According to the front page of this week's DW, Jemmima Harrison & Co are in the stages of planning a follow up to the original documentary ....  Passionate Productions allegedly want to follow up what progress has been made in breeds since their first expose (good grief, not resting on their laurels here are they )

In the same issue of DW it states it's believed that the KC may be considering making a formal complaint to watchdogs about the (original) programme. 

ROFL, how many generations of pups have been born in the last month since the documentary was aired? How on earth in the space of a month or two can there be any difference.  Perhaps if they made a follow up in a decade there might be some changes e.g. in crufts qualifiers and winners but in a month.  What a joke.

The KC really need to sort this out.  Many people before this programme was aired were doing a lot for the pedigree world.

Is this woman trying to make out that the show all of  a sudden made pedigree breeders react and do something?

The program makers will be claiming the credit for all the current testing & research that is done of course

I'd love her to contact me !!

or you could contact her ;) take your poochies and gush about how you have seen the light since watching the programme....

and then you woke up from a terrible nightmare. lol

Hey that's a good idea !<need an evil grinning first here>

:-D :-D :-D

Funny, I haven't heard this and I am on the forum Jemima runs. I'll ask her if this is true. I did tell her that her program was rubbish because it was not balanced which she knew anyway.

I have been getting at her to do one on puppy farmers, dog dealers and stolen dogs. I'll let you know what she says.

LOL! Can't believe they are already talking about a sequel for that awful programme.  Yes the public needed to be made aware of the health problems many breeds were at risk of, but the way it was done was just shocking.  Have you read the KC website today?  They've put up a new article about the concerns regarding unusually large litters (ie puppy farmers).  Well done KC!

I believe her email address was on a thread on champdogs some time ago.

The KC have issued a statement to the press this week. It does go into some depth about their future plans. Our Dogs covers it briefly, and next week will be doing a bigger feature on the proposed plans.

The statement can be viewed on their web site.

The Dog World front page article is on-line now :)

Well I've just read the KC statement, and finally it looks like this programme was the kick up the **** it needed.

I think it's silly for them to make a complaint about the programme. I think it will just make them look more foolish.

They really do trip over themselves though, even in the statement they say that at the last Crufts they were all beautiful healthy animals, and I imagine the majority were, but it's been proven that the Peke certainly was anything but. This sort of head in the sand statement doesn't do them any favours, they simply make themselves look like fools and liars.

However, it seems to me that this programme was the best thing ever for pedigree dogs, as they state that this programme has added some urgency to their existing activities - which implies they were just plodding along before, which I believe to be true. I really don't think that they had taken an honest look at what was happening.

They are NOW setting up a panel to look at certain breeds GSD, Basset a few others and brachycephalic breeds - and that is as a direct result of this programme, about time.

Best of all - if they have the courage to do it fully: Veterinary Passport

We are also considering the introduction of a 'Veterinary Passport' before allowing certain breeds to compete at Kennel Club licensed dog shows. This would be designed specifically for particular breeds, confirming the status of a dog's health and conformation in relation to certain prescribed aspects before they could be shown. Again, this WOULD NOT have happened if it wasn't for the programme, or it least if it did happen it would have taken much, much longer and the breeds deteriorated so much further. This really was a no brainer for anybody, but it took this programme to make them so much as consider it. They are also going to bring in tougher rules for Judges - hooray. Stop them placing dogs which are outside the prescribed breed standard (which they are also looking at revising in some breeds for health reasons) - at last.

How can anyone who loves their breed (and that is a key statement) feel that this programme did anything but good? I am elated as a Shepherd person seeing that the breed is going to be 'reviewed'. Knowing the KC though, someone needs to be after them to ensure that they continue the good work.

K

the programme may of only been aired but it was in the making for over two years, and the kc new about it all along, so if they do a follow up maybe it is to see what the kc have started doing about health tests,
and they will find out they are not compulsory and nothing much has changed,
i know people will say that things have , but it is up to the breeders to test and if they do not bother how can it be enforced,
the programme was horrible but it did bring to light many things that have been said around the rings but nothing was done, if this has made anyone sit up and listen maybe it was for the best.
carolann

> and I imagine the majority were

This is actually what the heading of the paragraph states so they certainly did not say all dogs are healthy.

> see what the kc have started doing about health tests,
> and they will find out they are not compulsory

If you visit their web site, in particular the section on ABS, you will see what the KC have been doing for several years regarding health testing.  If you read their various statements on the issue or the video of their web cast you will also see why they consider the issue of all health tests being compulsory for all breeds inappropriate.  In the lengthty making of this documentary the KC were under the illusion that their efforts were going to be aired.  It is just a shame that the KC have not been as effective as they could have perhaps been in getting across what they they were doing but perhaps they overestimated the level of interest people would have had in looking for the information on the web etc.  To be fair to them though they did not have the benefit of an hour of the BBCs time.

I was referring to this statement in the body of the text Isabel

> Neither the 160,000 visitors to Crufts this year, nor the many millions of other dog loving viewers who watch it on television,  will have recognised the description "disabled mutants in a freakish, garish beauty pageant" from what they saw - which was beautiful, healthy animals

Bearing in mind that the winner was shown to be health impaired, I think that was a foolish statement to make. Just my opinion.

> Bearing in mind that the winner was shown to be health impaired, I think that was a foolish statement to make. Just my opinion.

phillipe ollivie (sp?) has a health issue? whats wrong with him? :(

The body of text you quote is referring to the publics perception but I don't think they were wrong in stating "disabled mutants in a freakish, garish beauty pageant" would not have been the perception of the visiting public.
I don't disagree with all you say.  I believe I made it clear in a previous thread that I would like to some breeds brought to book and I am as pleased  as you to see the "vetting" initiative but I disagree with the concept that the KC have been largely doing nothing.  There have been several initiative rolled out of very recent years they just didn't receive the publicity that is inevitably accompanying the latest round. 

>>Neither the 160,000 visitors to Crufts this year

>> Bearing in mind that the winner was shown to be health impaired, I think that was a foolish statement to make. Just my opinion

The Peke did not win this year & the dog who won this year certainly didn't appear to be health impaired, unless, of course, you know something about Phillipe that we don't ?

>Bearing in mind that the winner was shown to be health impaired, I think that was a foolish statement to make. Just my opinion.

Actually the Peke was the 2003 winner. This year's winner was a Giant Schnauzer in absolutely gleaming health, followed by a Samoyed who was the same.

M.

> the dog who won this year certainly didn't appear to be health impaired, unless, of course, you know something about Phillipe that we don't ?

thank goodness! she had me worried there, he was a stunning dog! and looked fit as a horse, the judge picked him she said because of his beautiful musculature are strength

We are maybe being picky over Chinablues error but on the other hand it does put into into perspective that so many other winners are in blooming health as are the majority of show dogs in general.

> Actually the Peke was the 2003 winner. This year's winner was a Giant Schnauzer in absolutely gleaming health, followed by a Samoyed who was the same.
>

oh yes, the sammy was a right looker as well, stunning dog. must say i thought all of them were particularly lovely this year :)

And also shows how people pounce on one item without fully understanding the story behind it ... (that's not sarcastic, ChinaBlue, just a reflection on how the programme was focused).

Not sure how this veterinary passport idea would work really, although it sounds positive in itself. You'd kind of assume that if there is such a huge problem in some of these breeds, it wouldn't leave many animals able to compete. Not sure what I think the answer is really - maybe the KC will insist on more all rounders judging these breeds for a few years to enable a bit of balance. Mind you, the GSD seems an obvious example of where that approach wouldn't work, so expect it's a flawed idea.

M.

> We are maybe being picky over Chinablues error but on the other hand it does put into into perspective that so many other winners are in blooming health as are the majority of show dogs in general

perhaps picky but i bet if phillipes owners were reading that they would be deeply upset/angry at the suggestion.

i didn't see the program so did not see what was wrong with the peke- what was the matter with it? and would the health issue have been something that the owners knew about or the judge could see 5 years ago? don't remember actually seeing it judged either

> They are NOW setting up a panel to look at certain breeds GSD

>I am elated as a Shepherd person seeing that the breed is going to be 'reviewed'.

Whatever the KC decide to do regarding the GSD, it would not affect the dogs shown on the program as they were both German dogs(one an ATC competitor & the other an import) something the program omitted to mention

Regarding reviewing the GSD first thing they can do is ensure all breeding dogs are hip & elbow scored & the males Haemophilia clear-ah the dogs shown on the program had already been tested.

Also they should all show that they are fir for purpose-ah both the dogs on the progarm have working qualifications !

All the dogs should be breed surveyed & weighed & measured-ah the two dogs on the program have also had this done

Perhaps they should change the breed standard of this German breed to allow only one type to win-obviously not the type that won this year

Starngely enough non of these changes would affect the dogs shown on the program & would simply mean that breeders who prefer this type would link up with the SV & hold their own shows etc outside of the KC regulations

I have to say that the Pekingese as a breed is not my cup of tea - but must confess to watching Danny enter the BIS ring that year, huffing and puffing with its eyes appearing to bulge, and feeling revulsion. Not my idea of a fit and able dog. Can't say that the argument of its comfort in the lighting holds too much weight either, as most of the other dogs seem perfectly able to cope with it for the short time required.

M.

doesn;t sound healthy to me either. guess it depends on judges though- if these dogs don't win (many) breeders won't use them

> . Mind you, the GSD seems an obvious example of where that approach wouldn't work, so expect it's a flawed idea.

The only 3 GSDs to go BIS at Crufts all had obvious faults, two had dreadful temperaments & had to be propped up by their handlers(both also were soft in condition too)in order to be shown(on the requisite cheese wire choker tight under the ears.

The 3rd whilst he had a good temperament had an awful topline that not even the most fervant supporter of the "Alsatian"(which he was registered as when he won)could describe as straight, level or anything other than u shaped.

The 4th GSD to win a group also had a very poor temperament & interestingly the Group Judge that year(Bobby James)never put another GSD up of that type again !!!

Danny and my dogs went to the same ring craft, I can't say he was unhealthy back then.  In fact, no pekinese had longer walks than him.  I don't like big eyed flat faced dogs, but this dog was walked non-stop for half an hour at a time - pekinese are known for being spoiled lap dogs, they don't walk because they don't want to walk, not because they can't.

Precisely my thoughts, Moonmaiden - going for all rounders would just go to the opposite extreme.

M.

Danny's owner/handler walks all his dogs & as he doesn't drive(I think)travels everywhere by train/coach etc. There was an article about them before Danny won BIS @ Crufts & it showed the dogs being exercised.

Not a breed I particularly like & definitely would never won-but then I would never own a gundog, terrier or hound either

It's funny that, how we all have our "type" :)  Poodles all the way for me!  Would love a schipperke though, just 1.

I agree Lily Mc - as a breed I now find it unattractive to the point of upsetting.  I don't remember exactly how different they were many moons ago but had an aunt who kept them as pets and I really don't recall them being anything other than very playful and agile.  Today's Peke (based on Danny and Bert's other winning chs TBF0 does not give the impression of a dog which could be described as that

Back to topic, I hated most of the original programme and found it very offensive but accept that there are some, albeit only a very few, breeds out there which have gone beyond the "wake-up call" stage and pedigree breeders, judges and exhibitors across all breeds have to remain vigilant that physical excesses and exagerrations which could have a detrimental affect on our animals' health and wellbeing are neither bred for nor rewarded.

At least the KC are trying to improve things and while I agree that some of it has been a 'kick up the backside' it's possibly more accurate to say that it has pressed them into pushing ahead more rapidly on many things health related which were already in place but moving fairly slowly or only in the planning stages.  However genetics, establishing wider DNA testing etc is a slow progress and just because tests are not yet available for a variety of health issues doesn't mean that work isn't ongoing to discover and establish them.

The part I found extremely offensive was the totally incorrect reference to Eugenics & Nazis. Selective breeding is common amougst all domesticated animals(including cattle, pigs, sheep etc etc)

Not a lot of point selecting a dog cannot work sheep to be a sheep dog, this is why ISDS breeders use know lines that produce good working dogs instead of dogs that are poor workers

Maybe I just have an unreasonable expectation of toy dogs? Walking half an hour a day (at a fairly slow pace, I assume) does not sound a big deal to me, but my breed is very active.

On the flip side, I meet a couple of Bulldogs occasionally in this area that appear to my untrained eye very 'typey' indeed, but extremely fit and free moving ... so it must be possible to have both?

M.

It's ironic that the programme makers neglected the most inbred species of animal in the British Isles - the dairy cow.

>The part I found extremely offensive was the totally incorrect reference to Eugenics & Nazis

Agreed - very inappropriate and highly offensive   That is certainly my number 1 hate about the show, followed by the reference by the RSPCA vet to 'mutants'.

Such statements were intended to cause a major backlash and they have - sadly with much of the criticism from the viewing public being directed towards those of us who care rather than over zealous and uninformed producers who wanted to make a sensational documentary :(

MM....back in time, was it 06, she asked for people on here to get involved in the original program, so the chance was offered. What about putting yoursel forward now?

> she asked for people on here to get involved in the original program, so the chance was offered

According to the dog press and the letters, emails etc they've printed many folks did get very involved with providing info but anything that seemed remotely sensible, caring and helpful seemed to fall short of being aired.

Where's the point this time around?  Unless of course it's in with a chance of helping JH and co possibly pat themselves on the back for singlehandedly radically improving the world of pedigree dogs .....

> Whatever the KC decide to do regarding the GSD, it would not affect the dogs shown on the program as they were both German dogs(one an ATC competitor & the other an import) something the program omitted to mention

No but if they have no chance of succeeding here they probably won't be brought over nor, more importantly, used at stud by British breeders.

>Starngely enough non of these changes would affect the dogs shown on the program & would simply mean that breeders who prefer this type would link up with the SV & hold their own shows etc outside of the KC regulations

I hope not as this may strengthen the arguement to have a body like the RSPCA take over the governing of dog breeding.

They've put up a new article about the concerns regarding unusually large litters (ie puppy farmers).

So, finally thay acknowledge that they can identify puppy farmers from large litters...registered....so if they really care why are they continuing to accept them on their registery? They register them....then warn the public against buying them? ********shakes head, thinks 'takes the money though*****

Maybe they should also check out how many puppies their AB scheme are producing if, as has been said many times on here, this is a way for puppy farmers to give some degree of worth to their litters.

> it's possibly more accurate to say that it has pressed them into pushing ahead more rapidly on many things health related which were already in place but moving fairly slowly or only in the planning stages.

I agree Teri and there is a strong arguement for proceeding very deliberating and ensuring the evidence supports all moves.  A point the KC have made in their responses by neglected by Jessica.  I just hope the KC remain aloof to anything too knee jerk.

surely they mean large numbers of litters registered - any dog, however well or poorly bred can produce a large litter ....

I do agree the KC are at odds with responsible breeders re registering puppy farmed/BYB litters.  It's easily identified to readers of the breed records supplement yet the KC themselves fail to notice it ......... hmmm, don't think so!

It is for that reason mainly that a great many genuinely good breeders have no inclination to join their ABS - we'd be rubbing shoulders with the very folk we are most against

No, I think they mean large numbers of pups per litter - i.e. where it is suspected that pups from a bitch bred on every season are being attributed to another bitch so they can be registered?

I did wonder about the idea of sending photos to verify. Would imagine a photo of 10 Westie pups with up to a week's difference in age wouldn't tell them much really? Suppose it gets more difficult if big age difference, but there can be a big variation in puppy size within a litter.

M.

Yes but certain breeds are known for large numbers, other are more normal sized litters, then there are those which have very small litters.  But what they are saying is that there are breeds of dogs with large litters that are not normally known for their litter size.

>I just hope the KC remain aloof to anything too knee jerk.

ditto that :)

I think Caroline Kisko is excellent as one of their front runners here but perhaps someone on the outside would be best to ensure that KC responses, whether press releases or actual decisions reached, are tempered with calm and common sense.  Very few large organisations would use in-house management to handle their PR etc and even a company not necessarily strongly attached to shows, breeding or anything else could well help them revamp their tarnished image with the public as well as the image of pedigree breeders and dogs at large ....

If something takes months or years to fund and find then so be it - the KC only IMO have to ensure that everyone is aware that measures are being taken.

Where's the point this time around?
Well, MM said she'd like to talk to them.....but anyway, why 'give up' this time round? try, thats the way, you never know how it will turn out. I think the program made some very good points, the evidence can't be disputed, and its made buyers more aware that not everything is as correct at higher levels than thought BUT the fact that puppy buyers now feel that any puppy bred from a non show home is somehow 'better' than one from the thousands of puppies bred from good homes, caring breeders unlike those shown on the program is such a shame, well its worse than a shame, the point of health tests has been lost in running down the show world, the point should have been made that the most important thing is to buy a puppy from health tested parents, with good results.

Unless of course it's in with a chance of helping JH and co possibly pat themselves on the back for singlehandedly radically improving the world of pedigree dogs
Must admit I can see where you are getting at here, I suppose now all the breeders, because of that one program will be testing their dogs....like most didn't before....and it was only a few bad apples shown that has spolit the lot. I hope the KC react better next time, I did fell they let the side down. Although, to be fair in retrospect, they could have been allowed a bit more time to answer questions, rather than only being allowed one or two word answers with no chance to give any fuller explanation.

When is this program to be made and aired? Didn't the last one take 2 yrs or something to make?

Ah, forged numbers in litters - duh, misread that LOL.

Even so remember a year or so back the bitch (Neo I think ....) that had something like 20+ pups  It happens, OK, rarely but can happen.  My breed usually has around 8 pups but I've known of several over the years where there have been 13-15. 

I'd imagine that digital technology being what it is it would be very easy to doctor photos so, short of literally every litter and premises being thoroughly inspected by officials, the only other means open to them is routine DNA when registering.  Not THAT, IMO, is what should have been happening before now and is surely a good option for the future.

Don't know if PFs and BYBs would wriggle out of that though if using littermates and combos of same stud to litter sisters etc ....