, and are going on what they were told.

As for dogs in poor condition there can be many reasons.  Dogs can have ongoing health conditions that are difficult to treat, may be rescues being rehabilitated.

I hasten to add I know nothing at all about the case the post refers to.  Just pointing out that often suspecting, knowing and proving things are very different things.

i have seen photos they were on facebook which a friend forwarded to me i am sure so did a lot of people, but as you say unless one was actually there to witness these things then i have no proof but stand by what i said i myself as others do Have no confidence in the K/C  or the RSPCA

agree welshie in particular the rspca and our animal cruelty laws . No one should be able to won and animal and it get in that state and the repercussions not be enormous

Quite agree but the KC are not a law enforcement agency.  They will ban people who have been convicted of crimes though.

yes agree with that too Brainless. Do you not think they should be able to  ban people from showing and breeding kc registered pups if the do not come up to certain standards ?

There are simply too many people involved in KC activities in one way or another for them to have that level of control/supervision or for them to visit and one persons standards are not another's.

At the moment they can't even keep up with Assured Breeder Visits and I have had several good friends and breeders have negative comments about the most trifling things or things that are a matter of opinion on how you want to live with your dogs.

Obviously there are some aspects of care that are not a matter of opinion, but when you start setting down rules/standards.  Take the whole vaccination debate for example, feeding, housing, etc etc, all very individualistic in a non commercial setting.

The kennel club do have a General Code of Ethics that all participants are expected to adhere to, but have no powers to enforce it.
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/breeding/novice-breeder/kennel-club-code-of-ethics/
Kennel Club Code of Ethics

Kennel Club Code of Ethics © Jamie David  

All breeders who register their puppies, and new owners who register ownership of their dogs with the Kennel Club, accept the jurisdiction of the Kennel Club and undertake to abide by its general Code of Ethics.

Breeders/Owners:
Will properly house, feed, water and exercise all dogs under their care and arrange for appropriate veterinary attention if and when required.

Will agree without reservation that any veterinary surgeon who performs an operation on any of their dogs which alters the natural conformation of the animal, or who carries out a caesarean section on a bitch, may report such operations to the Kennel Club.

Will agree that no healthy puppy will be culled. Puppies which may not conform to the Breed Standard should be placed in suitable homes.

Will abide by all aspects of the Animal Welfare Act.

Will not create demand for, nor supply, puppies that have been docked illegally.

Will agree not to breed from a dog or bitch which could be in any way harmful to the dog or  to the breed.

Will not allow any of their dogs to roam at large or to cause a nuisance to neighbours or those carrying out official duties.

Will ensure that their dogs wear properly tagged collars and will be kept leashed or under effective control when away from home.

Will clean up after their dogs in public places or anywhere their dogs are being exhibited.

Will only sell dogs where there is a reasonable expectation of a happy and healthy life and will help with the re-homing of a dog if the initial circumstances change.

Will supply written details of all dietary requirements and give guidance concerning responsible ownership when placing dogs in a new home.

Will ensure that all relevant Kennel Club documents are provided to the new owner when selling or transferring a dog, and will agree, in writing, to forward any relevant documents at the earliest opportunity, if not immediately available.

Will not sell any dog to commercial dog wholesalers, retail pet dealers or directly or indirectly allow dogs to be given as a prize or donation in a competition of any kind.  Will not sell by sale or auction Kennel Club registration certificates as stand alone items (not accompanying a dog).

Will not knowingly misrepresent the characteristics of the breed nor falsely advertise dogs nor mislead any person regarding the health or quality of a dog.

Breach of these provisions may result in expulsion from club membership, and/or disciplinary action by the Kennel Club and/or reporting to the relevant authorities for legal action, as appropriate.

I do know the Kennel club has taken action like suspending a persons registration privileges when it had been proved that someone was selling KC reg pups to commercial outlets, as the new owners who joined the breed club gave evidence of where the dogs were purchased .

It does all come down to proper evidence.

thank you brainless, I just think particularly in this case and  the fact they are judges and breeders basic care needs to be met. Having someone who could do this to an animal and still judge my dog would disgust me.
It does however go back to strengthening our animal cruelty laws and the rspca actually being able to carry out what they are supposed to do

>and the rspca actually being able to carry out what they are supposed to do

Actually what the RSPCA do is file private prosecutions as they too are not a legal body, those that should enforce the law are the Police and courts.

I know nothing of this case, but if photos exist then someone has to prove they are of the dogs in the persons care and the reasons for the conditions, is it neglect or ill health.

I have known dogs look like cruelty cases despite the best of care.

A sister to one of mine who I rehomed with a friend had a nasty virus that caused total immune system collapse.

She ended up with her own body digesting all her muscles and was a walking breathing skeleton with black skin and almost no fur, half the weight of her sister.  She seemed to stay alive on will power alone.  She had to be fed highly nutritious easily digested food 4 - 6 times a day.  I would not have kept her going to be honest, it made me cry just to look at her.

Goldmali....I do show my dogs, I do register my puppies, I do health test all my dogs. When it comes to a problem which I was indirectly associated with regarding a false pedigree, the Kennel club did nothing to stop the perpetrator doing the same thing again. The person is still allowed to register her pups despite an obvious lie as to the ancestry of one of her litters (proven by DNA tests) Do you really expect me to have faith in the Kennel Club? 

See on the face of it that sounds really bad, but as we were not privy to all evidence it could well be that an acceptable/believable explanation was given.

It could be claimed that the breeder was unaware that other than the stated parentage was a possibility.

Guilt needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Out of interest were the pedigrees/parentage for the dogs DNA tested corrected in KC records?.

I have certainly known of several cases where breeders have been taken to task over false pedigrees, one very high profile case comes to mind and another involving someone connected with my won breed in the past, but concerning a different breed.

The breeder lied about the parentage as the puppies were affected by PRA. They were first registered to the correct sire and then the registration was changed. She actually said that the true sire was not on the premises at the time of the mating, which was obviously a lie. KC did the DNA testing to qualify the parentage due to pressure from new puppy owners. It took 2 years to sort this out. She is still breeding and registering puppies. Hence KC are rubbish.

And yes we do have a new pedigree for the puppies.

>She is still breeding and registering puppies. Hence KC are rubbish.

but assuming they are doing so with correct parentage, I would think the KC may well be scrutinising their activities carefully.  Could even be they now require proof of parentage.

They obviously had cause to give them the benefit of the doubt re future conduct.

So many problems reported to KC regarding this breeder. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and with that would never have let my girl be mated with one of her boys (hereditary clear....NOT) Luckily my girl was health tested clear so puppies not affected (all endorsed). When I notified my puppy owners, most were ok but was vilified as a puppy farmer with some.

Slightly off topic but in some countries like the US A dog will only be accepted as hereditary clear if it's parents are 'tested' clear and have been DNA ID and the pups parentage DNA verified. 

Only offspring of tested dogs will be given that status, so even dogs you know are clear have to be confirmed so by DNA past first generation.

I do wonder how long the KC will give Hereditary clear status.  For example I am currently breeding from first generation hereditary clears, and tested, some to tested clear studs but also using Hereditary clear dogs.

I think personally I will test the offspring of any dogs who do not have at least one 'tested' clear parent.

I DNA test mum and dad so that I DO know that my pups are hereditary clear. Some breeders just test the sire but I do both. I made the mistake of using a stud that was allegedly "hereditary clear" , not the owners fault. Luckily, because my girl was tested clear, the puppies will not be affected but will be carriers. The sires breeder should be banned but as usual, the KC do nothing

You misunderstand of course both parents status should be known I am talking about the next generations when breeding from the 'hereditary clears' as opposed to those actually tested.

Both my youngest bitches mothers have been themselves tested, one has a tested sire the others sire is his hereditary clear son.

So when I keep their offspring they will not have a tested parent but be second generation hereditary clears (assuming I use a clear sire) on from their dams. 

It is at this point I wonder if I should be thinking of testing again, though there can be no doubt in my mind of parentage with my bitches.

>because my girl was tested clear, the puppies will not be affected but will be carriers.

Only if he was affected?  If he was a Carrier then on average half the pups would be clear. and half carriers.

I'm assuming this all came to light as the dog you used was affected, and not just a carrier?

Yes he was affected and his owner was gutted, fantastic show dog with a 3rd placing at Crufts. His breeder lied from day 1. When I approached her she said that the owner did not buy him for breeding but I have seen the original email sent to her to say he was looking for a show/stud dog. This information was sent to KC and they have done nothing apart from issuing correct pedigrees. What a crock....

Brainless....I think the KC advise 3rd generation testing

Any idea where I'd find that advice. 

The DNA testing we currently have for prcd-PRA only started end of 2008, when it was identified in the breed, and we are on the brink of one for Glaucoma, gene identified but testing not yet available outside the initial study.

So we really only have first generation hereditary clears starting to be bred from.

>When I approached her she said that the owner did not buy him for breeding

Then why did she not have his papers endorsed.

Because she was lying from the start, she lifted endorsements when she sold the boy. All his progeny were registered, including my litter from him. Luckily, my girl was DNA tested clear so none of the puppies would be affected (all endorsed, BTW)

I was agreeing with you, if her defence was the dog was not for breeding why lift the endorsement.