Admin
As a new member I had no idea of your availability to talk to confidentially and was merely horrified to see this breeders details on your web site, I dont want anyone else to have a puppy suffer so much.  I will indeed email you.  However can I point out that to actually be liable one would have to have named the breeder involved (sorry I am a lawyer!).  No need to take such an aggressive stance with me.

>(sorry I am a lawyer!)

who can't spell libel

Don't you think this should be, as requested, taken to private email?  Posts of this ilk rarely find favour and serve no valid purpose as the forum is quite separate from the breeders' site ....

Too true - spelling has never been my strong point not at speed on web!  I have indeed emailed admin (is that you?).
I would have thought they would find favour with any dog lovers who are concerned for the welfare of animals???

No - not Admin.

If there is weight to your grievance and concerns then surely you should be contacting Admin with all the facts, names, etc rather than anonymous info on a forum which isn't helpful to anyone who may be interested in sourcing a dog from the breeder concerning you?

It just seems the more sensible option to me :)

Its already done.  But doubt that anyone really cares.
Thanks for chatting Teri albeit chiding me.

no-one can police the internet in the way you are concerned about Sueste, there are good and bad breeders everywhere, and it really is down to the puppy-buyer to do their homework because if no-one bought these poor pups, the breeders wouldn't be able to continue.....

I hope the dogs you have mentioned are happy now

:)

Whilst I strongly agree internet lists of all sorts could do with some toughing/tightening up I would be suprised that anyone with legal qualifications would drag a thing onto a internet site after all your issue is actually with the breeder of the puppy not this site or it's owners.

A more constructive post may have been to open up a thread on how lists should be compiled etc as your post cannot undo what has happened.

I missed the post BUT did catch the mention of Liver shunt in one of your posts.

Liver shunt is quite a complicated illness to trace. Whilst I have never experienced it ,as a keen learner, I research  illnesses that affect/may affect my breed.  Liver shunt is believed to be Polygentic in finding.   The test to fine the polygentic faulty gene for Liver shunt at this time I believe has not been found.   It is unlike recessive genes where it is reasonably easy to find carriers, affected etc. The % of the fault is passed on differently from each line.

Whilst I very very strongly believe breeders should be responsible for the stock the breed ( up to the price it was sold for) I think each case has to be investigated fully.    How you approach a breeder with a problem also may change the way they choice to deal with it.

The treatment and success also for liver shunt can vary depending on the skills of the vet practice you are with.

Hi Sueste

I really think that your comment of "I doubt that anybody really cares" is unjustified and agree with Blue in being surprised that anyone with legal qualifications would have followed your course of action.

I passed on a piece of information to Admin some time ago - it was acted upon very quickly and the person advertising was removed from the site.

I would be suprised that anyone with legal qualifications would drag a thing onto a internet site after all your issue is actually with the breeder of the puppy not this site or it's owners.


Completely agree.  By all means report a breeder who purposely breeds unhealthy stock, (if indeed this were to be a fact) to the KC and through communications with the breeder, vets, and legal advice and if your case is successful and proven then you may alert Champdogs and any other site that advertises them, with proof of bad practise through legal means, I am sure then if this were to be a proven fact, they will remove the breeder from the site, but with respect myself and other readers on the forum, don't wish to know your private business. And admin would need evidence to remove someone, not just on hearsay.

Which I am sure if you have any legal background you will know fully well.

There is nothing worse than a bad breeder, I hope that if there is a case to answer you will be successful, but at this present time you are taking out your frustrations in the wrong direction.

Have to confess as a reasonably educated person my typing is a real disgrace at times. I hold two hands up( really high) . It isn't that I can't spell, I just can't type accurately when typing fast or doing something else at the same time.  I am often  embarrassed at some of my typos or spelling errors :-D

Sorry to go off topic ;-)

ditto my typing gets very dyslexic for some reason my left hand hits the keys before the right even though my brain is saying the reverse.  Thank doG for the little IeSpell program.

I've only just seen this thread and am amazed that someone is being doubted and personally attacked all because they wished to share information on a subject/event that obviously upset them.

This is such a shame - ok a mistake was made and admin put them right with regard to posting but is it really necessary to criticise spelling and doubt their occupation??

I think the main problem is that the rules of libel apply to the internet, and that the owner of the Champdogs forum could get into very hot water over any unsubstantiated accusations.

>Posts of this ilk rarely find favour

Why not?I appreciate sueste taking the time to write about this. The above comment comes across as slightly obnoxious and toffee IMHO.. And i hope the responses thus far have not put off anyone else posting about problems they have encountered with breeders.
Oh...and i have never,ever heard of anyone successfully or otherwise suing anyone for comments written on a doggy forum.I've heard about loads of threats,but no action.

>I would have thought they would find favour with any dog lovers who are concerned for the welfare of animals

I agree.

The suspect / potentially inflammatory post which was added immediately below the original (which FTR had already been locked and removed twice prior to this further thread being opened) has been deleted from under the OPs opening comments (still submitted by the OP however).

The reference I made to spelling was in fact an error on my part as it was actually the difference in meaning between "liable" and "libel" I was surprised about a lawyer (among many others) not being aware of :) 

It was hardly a "personal attack" Maxine

These things will be looked at correctly with a proper approach to the admin of this site, otherwise how do we know anyone is telling the truth. Anyone could have just had a disagreement with another person and be spreading malicious gossip. No I am not saying this is  the case but  it is a possibility to be considered.

We have certainly had posts in the past giving advice about sorting out problems of pups from Bad breeders.  I think it was the tack taken with the original post that was the problem, not the subject itself.

I have been threatened with legal action myself by someone objecting to my view on their organisation that issues registrations for pups (not the Kennel club).

To Ktee

>I appreciate sueste taking the time to write about this

I dont think you would if the anonymous poster was referrencing you, do you?  We have no idea whether the original tirade (removed twice) could be substantiated or not and, when politely advised it would be better to take concerns to Admin direct, the OP chose for reasons best known to themselves to continue to cut & paste their unsubstantiated comments on the forum rather than do so :)

>The above comment comes across as slightly obnoxious and toffee IMHO

You're entitled to opinion of course, just like the rest of us :)  Personally I thought it somewhat less offensive than the original content to which it referred :)

I never got to see the original post,so i will have to assume or guess what it said.

Teri not accusing you solely of a 'personal attack' - I mean the comments from a couple of posters are about the posters personal abilities re spelling and integrity re their occupation and in my view criticising and doubting are a form of attack when they are all put together.

I fully support that suspect/potentially inflammatory posts should be removed - its just a shame that when you look back at a whole thread it can seem like a poster is being attacked and it may put them off posting again -

I didnt see the original post just went into that area out of interest and felt it was a shame to come across this post

Maxine

Had you seen the original thread and posts perhaps yes, you and anyone else reading this "edited" one would be better able to understand the subsequent comments.  However even in their absence I don't think any of the comments thus far merit the statement that there has been a personal attack.

This is not the first incidence on the board where a new poster joins solely to make an attack on the forum or CD site as a whole or specifically targetting another CD member or breeder.  In those circumstances it's generally the done thing (providing there is no foul language or innuendo - in which case the post should be reported) to recommend that the new member contact Admin off forum - those who, IMO, legitimately wish Admin to do something rather than stir up a hornets nest hopefully do just that and do NOT continue to make wild claims and accusations leaving those who can do something about (Admin) out of the loop.

regards, Teri

Couldnt agree more with you Teri on that point,

:)

i can only presume this matter was brought onto the forum by the op'sters frustrations.

as an owner of a 5 month old bulldog with heart failure i know for a fact the breed clubs cant do anything, the kc cant police unles sthe breeder is an accredited breeder + it can be very frustrating that people get away with the likes of selling sick pups.

I would advice the op to contact breed clubs, kc, the lines their pups from inc the stud used + the breeder who sold the bitch to them as i have, the only way to deal with these people if they will not learn/co-operate is to name + shame but do it within their breed not online + this will see them never able to buy in a dog, use a stud or sell a pup without great dificulties.

Hope this helps, jo

I agree if breeders are being unethical it is their own peer group that their reputation matters, unless of course they are basically a puppy farmer where they care not a jot of anyones opinion, but as I often say that kind of breeder is worth reporting to breed clubs as not only can breed clubs steer you towards good breeders but in this way they are aware of the bad so called breeders and when asked can steer people away from known bad sources.  The only thing that hurts that kind of person is hitting them in the pocket as they have no reputation to worry about.

Sadly the Kennel Clubs Accredited breeder scheme has been shown not to work, as they are taking people on trust rather than checking on their background, and only remove people once they have already abused the system.

I think if the ABS were to work when each person applies the KC should send a letter to the breed clubs asking their opinion of the person and confirm their standing in breed circles.  Even with the inevitable differences between people in a breed club no breed club committee would defame a good breeder purely on personality differences.  It is pretty bad when a breed club sends in details of how a breeder is unethical,complaints they have had from puppy buyers, and still the person got onto the scheme.

Of course what puppy buyers still have to understand is that not all things can be foreseen and that there will always be sadly some pups born that are not completely health, despite a breeders best efforts.  Problems with complicated inheritance like Liver shunt would be one such.  Of course a breeder breeding from an affected animal or repeating the same mating that produced one would be unethical, but using siblings parent etc mated to different lines would not be.  If every dog was removed from the gene pool because it had a relative with a problem there soon would be no gene pool and no healthy dogs.

Certainly the basic tests should be carried out for all breeds (Hips and eyes) then those more breed specific, elbows hearts, hormonal (thyroid etc), DNA and so on.

The Kennel Club asked all breed clubs some years ago to draw up breed specific codes of ethics, and preferably to have one breed wide agreed by the breed council where there are more clubs.  For those breeds who have not agreed a code the KC should insist that one is drawn up, and this should form the basis for inclusion on the ABS, so that the requirements were appropriate to the breed.

I have been listening to the adverts on Crufts FM about getting pups from breeders on the ABS, because they will be sure of getting one without problems.  From a legal standpoint I think the KC could be in very hot water if people who are assuming this get a sick pup from the ABS and decide to take action against the KC.  The advert doesn't even say have the best chance of getting a problem free pup, but are quite definite that they will, most misleading at the present time.

To be honest the KC should simply take the bull by the horns and not register puppies from volume breeders that do not health test as do other Kennel clubs.

They would probably have to sell the London place because of the loss of revenue, but then they would be doing what they are supposed to be, in all ways improving pedigree dogs.  They can't continue to pretend not to realise that people breeding hundreds of pups a year are actually contributing anything to the quality of their breeds, they are in fact cutting off their own noses as the general public are becoming increasingly aware that KC registration is no mark of quality and are just as prepared to pay almost the same prices for unregistered pedigree and cross bred pups, and alternatively papered ones.

KC registration really has to stand for what people think it stands for proof of breed and parentage and some mark of quality.

i will second that!

Gosh I inadvertently seemed to have started something here.  I didnt mean to!  I have just always been terribly upset by the situation that occurred, it was never my intention to attack anyone instead I was asking a question about vetting advertisers and ok to be fair I probably had a rant too which could have been seen as an attack but I honestly think anyone else who had faced such trauma with an animal would probably understand my emotion.  I certainly didnt name anyone in my initial message.  My message was not intended as malicious and the details I provided were absolutely true not an unjustified attack.  And as a new user I really didnt know that I could not  raise such issues - you can on other sites! 

Yes the response that I got was I felt rather unpleasant and yes it has completely put me off this site!  I did think making snide comments about my ability to spell (dyslexic as a kid so never been able to type effectively) and doubting my profession was all rather unnecessary.  The point I was trying (cack handedly) to make seemed to be ignored.

So I have taken my concerns elsewhere but know in my heart of hearts that there will always be some really bad breeders and some really FANTASTIC ones and I agree that it is the buyer who is responsible for ensuring that they check this out carefully because no-one else will. 

Any how just be glad I didnt get on to my favourite subject of how dangerous the doggy drug Rimadyl can be!  Thank fully on this one the drug company who make it got involved and though still continue to make it were very supportive and concerned!!!

Keep smiling.

I would say don't judge the site by this and continue top post.  I do hope the matter is sorted out and if the person is no good they get kicked off the breeder listings.

Misunderstandings sometimes occur.

That was a nice post Sueste, sometimes people join and get off on the wrong foot, attacking admin was a bad move, as those of us whom have been on the site a while know that admin and the moderators do a really good job in keeping this site clean, legal and as moral as possible, which is why this is such a good site and why people stay for so long.

And as a new user I really didnt know that I could not  raise such issues - you can on other sites! 


You can raise issues, we are all very interested to learn and help if we can. But attacks on other members or Admin themselves, need to be private and go to admin.

We all have different opinions on things and we all state those opinions, many times we may not agree with each other. But it is a site full of knowledge and experiences.

There is always someone on here that has gone through the same health, behavioural or breeding problems so I hope that you will pop back, others may also be grateful for your input with a similar future problem.

How about starting again with a new post explaining what has happened, (no names or personal attacks) and what your pup has been through, some of us may even be able to help or offer advice you have not yet thought of, I think you will find everything a whole different ball game if you start again.

There is a wealth of experience on this site, it would be a loss not to use it. :-)

>How about starting again with a new post explaining what has happened, (no names or personal attacks) and what your pup has been through,

Excellent idea!Since many of us missed the original post.

I would still like to hear from anyone who has ever heard of a successful lawsuit from something written on a doggy forum?

> I would still like to hear from anyone who has ever heard of a successful lawsuit from something written on a doggy forum?

I seems to remember a few reports in the dog press, but perhaps these led to KC proceedings rather than legal?  However, there have been several "lawsuits" derived from various forms of computer based libel and defamation, although not specifically canine.  The laws of libel refer to electronic media just as much as printed, and lets face it, the chances of spreading like wildfire to a much wider audience are far greater on the net, therfore the dmaage potenitally much greater.
bye
Gwen