http://dogpolitics.co.uk/?p=5

So who is behind this anonymous blog site? Obviously they are not telling the truth or they would put their name to it!

They seem to have totally missed the point here:

"While The Kennel Club may choose to use breed standards only when judging at dog shows, these standards obviously permeate dog breeding. It therefore seems odd that an organisation that usually trumpets its breed standards loud and often should suddenly claim that these standards are peripheral to dog breeding."

It isn't that breed standards do not pertain to breeding it is that the vast majority of dogs bred are not bred with a breed standard in mind. 

The piece makes it sound that because the minority are bred with a breed standard and showing in mind means that the KC isn't to blame for the harm done to dogs as if adherence to a standard causes the issues where the opposite is generally the case, either through exaggeration caused by misunderstanding/misinterpreting of the desired characteristics as outlined in a standard.  Of course those outside it who don't select against harmful characteristics, seeking to maintain/improve health, temperament and type, aren't to blame???

I don't read JH's or other blogs like this. Why give attention to all that hot air?

I read it and thought it might be a puppylove blog.

It reminded me of something I have seen before.  The blog of some magazine editor K9 something or other but can't really remember.

Ryan O'Meara?

Yes, that was who I was thinking of but just googled his blog and it does not "look" like that now so I could very well have been mistaken.  I doubt he would be anonymous anyway.

Thanks, if anyone knows I would be interested. I followed the links from the blog to PuppyLove then to Hairy Dogmother....

The two letters (Steve Dean and and RSPCA) here refer: http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/Letterstotheeditor.php

the impression by the RSPCA is that people should not have preferences in their dogs characteristics.

Also assuming that a well bred litter should all have good temperaments and health what is wrong with the other deciding factor being the level of conformation to correct breed type.

the impression by the RSPCA is that people should not have preferences in their dogs characteristics.


This is utterly ridiculous!

Since one would hope to live with the dog for at least 16 years then it would be reasonable to expect certain characteristics to be more or less desirable in order to achieve a better 'fit'.  After all we often keep our dogs longer than our spouses and it would be inconceivable to just pick a random partner off the street with no regard to looks or character and expect it to work out.  

In all human interactions, including with our pets, there is bound to be an element of 'choosing' and rejecting certain traits or characteristics. 

''Why is The Kennel Club so awful at public relations?'' I actually found this post more worrying posted 10th Jan.2012..It has some  unpleasant accusations against one person in particular.

However, "Why is the Kennel Club so awful at PR" is a questions many of us have asked over the last few years.

The domain name for this "blog" is owned by and registered to a Danial Webb, if that means anything.

We know the KC has had problems , we are aware of problems with the ABS,I was talking about the libelous statements contained in said article.

> After all we often keep our dogs longer than our spouses and it would be inconceivable to just pick a random partner off the street with no regard to looks or character and expect it to work out.

Superb!!! :-)

> After all we often keep our dogs longer than our spouses and it would be inconceivable to just pick a random partner off the street with no regard to looks or character and expect it to work out.
> Superb!!! :-)

Fab!!

This all reminds me of a couple of decades ago when competitive sports were deemed unhealthy and the natural desire to achieve/win/ rise to the top was frowned upon.
Its human nature to strive and be ambitious...just as its human nature to chose those we make relationships with, quite shallowly in the first instance, by how they look and make us feel. No legislation or anti breed propoganda will stop people choosing the pet they like the look of...even at rescue centres...its the one which visually 'grabs' you first and foremost.

They say you chose a house in the first 11 seconds of viewing...the communists tried to stamp this human nonsense out by making everything look the same, a homogenized society.

We're not allowed to chose a pet by how it looks?.....well Id like to see them try!

> We're not allowed to chose a pet by how it looks?.....well Id like to see them try!

Some rescues even try to do this by getting people to complete a questionnaire and they will choose a dog for you. 

To be fair that is fine for some things (cat household where dog cat chaser), but the initial choice should be the new owner (or is that non PC and should be Guardian, Carer?).

I will admit I chose my breeds by what was aesthetically pleasing and whittled those down to those with behavioural, mental and other physical characteristics I could live with (have had two breeds, current a better fit than the first) .

Loads of legislation and directives forced most schools to totally abandon competitive sports because of the PC view......
Wind on the clock and Olympic fever is being pumped into the schools like never before.
The cyclical nature of society but...
Nature will out :-)

> After all we often keep our dogs longer than our spouses and it would be inconceivable to just pick a random partner off the street with no regard to looks or character and expect it to work out.  

Mmmmm.......yes...... see my signature :)

True in my case first marriage lasted less than 5 years and only into third year after risking a second.

Into 7th generation with the Elkies, with the ones gone to the bridge around with me betweeen 11 and 14 years.

> Into 7th generation with the Elkies, with the ones gone to the bridge around with me betweeen 11 and 14 years.

There will always be people for whom rescue is noble... They would never go to a pet shop or dealer, BYB, or even a responsible pedigree breeder - they just want a dog that is in need. Don't care what the dog looks like, but will do their best to overcome any difficulties their chosen dog might have. I wish there were more of them really; there will always be rescue dogs needing them.

I think the big rescue charities are hoping to snare those people but without fully understanding they have now become the minority, because if most people looking to acquire a dog started off by looking at rescue, rather than Free Ads, then there would be no homes for all the pet shop/puppy farmed/BYB dogs.

To be fair people that can offer a home to just about any dog and have the experience to deal with possible issues are few and far between, yet the majority of people looking for a canine companion are made to feel guilty if they do not go the rescue route.

Also rescuing an unknown quantity can be a higher risk re health (huge expense if it goes wrong)and temperament/behaviour than a well bred puppy.

Many more people would consider a rescue dog if breed specific rescue was more widely known about, as at least then they still have the ability to choose a breed that is most suitable.

We all applaude those who rescue dogs and many people advise it rather than buying a puppy.

Yet most are 'provided' by the very people we warn people off of.The careless way these dogs are produced - with little regard to their health prospects and temperament, would ordinarily have us calling 'RUN'.

The cleft stick I suppose. :-(

 

> We all applaude those who rescue dogs and many people advise it rather than buying a puppy. Yet most are 'provided' by the very people we warn people off of.The careless way these dogs are produced - with little regard to their health prospects and temperament, would ordinarily have us calling 'RUN'.The cleft stick I suppose.

Spot on!

>We all applaude those who rescue dogs and many people advise it rather than buying a puppy.

>Yet most are 'provided' by the very people we warn people off of.The careless way these dogs are produced - with little regard to their health >prospects and temperament, would ordinarily have us calling 'RUN'.

>The cleft stick I suppose. :-(

Yup - Spot on!

Sadly, general rescues have become the purveyors of the second-hand puppy farm dog.  

I have to question the 'good that they do' when set against the suspicion that many who give their PF Dog to rescue just go off and get another one

It's a vicious circle :(    - and yes I know it's not the Dogs' fault, but in the long term it isn't really helping the situation :(

I can't imagine choosing a dog to live with I thought was ugly!! Or inapproriate size wise for me. I couldn't live with a staffie, the majority of terriers don't do it for me either. Just not my type of dog. Show me a collie and I'm putty in your hands, or a greyhound or lurcher type. Although I have recently been blown away by a pug called Nigel, great name!!

As for rescues.......well I'm currently chasing a westie around Manchester who has been repeatedly rehomed and has severe behavioural issues. Has bitten severely to the point of owners needing stitches.

Funny how we don't seem to hear about this side of rescue dogs, the side that might need some tough choices being made. A lot of rescues are very poor on assessing behaviour and the attitude is terrible towards mismatches.

Manchester dogs home and several near to me offer a policy that if it doesn't work out, bringthe dog back and you can pick another for free. Not terrible in principle if it's in everyone's best interets, problems arise when a dog has been rehomed 3-4 times. But if this was a breeder offering the same service they would be called a puppy farmer!!