Jan
Hypocritical Kennel Club Complains Bateson Report “Not Enough”
The Kennel Club has suggested the independent report in to canine health by Professor Patrick Bateson – that they commissioned and jointly paid for – has not gone far enough.
The report, which can be seen as a clear vindication of the documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed and highlights many of the critical deficiencies that have been blighting canine health for far too long, calls for wide sweeping change to the current legislation designed to ensure canine health.The Kennel Club’s Caroline Kisko says:
“Whilst the report recognises that the majority of breeders are responsible, there are those whose actions are bringing the rest of the dog breeding community into disrepute and this needs to be stopped.”
She fails to mention that the Kennel Club readily accept registrations from the self same breeders she is complaining about or address why the Kennel Club does not simply do away with its ‘open to all comers’ registry and operate the Accredited Breeder Scheme alone.
The Kennel Club receives significant revenue from registrations, some of which comes from commercial dog breeders / puppy farmers.
The Bateson report, far from giving the Kennel Club a clean bill of health or vindicating some of the defensive statements coming from the Kennel Club in the wake of the controversial documentary, Pedigree Dogs Exposed, actually supports the findings of the documentary along with the other two independent reports that have been published since it was first aired.
That this report happens to have been commissioned and paid for – in conjunction with the Dogs Trust – by The Kennel Club itself makes it harder for them to dismiss.
Following the airing of Pedigree Dogs Exposed, the Kennel Club’s Caroline Kisko took to the media to advise that the Kennel Club
“could not”
ban father to daughter matings.
They since did.
The Kennel Club did NOT go further and ban other close breeding (inbreeding) of half siblings or grandparent to grandson/daughter. The Bateson report recommends this.
The Kennel Club launched a legal complain to OfCom about Pedigree Dogs Exposed – they made a series of complaints, only one of which was acknowledged, the rest were dismissed.
Hopefully the Kennel Club will now stop resisting change, endorsing puppy farmers by issuing them with a veil of credibility by way of KC registrations and will take on board the fact that they have not done enough to protect the health of the dogs registered under their banner.
In their response to the report, the Kennel Club say:
“The Kennel Club has long recognised that genetic diversity plays a crucial role in safeguarding the health of dogs and the report is absolutely right to suggest that there are no further blanket rules in place but that decisions are
based upon scientific knowledge and are made on a breed by breed basis.”
If the Kennel Club recognises that “genetic diversity plays a crucial role in safeguarding the health of dogs” then why did it take the public pressure of a television documentary before outlawing father and daughter matings?
It seems hypocritical in the extreme that the Kennel Club would publicly state that they were ‘unable’ to ban such close, genetically flawed matings when, patently, the did have that power as they inacted it.
It seems hypocritical that the Kennel Club would complain so bitterly about puppy farms and commercial breeders when they receive revenue from these exact same people.
It seems hypocritical that the Kennel Club complained so long and loud about Pedigree Dogs Exposed when no less than THREE independent reports, one of which was commissioned by THEM, has supported the message of that documentary.
It seems hypocritical of the Kennel Club to accuse the Bateson report of ‘not going far enough’ when they themselves had it in their power to act years ago, but failed to do so.
It seems hypocritical of the Kennel Club to state:
“Using this framework for establishing the advisory council under an independent chairman would save significant sums of money, which can instead be devoted entirely to the dog health research that the report identified as being in ‘urgent’ need of more funding.”
When they launched what one can only assume was not a ‘low budget’ legal action to try and have the broadcast regulator uphold a series of complaints about Pedigree Dogs Exposed, only to be comprehensively rejected with the exception of just one point. Given what has transpired since, surely that money too would have been ‘better spent’ on contributing toward the benefit of dogs and canine health rather than on a kicking and screaming exercise which reveals a deep seated rejection of the message that Pedigree Dogs Exposed presented.
Maybe now, we will finally see change.
The Bateson report concludes:
1. Best scientific research and advice should be available to breeders
2. Prospective dog owners should be advised on:
1. What constitutes good welfare in dogs
2. How to identify the correct dog breed for their circumstances
3. How to find a reliable dog breeder
3. A non-statutory Independent Advisory Council on Dog Breeding should be established
4. The chairman and members of this should be appointed under the Nolan Principles
5. Creation of a computer- based system for the collection of anonymous diagnoses from vets in order to provide statistically significant prevalence data for each breed
6. Those drafting Breed Standards should avoid the selection for extreme morphologies and should refer to the guidance from the Advisory Council where possible
7. Upgrades to the Accredited Breeder scheme should be made (with a written standard to inspect this against) guaranteeing:
1. That all pre-mating tests for inherited disease are undertaken for both parents and that no mating should take place if the tests indicate that this would be inadvisable
2. That any prospective puppy purchaser is able to view a litter with the breeding bitch
3. That every puppy is identified by microchip prior to sale
4. That all pre-sale tests on the puppy that are appropriate to the breed have been carried out
5. That all breeders have a duty of care to all parent dog and litters with regard to health and welfare
6. The Accredited Breeder Scheme should be UKAS accredited
8. ALL puppies should be microchipped before they are sold
9. Local Authorities should address requirements of the duty of care in the AWA 2006 when inspecting breeding premises for licenses
10. A statutory Code of Practice on the breeding of dogs should be established under the AWA 2006
11. Regs under the AWA should be made to replace existing Breeding and Sales of Dogs Acts
12. The BVA should compile and have available to LA’s a list of Vets willing to carry out inspections of licensed breeding premises
13. A public awareness and education campaign should be designed to change public behaviour when buying a dog
14. Working with the profession as a whole, the RCVS and the BVA should lead a shift in emphasis towards preventative veterinary medicine rather than simply focus on the correction of the problems after they have occurred
15. Regulations should be made under the AWA 2006 in order to:
1. Create an obligation to any person breeding dog to have regard to the health and welfare of both the parents and the offspring of the mating
2. Require that any body laying down breed standards must have regard to the health and welfare of the dogs and the need to avoid breed specific health problems. The body could thus be regarded as exercising a power of a public nature and this is susceptible to judicial review
16. Once a robust and audited accreditation scheme is available the buying public should be pointed with confidence towards the accredited breeders
17. A meeting of the relevant parties to bring all recommendations from the APGAW and RSPCA reports together should be embraced
18. The Dangerous Dogs Act should be amended to apply to all dogs that have been shown to be dangerous rather than to specified breeds and should address the problem of dogs being bred and reared specifically as weapons for fighting
19. Dog shows are a powerful and effective lever for change and should be applied to achieve welfare improvements
You are right to highlight their hypocracy. They are just so pernicious, but at last they cannot manoeuvre out of this one. Though no doubt La Kisko will try. Afterall they commissioned it. There is lots to like about Professor Bateson’s report not least his very measured language couching some quite contraversial conclusions. He’s exceptionally strong on inbreeding. He concludes that in its current format the ABS cannot be trusted by the puppy buying public. He rightfully acknowledges that all of these recent reviews including his own stem directly out of Pedigree Dogs Exposed. He calls for, loud and clear, more systematic recording and collection of health data by the Vets, as let’s face it we all know the KC and its breed clubs cannot be trusted to collect that truthfully. He tops it off by calling for an advisory body to oversee the sector thus sidelining, at last, the stranglehold of the KC. It is a job very well done by the Prof right down to his choice of photo for the front cover. Well done that man.
[...] [...]