RSPCA Chief Vet Condemns ‘Parade of Mutants’ – Pedigree Dogs Exposed
Published on August 19, 2008 by Ryan O'Meara · 30 CommentsThe RSPCA has today moved to clarify that the comments of its chief vet when he referred to some dog shows as a ‘parade of mutants’ were his own, personal thoughts and not neccessarily the view of the RSPCA.
However, the RSPCA is keen to clarify that it is concerned about the ‘unacceptably high levels of disability’ affecting many pedigree dogs.
K9 Magazine asked the RSPCA for clarifcation on whether it would be continuing to patronage Crufts dog show as a major trade exhibitor in the wake of chief vet Mark Evans’ hard hitting comments about the state of pedigree dogs in this morning’s media. The charity, which is the UK’s largest animal welfare organisation, explained:
The ‘parade of mutants’ comment is Mark’s personal view. The RSPCA is, however, concerned about the unacceptably high levels of disability, deformity and disease affecting pedigree dogs – and this includes animals entered into ‘best of breed’ classes in dog shows like Crufts.
We believe dog shows that are judged only according to breed standards encourage selective breeding for appearance and the intensive breeding of closely related dogs.
The RSPCA isn’t against all dog shows – in fact we want to help ensure a positive future for the pedigree dog by working with everyone involved. We would like to see the emphasis shifted away from appearance, so that health, welfare and temperament are considered first and foremost.
Dog shows have the potential to be incredibly beneficial in terms of promoting dog welfare and are also ideal opportunities for the RSPCA to meet dog owners and breeders, let people know about our work and help spread animal welfare messages about responsible pet ownership.
The BBC is said to be considering the future of covering Crufts as a result of issues raised by the documentary ‘Pedigree Dogs Exposed’, airing on BBC One August 19th at 21.00.
Highly Recommended: This could be the most important link you EVER click as far as your dog’s life is concerned – see why….!
Tags: Animal Charities, Animal Welfare, parade of mutants, Social Issues
Bravo BBC! Bravo Mark Evans! Boycott Crufts, boycott Westminster! And if they do not stand firm with people who actually care about the quality of their dogs life, boycott every kennel club that helps sustain these barbaric breeding practices!
What barbaric breeding practices?
If you actually know anything about the breeding practices of show dogs…you know that each bitch and dog is carefully selected to compliment each pedigree.
Both male and female are tested for genetic diseases and health, BEFORE the are bred. And both animals have been judged to meet the breed standard.
Breeders are looking for the BEST of the breed. They don’t want unhealthy, genetically faulty animals.
If you want to attack bad breeding…go after grandpa and his pet store bred Yorkies who he is breeding to make some “pocket” money. Or the lady who is breeding her Dobes she bought through the paper so she can pay her taxes.
Those are the people who are breeding bad examples of the breeds, with no testing or even a knowledge of the breed standards.
I just read an ad on our local “craigslist” from a person looking for a male Yorkie to breed to their female who is in heat…no testing, no clue!
I think the problem is that although there are breeders out there trying to do the right thing when it comes to the health and wellbeing of their animals and offspring there are still a fair proportion who blatently don’t – and to say this is untrue is the equivelant of putting your head in the sand.
It was all to plainly seen with the “lady” who’s Cavalier got best in show despite being diagnosed with a serious condition and to top it off actually has bred from that dog over 20 (!!) times KNOWING that it has that condition and KNOWING that there is a good risk that it’s offspring can suffer. Is that responsible breeding? I think not! If it was a case that both dogs are tested before mating why did this particular lady with her dog that was so close to the breed standard it got best in show at one of the most prestigious CKC events continue to breed it knowing that it had this problem.
Even the fact that is got best in show with the judges knowing that it has been diagnosed with this illness is almost an admission that they find this perfectly acceptable in an animal which is laughingly supposed to be as close to the breed standard as possible – I don’t think it states in the breed standards “must have health issues as is common with the breed”!
I think calling Crufts a parade of mutants is a bit strong, however I do think things should be done in order to help those which suffer – the dogs. I think if a breeder is truely responsible and passionate about their breed (as I know there are those who are) they would be more than happy to follow a guideline for “must have” health tests for their animals, afterall – this is their passion and their love. And perhaps those breeders could boycott those which they know disregard the health of their animals for selfish gains of looks and winning just to get a shiny rossette to put on the mantlepiece?
And in someways aren’t these breeding practices barbaric? These animals are bred into a life of pain and discomfort, or perhaps breeders feel that a life where you are having siezures or can’t ever breath properly is perfectly fine – I wonder how willing they’d be to try it themselves?! Where the problems are so bad the dog has to be euthanised before it’s life has even really begun – if these are good breeding practices to get that perfect dog who fits the breed standards then there are some serious welfare issues to be dealt with here.
The breed clubs and regulatory bodies their members breeding dogs known to carry genetic abnormalities, but choose not too.
They further compound this by allowing bizarre interpretations of breed standard (almost crippled German Shepherd Dogs etc) that are deleterious to dog health and welfare.
Good on the BBC and Mark Evans for taking the pedigree dog community. It’s long past time that they were made accountable for the health of their chosen breeds.
Quote ‘Good on the BBC and Mark Evans for taking the pedigree dog community. It’s long past time that they were made accountable for the health of their chosen breeds’
and what about a spin on the positive side of dog breeding and dog shows? That doesnt make such good viewing and post show debates does it? The BBC made a good job of damming breeders, and I wonder how many dogs will suffer as a result of this programme due to the biased views of the public.
Go on BBC, ban Crufts broadcasting, at least then it may be less popular to the average dog owner and become more of the dog show that it used to be, and allow exhibitors to have an enjoyable show with Joe Public prodding, poking and treading all over our much loved dogs.
I will never again watch Crufts, and I truly hope the BBC chose to boycott the event by refusing to air it.
I was always aware that a certain level of inbreeding was inevitable in pedigree dogs because at the end of the day all breeds will only stem back to a handful of originals, but having never owned a pedigree I was certainly not aware that the Kennel Club are fully aware of the practice of close inbreeding and indeed their chairman even seemed to champion the practice, saying that he himself is trying to “breed out” certain undesirable traits in his own dogs. A prime example of man playing God.
Many of the comments made by experts last night hit the mark perfectly – indeed it would be considered outrageous if mother to son, father to daughter and sibling reproduction was exposed in human society. Just because dogs are a different species it doesn’t take a biological genius to work out that health problems and gene mutation would occur just as readily as they would in humans.
The programme left me sickened but was a massive wake up call.
A family member was unlucky enough to experience epilepsy in his beautiful English bull terrier, who was a lovely natured animal until a fit came on. Eventually the dog had to be put to sleep because of the dangers involved with having such a heavy dog with a mouthful of teeth and a locking jaw having a fit and the aggression that preceded this. It was truly heartbreaking for us all.
I agree that mother/son and brother/sister matings do not sound morally ethical but for breeds where there is a small gene pool it is inevitable, and there are many of these matings where there are no genetic diseases present. In the wild a wild animal ie: a wolf etc, will mate with the healthiest female, which may be their mother or another close relative. Some male dogs will also totally ignore their siblings when in season. The issue around Cavaliers and the terrible genetic disease needs to be resolved, and if one good thing came out of this programme it is that. But what everyone fails to realise that the KC cannot police all matings, and ensure that breeders are having relevant tests and not mating affected stock. I feel the programme was instigated as a personal vendetta against the KC by a few individuals and if it wanted to highlight dog breeding/dog shows it should have shown some of the good work that is done by breed clubs without leaving the public tarring us all with the same brush. If the BBC decide to not renew their contract and not broadcast Crufts, it could mean that we have more visitors on the day, which in my opinion could be a complete disaster.
Anyone who thinks they know about genetics has made outrageous comments about breeding. The dog community should apply for genetic research grants, that way every Tom, Dick and Harry will be putting their foot in there mouth everytime they speak. The Horse industry has billions spent on genetic research. The animal rights people could not make comment without spending billions on research to try to prove them wrong. The AR movements goal is animal extinction.
Watching that documentary made me feel sick. WHY ARE PEOPLE SO MEAN?!! i have 2 dogs, and my jack russel has slight breathing problems but not siverly (thank god!!) i feel very sickened that people has the guts to say these dogs look better like this.its just like saying::
“YOU WOULD LOOK CUTER WITH A SMALLER BODY, WELL A CRUSHED SPINE MORE LIKE!!”
I HOPE THAT EVERY ONE AGREES WITH ME. CRUFTS, AND PEOPLE THAT THINK THEY CAN MAKE SHOW DOGS LIKE CRUFTS OR THE KENNEL CLUB THEY ARE WRONG IT IS JUST DAMAGING THE DOGS. THEY ARREN’T MAKING THE DOGS BETTER…………….
THEY ARE MUTATING THEM!!! ANY ONE THAT DOES NOT AGREE IS COMPLETE SICK LOONEYS!!!
The blame for the present disgusting situation of chronically ill and deformed dogs and the ever narrowing genepools has to be laid at the door of the SHOW breeders who, for years, have slavishly bred according their misguided interpretation of the breed standards. In their desperation to win rosettes and trophies they have created many exaggerated dogs and JUDGES HAVE REWARDED these exaggerations thus perpetuating the crime. And in my opinion it is a crime. eg “well angulated” gsds are now over angulated cripples, bulldogs “massive” skulls are ultra massive deformities, “cobby” pugs now have stomach tissue intruding into chest cavities, weather resistant double coats of rough collies are now an impediment to the dog in the all weather.Low to the ground bassets are now unathletic bags of loose flesh and slobber who battle to shuffle around the ring yet the chairman of the basset club insists they have improved this breed of hunting hound in the last 60 years!Pa-leeZ! The KC is run by these same people – they will never change – the programme highlighted their ignorance of the original function of their breeds and blindness to the problem – Irvine’s angry response of saying that he didnt need scientists telling him about dogs is typical of the arrogance. The KC should be disbanded, in-breeding and line breeding banned and the breeding of pedigree dogs should be under the guidance and supervision of knowledgeble people – geneticists, vets, dog welfare specialists and dog historians. No dog should be bred from that has not had every health test possible and a working qualification.Registries should be thrown open to broaden the gene pool eg welsh or patterdale terriers could be used to bring new blood into lakelands and inter variety breeding between the varieties of belgian shepherds should be encouraged not banned as it is now.
I wasn’t aware that the Kennel Club ranked on par with God himself or in fact that Ronnie Irvine who stated with his 40 years of personal experience he believes that he has the right and skill to mate same breeds to eliminate defects. If that were the case then he should have questioned the dilemma of fathering his own children with his questionable DNA.
Even when something as imperative as animal health is corroborated by medical, genetic and scientific backing people choose to ignore these claims for two very simple reasons; one being they have a financial motive that obviously holds no advocacy for the dogs welfare or secondly and sadly, the people who believe that they are somehow more superior than their fellow man and dog? However you look at it, it does not take a genius to work it out that a minute DNA pool will lead to defects and by stating ‘its not true’ even when the evidence is blatant, they are merely inconvenienced by the facts, and therefore bad breeders’ own opinions cannot make a failing situation acceptable, it simply makes them look very silly indeed.
Well done to Mark Evan and Mrs Fowler for their hard work and thank God for the minority of sensible human beings.
I think that the person with most power to stop this disgusting practise is our queen. If she withdraws her patronage of the kennel club it would bring home to them the revulsion that most decent people feel about the barbaric practises condoned by an institution who think only of the money involved rather than suffering of the dogs. Help the animals Elizabeth.
As a breeder exhibitor I just have to laugh at this..
The Parade of MUTANTS come in and out of my shop every day.. the Labadoodles, puggles, Bich a poo’s, have a poo’s. Maltipoos.. DESIGNER dogs, And they are sold for thousands over the internet and pet shops.
Donna,
Perhaps you could clarify why a Labradoodle is any more a mutant than ANY KC recognised pedigree breed? Or why a KC reg’d Bulldog should ‘retail’ for £1,600 when it is fundamentally less healthy than the so-called ‘designer’ breeds?
Ryan what scientific evidence do you have to back that up? NONE! You may be an editor on this site but you are no eistein. If you think you are helping dogs think again! by constantly having a go at the dog showing world you are Jeopardising puppies future. Do you know how many puppies now do not have homes as a result of that programme? a lot. All because the pet owners were worried about possible future health problems! Instead they are probably going to go and buy a mongrel from a pet shop with no pedigree or family history of diseases. Now if that isn’t damaging the welfare of dogs then what is? And you can say that pedigree breeders are but you and I know that it was all a PR trick to get the BBC som e much needed ratings. SUPRISE SUPRISE a few of the experts are now retracting their statements that were shown on the show even including the chief vet of the RSPCA as he admitted it was not the opinion of the rest of the RSPCA, only his and it was not supported completely by scientific evidence. Also the producer couldnt even name the pedigree background of some of the dogs featured in the show. WHY? because they were from puppy farms!
If you want to do some good Ryan use this site to tackle puppy farmers and these so called designers dogs like labradoodles which cross 2 completely different genetic bloodlines introducing more possible health problems. Dont be so quick to condemn the dog showing world. We always do whats best for our animals. To say that we dont means that you know more about our own dogs than we do and we both know that is ridiculous.
Ha.
I’m certainly no Einstein but I do, at least, know how to spell it.
You’re another who has asked me to ‘tackle’ Labradoodles. I’m sorry, but you just don’t ‘get it’ and I’m tired of trying to explain it. I’ll give you the microphone though, please explain to the class what is WRONG with Labradoodles that would require my ‘tackling’ of them?
Secondly, I think you’ll find if you do a search, we do quite a bit on puppy farms here. You must be late to the party.
Rachel you said:
“by constantly having a go at the dog showing world you are Jeopardising puppies future. Do you know how many puppies now do not have homes as a result of that programme? a lot. All because the pet owners were worried about possible future health problems! Instead they are probably going to go and buy a mongrel from a pet shop with no pedigree or family history of diseases. Now if that isn’t damaging the welfare of dogs then what is? ”
All I can say to that is HURRAH!
It doesnt really matter in the situation you describe if yourself or Ryan is correct.
If those people did not do enough research to KNOW for themselves or to satisfy themselves that they KNOW exactly what they are getting then imho its brilliant that they arent getting that dog. If the thought of expensive vet bills put them off FANTASIC! Better now then should that dog have any serious issue later in life.
I have done alot of work with Bull breeds and rescue. If someone pulled out of having one of my dogs because of something in the media, whether I agreed with the media or not, I would be over the moon because clearly they were not right for one of my dogs.
If the show world is now inundated with unsold pups it says to me that far too many breeders are selling to unknowledgable or unprepared homes in the first place. That doesnt make a good breeder does it? If the truth is out there for breeders to show potential new owners, there wont be a surge of unsold puppies either. Unless that material doesnt exist?
Oh and Im the owner of two non pedigree dogs both with no history and both fantastic family pets with no medical issues what so ever
Ryan it is scientifically proven that if you cross two different pedigree breeds with potential underlying health problems you are going to create a dog such as a labradoodle which the breeder nor owner will no whether its well or not. Crossing the two breeds may double up on a problem or even highlight something not seen before. Pedigree dogs are bred to try and get rid of these problems by not breeding to these unhealthy dogs. There are no unhealthy breeds just some in which health conditions come up more often. We have done wonders so far to improve the health of dogs but nothing can be done overnight like people seem to be expecting. Pedigree dogs are some of the most healthiest species around thanks to clever breeding. Take humans for example, were ridden with diseases and illnesses but that doesnt stop us having children and producing terminally ill children or severly deformed children. cystic fibrosis, down syndrome, sickle cell anaemia, clef lips/pallets. The list could go on.
90 percent of pedigree dogs will not suffer from health problems that will have a detrimental effect on their quality of life, based on an analysis of the Breed Health Survey, the largest dog health survey in the world. How many other species can say that?
I would be cautious of forming views about pedigree dogs as a result of watching this documentary.
OK Rachael – you’ve done it. I didn’t think it could be done but you’ve done it. My irony sensor has just exploded. I’m not sure it’ll ever be fixed after that post.
I don’t even know where to start with picking it to pieces. So I won’t. Let’s agree to differ.
I do not disagree with some of the aspects of your arguement Ryan but I have had dogs for decades. Have you ever bred a litter? or exhibited in a dog show? Things have got much better since the 70′s, 80′s and 90′s. You and I both know that that programme was absolutely ridiculous. It did highlight a very very small minority of disgraceful people which i praise it for. What I am most upset about is the way they tarred us all with the same brush. I have always been a responsible breeder and as a result of that programme people see me as a monster. The vast majority are not like that but of course that would not have made for good viewing.
- Have you ever bred a litter?
Yes.
- or exhibited in a dog show?
No. Never will.
- You and I both know that that programme was absolutely ridiculous
Speak for yourself. Far from ridiculous, the programme is one of the most compelling and important pieces of TV relating to dogs that has ever been aired. It was wonderfully made and has caused a reaction that will see the public is now fully in possession of the facts they need to know.
ok well you have you opinions whether i agree or not but the fact is that the public outrage has already calmed down and people are coming to shows in there hundreds enquiring about puppies. Nothing has changed. All the programme did was feed the gulable publics mind for a couple of weeks until some other even more ridiculous but interesting programme came along.
If you think that and truly believe it, good luck to you.
I know for certain the public outrage will NEVER calm down over animal welfare abuses. Sure, the people who attended dog shows before will continue to do so. But if you don’t believe that things have changed, you’re in for a shock as we move forward because believe me, they have.
Rachel, does it not worry you that breeders and the public are carrying on as normal? Do you actually care that our pedigree dogs are becoming more and more inbred?
You’ve implied in your post that pedigree breeding improves health??? Have you not read the scientific research for yourself? (I’ve added links below in case you haven’t)
You state you don’t like how all breeders have been tarred with the same brush? Well do something about it then, stop reducing gene pools and look to improving genetic diversity. Health testing is not going to solve the problem; out crossing is what’s needed. Until you and other breeders alike accept what science has taught us I will quite happily tar you all with the same brush, health testing or not you are still causing deliberate suffering to dogs. It’s disgusting. It’s been allowed to go on for so long and I hope to God measures will soon be put in place to prevent further suffering. Sorry if I’ve come across as rude but it I find it downright disgraceful that so called good breeders are refusing to face up to the problem just because it goes against their outdated eugenics theory.
http://www1.imperial.ac.uk/medicine/news/inbreedingdogs/
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17966340
http://www.cawc.org.uk/sites/default/files/CAWCModifications.pdf
I completely agree with some aspects of your arguements Lisa and Ryan but i just cant get round how you think it was “wonderfully made” as Ryan said. To compare all breeders to hitler and the eugenics movement is down right offensive on so many levels. How disrespectful to those who suffered at the hands of him. It was way over the top and really offended me as i am a breeder and to say that I am as bad the nazi’s who killed my late family is distasteful to the highest degree.
Smash – perhaps you could quote the part where the programme compared ‘all breeders to Hitler’?
It does not take a scientist to work out that was what they were trying to say. Did they for one second talk about the good breeders? NO! She tarred us all with the same brush by failing to distinguish the difference between good and bad breeders, thus unfortunately comparing us all to the eugenices movement and hitler. That aside do you really think comparing people like myself to Hitler was appropriate?
Smash
You have just admitted that that was not said and then gone on to repeat that it was said?
I invite you, if you are a good breader, to joint the rest and condemn the bad ones.
Ryan O’Meara seems to be the current target of the Kennel Club Appreciation Society.
Ryan did not produce the programme but is being treated as if he was the investigator as well!
Surely if there is a problem it needs to be resolved, is that not within the remit of the Kennel Club, if not just what is the point of it as the leading organisation on canine matters in the UK?
On another point, who made them the leading authority on canine matters, was it their money or their connections with the establishment?
From the way they dismissed everything on the programme whenever they had the opportunity to respond, they were acting like 19th century mill owners!
I do condemn the bad ones and always have done even before the producers even thought about making a documentary about the show world. My point is where in the programme did it not compare us to the eugenics movement and hitler?