Sep
Our Dogs Newspaper Attacks RSPCA & Dogs Trust Over Crufts Withdrawal
Kennel blindness is a term used to describe a particular type of breeder who can’t see past certain canine traits that they find personally desirable. For instance, a Springer Spaniel breeder might have a personal penchant for dogs that have predominantly more white markings than liver (or black) – vice versa a breeder may be drawn to Springers with solid liver heads. We’re all human, we all have our preferences. But true kennel blindness is that when a breeder takes an absolute unswerving position; “I’d never have a liver headed dog in my kennel” or “I’d never use such and such on one of my bitches, he’s so white he looks more like an English Setter than Spaniel”.
Such entrenched views are very real and they exist in the dog world. The ostrich effect, if you will. Stick the head in the sand and ignore the real world, raise your head to see that things have changed but continue to insist that you’re right and everyone else is wrong.
Step forward Our Dogs, the canine newspaper.
Let’s get one thing out in the open right away shall we. It’s bad form for one canine publication to criticise another as there is an obvious conflict of interest that could question the validity and motive for any such claim.
So it’s bad form, OK. That’s a given. Here’s some bad form for you then.
The following is from Our Dogs;
OUR DOGS is calling on all breeders to stand up and be counted under this attack from people who do not seem to appreciate the many thousands of dedicated breeders who have health and good temperament at the heart of their breeding programme.
Make your views known…email letters to the Editor and also email the Dogs Trust and RSPCA with your views.
This call to defend against ‘attack’ is headlined: ‘Show world under attack from RSPCA’. The piece then goes on to ask “Do you feel the RSPCA should be the ones to overhaul rules and registrations or dogs shows?”
Let’s get straight to the point. The RSPCA hasn’t, as far as we’re aware, put itself forward as the ones to overhaul the rules and registrations of dog shows. In fact from the discussions we’ve heard, the RSPCA have been pretty clear in their position of telling the KENNEL CLUB and the show world in general to sort those issues out themselves. The RSPCA has withdrawn from Crufts out of frustration that those changes are not quick enough in coming. They haven’t nominated themselves as the people to get involved in dog show rules. They’ve made a stand on moral grounds, animal welfare grounds, lack of reform grounds.
And for that stand they find themselves being rounded on by the very people whom they aimed their concerns about. How very, very, very predictable. Sad but predictable. Way to miss the point guys!
Let’s tackle the other issue. “this attack from people who do not seem to appreciate the many thousands of dedicated breeders who have health and good temperament at the heart of their breeding programme.” – what utter, utter tosh! Personally I haven’t seen the RSPCA aim a single, solitary word of criticism against GOOD BREEDERS. Not one.
When will these people understand what the problem is? When will they finally get the message that the man in the street, the average dog owner looks at certain things they see happening via the medium of shows like Crufts and they find it highly unpalatable. Like little Danny, the Pekignese who won Crufts best in show in 2003. The poor little chap could hardly get across the ring and when he was having his winner’s photos taken he had to sit on a bed of ice for fear of overheating. Let me send this message loud and clear: The average dog owner sees that and they flinch.
Nobody is attacking good breeders. Shooting the messenger is absolutely not going to fix the problems that are staring people in the face. The Kennel Club are doing their best to shoot the messenger and now the canine press is hitting out at the RSPCA and accusing them of something they haven’t even done or said.
While people continue to try and defend the indefensible and argue the toss about whether it was the Victorians who are ultimately to blame for the fact that some modern Cavalier King Charles spaniels end up in screaming agony as their brains are pressing against their skulls or whether the RSPCA is trying to muscle in on territory (dog show regulation) where they are clearly not welcome by ‘the locals’ – dogs will go on suffering and certain people will perpetuate the stereotype of some dog folk as weirdos with obsessions that don’t take account of the real world, science or some very, very basic health related fundamentals.
Ask yourself this, who’s side are you on: The right for dogs to live long, happy, healthy lives regardless of what they happen to look like or the right to carry on with outdated ideals that HAVE lead to hundreds of thousands of dogs suffering as a DIRECT result of actions that SOME breeders have taken?
Oh, and accepting that it is bad form to criticise another dog publication I’d better redress the balance somewhat – We have no problems with Dogs Today, in fact you should go out and buy it. There’s room for more than one dog magazine on your shelves.
K9 Magazine is calling on all good breeders to keep doing what you’re doing. And the bad ones, let’s hope you find it harder to have your dogs registered and endorsed by the Kennel Club as you have been doing for too many years.
What’s going on!
Our Dogs usually has a right go at the Kennel Club almost every week via Robert Killick?
Has OD’s realised that it needs to keep on side with breeders?
Then perhaps the RSPCA should make it VERY clear that they have no issue with good breeders, all they are serving to do at the minute is alienate the good breeders by not making a clear distinction, you only have to go on the dog Internet forums to see this happening. We all know there are bad breeders out there and we all shout about it, perhaps the RSPCA is now shouting the loudest, but to call all dogs at Crufts ‘mutants’ was in my view just plain insulting, they would get a lot more support if they made it clear that they recognise there are good breeders out there and not all breeds have major health problems. Perhaps, also if they studied some of our carefully planned breeding programmes with relevant health tests and then saw our dogs they would see what i mean. I have withdrawn my monthly payments to the RSPCA and Dogs Trust
This shouldn’t be about taking sides as mentioned in your article, the charities, KC should try to compromise and try to stamp out as much bad breeding as possible.
If you look on many forums the RSPCA hasn’t got a good reputation with many people and personally i feel it’s justified in my experience.
As for you recommending another monthly dog magazine, well isn’t that the same magazine which promotes designer cross breeds which sell for huge amounts of money and also didn’t the editor of that magazine and her family have a longstanding association with the world of dog showing?
“Then perhaps the RSPCA should make it VERY clear that they have no issue with good breeders”
I would assume that that was a given. But I would also feel free to contact the RSPCA and ask them to clarify this position. I’m willing to guess the conversation will go something like this:
Q) RSPCA, do you have problems with good breeders?
A) No.
I think it’s well known that the RSPCA divides opinion amongst many dog folk, but on this issue they have come out and stated their opposition to bad breeding practices and flawed ‘standards’. That is something I would find personally very hard to criticise them for.
Let’s ask these questions.
RSPCA, what do you do to help the health of dogs in general?
A:Nothing
RSPCA, when was the last time you donated any of your considerable wealth into the research of health in dogs?
A: Never
RSPCA, do you plan to get actively involved and help fund research in the future?
A:No
RSPCA, why do you think that there weren’t good responsible breeders interviewed on that program?
A: Don’t know, don’t care, because it does not suit our purpose.
The reality is that the majority of dogs do not come from breeders who are involved in showing at all. They come from BYB and puppy farms. THe RSPCA and Ryan O’Meara would have you believe that having a standard for breeding is some kind of crime. BYB and puppy farms will flourish because they are not registering, not health checking, not caring about temperament. They certainly are not worried about pedigrees. Mating Jack to Betty is good enough for them. Yes, there would be a wonderful idea. Let’s have no standards at all. Now there is a smart plan. The BYB and the puppy farms will laugh all the way to the bank.
Yes, the future generations will have something to say but I don’t think it will be favourable for the RSPCA , Mr. O’Meara.
I would love to know what your qualifications are that you are to present yourself as an expert in the field of dog breeding or anything else for that matter.
I think its very unfair all breeders are being tared with the smae brush
B. Bond wrote: “RSPCA, what do you do to help the health of dogs in general?
A:Nothing”
Rubbish. You’ve revealed your hand with such a glib and factually inaccurate statement. The Royal Society for the PREVENTION of Cruelty to Animals is there to do a specific job, have a guess what that might? Your argument is the equivalent of asking why the Football Association hasn’t done anything to prevent knife crime. By removing their association from Crufts and other Kennel Club events they have done more for the good of dog health than your post would suggest.
– “THe RSPCA and Ryan O’Meara would have you believe that having a standard for breeding is some kind of crime”
Well I can’t speak for the RSPCA but let us look at the facts. Breed standards ARE causing distress in dogs. But I suppose all the vets, dog owners and experts who have repeated this claim are wrong? Entrenched attitudes are quite amusing when the person making their comment can’t see beyond their own nose.
Here’s a challenge – what do you think would happen to dogs if there was no such thing as a breed standard
A) They’d all disintegrate and die
B) They’d survive just fine thanks
C) They’d have a chance of returning to the HEALTHIER state they were in. I.e like the time Bulldogs could give birth naturally and would live past the age of 6-years old.
“I would love to know what your qualifications are that you are to present yourself as an expert in the field of dog breeding or anything else for that matter.”
I am passionate observer but a simple dog lover first and foremost. I have bred dogs in the past, successful ones – in the working field. I have also trained over 2,000 and had hands on experience with many more. I have thus spent my entire adult life working in the dog sector. I don’t present myself as an expert but if you have reached such a conclusion from my writings then I shall take that as the compliment is was obviously not intended to be.
As the Editor of Our Dogs, I would firstly like to say that we have always taken a very measured view on topics such as the DDA, docking and other debates which have raged in the world of dogs and dog showing. As a publication which is there for people who enjoy showing their dogs as a hobby, we find it unacceptable that caring breeders and the KC be trampled on by an organisation which does not have a great reputation for expertise in this field. As people on your site have stated…everyone is being tarred with the same brush.
Animal cruelty goes far, far deeper than the tiny percentage of pedigree dogs which need looking at in terms of health issues. Yes, we have spoken out about the Kennel Club before (and we may well do so again!), but on this subject it is essential that we let our readers know the very real threat which could undermine their hobby completely. We want breeders to back the KC in any positive way they can and that way we can all move forward together – with or without the blessing of Mark Evans.
We have asked the writer of the above article (Ryan O’Meara) to allow us to publish his views these in next week’s Our Dogs- watch this space!
Ali Smith.
Hi Ali,
Permission duly granted.
Of course we share different readerships, I appreciate that Our Dogs is a newspaper aimed at the show world. I assume my views will go down like a lead balloon in your paper but, as I still stand by them, every word of them, I am of course more than happy to grant you full permission to publish them.
I am sure we both agree that this issue is a serious issue and it deserves the wider coverage it is being given by the mainstream media. My view remains that the RSPCA have done nothing wrong, at all, in either the statements they have made in relation to their withdrawal from Crufts or the show world in general nor the action they have taken in removing their patronage of the show.
Wonder if Ryan O’Meara will come in for criticism from the rabid Robert Killick through his column in Our Dogs.
Of course Alison Smith is going to defend breeders, just look at all the breeder adverts etc and the Our Dog puppy sales website if more reasons are needed.
Nice one Ryan O’Meara on your article.
Maybe it is not him that needs ‘to watch this space’ as Ms Smith comments?
Arthur Clinton says: Of course Alison Smith is going to defend breeders, just look at all the breeder adverts etc and the Our Dog puppy sales website if more reasons are needed.
Could I just point out to him that the K9 web site also has a puppies for sale section, featuring KC registered puppies. What’s the difference? Also, there is nothing actually wrong with breeding, advertising and selling a puppy. Its been like that for years, and done properly and ethically there is no problem.
Have a wider and more informed view Mr Clinton.
Alison Smiths reference to watch this space means that OUR DOGS have offered to publish Ryans article in the next issue together with my response; that way its even handed.(unlike the BBC TV Show)
B. Bond has hit the nail on the head in all his comments.
There are so many breeders following the right guidelines, but like Anita said, they are all being tarred with the same brush.
Ryan, Arthur and Co have got it completley the wrong way round, just as the three organisations who have pulled out of Crufts.
They will not be missed and now put themselves out of the frame when it comes to doing something to help the situation.
There is a lot of jumping onto bandwaggons here.
We wrote to Mark Evans congratulating him on his remarks and attached four pages of our own complaints against the Kennel Club. We have back up evidence from people who have been victims of the K.C. scam, including letters from the K.C to disgruntled pet owners whose dogs have died. The K.C. excused themselves by stating that they have no jurisdiction over private sellers, even though all the pups were K.C. registered, including those from the K.C. recommended puppy list.
The following letter was published by Dog World in July 2006 and was neither challenged nor responded to by the K.C.
We applaud April Fearns’s criticism of the Kennel Club’s Accredited Breeder Scheme as we, too, have grave concerns on the KC registration of pedigree puppies which are all too often reared in unsuitable conditions by greedy back yard breeders and sold to an unsuspecting public at unreasonably high prices.
Of the 260 calls received following our advert on “sale of sick puppies”, nearly all of which were K.C. Registered, 30 complaints were made to the Kennel Club by the new owners, 15 of whom had spent £29,755 on veterinary fees. The Kennel Club provides a service to non-commercial breeders (namely puppy farmers) at a charge of £15 whereby K.C. Reg. puppies are placed on a list of breeders which is distributed to a prospective purchaser of a puppy. The K.C. strongly deny that they “recommend” but how else is this advice to be viewed? In some of the cases received the owners had contacted the K.C. and had indeed been recommended to a breeder, two of the pups purchased died within 24 hrs.
Under the K.C. Code of Ethics Item 9, by which the K.C. expect breeders to abide “Owners will not sell any dog to commercial dog wholesalers etc” yet a Labrador was sold from a Pet Shop carrying K.C. 6 weeks free insurance , the pup suffered from a skin allergy, diarrhoea and sickness, vet’s fees incurred were £1,000.
Three separate complaints were against the same breeder, one case of a Lab with an inflamed bowel and hereditary allergies, another of a Staffordshire Bull Terrier that had its back legs reconstructed, another Golden Lab with joint problems resulting in more operations. In each case the K.C. stated there was nothing they could do even though all the pups were given 6 wks free insurance by the K.C. Four Yorkshire Terries were sold by another breeder, one had no hip bone, one had systemic liver shunt, one was pts after two months, in all cases the testicles had not dropped resulting in further surgery. One furious owner was told by the K.C. that inbreeding is not illegal. In one letter from the K.C. they offer their condolences but state that private sales of dogs do not come under their jurisdiction and advised the owner to contact Trading Standards.
In all the cases whereby owners had contacted the Kennel Club they were either not interested or refused to make an investigation.
In our view the Kennel Club is instrumental in propagating puppy farming and whilst they believe that it is necessary to keep the lines open in many of the cases inbreeding is merely causing suffering and death because of congenital and hereditary diseases being carried forward.
B. Bond you are amazing. I couldnt have said it any better. Ryan I would also love to know what your qualifications are that you are to present yourself as an expert in the field of dog breeding or anything else for that matter.
Ryan
“I am passionate observer but a simple dog lover first and foremost”- I would stick to that Ryan cos that is all you are good at!
once you start i just switch off!
Sazza, any particular reason you keep posting different comments under different names? You not know how to use a proxy IP yet?
I’ll say it again, I don’t present myself as an expert but if you wish to deduce that from what you read, that’s up to you.
My advice is stick to one posting name, you’ll get less confused.
Ali Smith;
As a reader of Our Dogs I am very disappointed you will be offering Ryan a chance to write an article in the next issue. He has evidently been most unhelpful with his comments on the website and has almost been trying his hardest to make it appears worse to your normal Joe public. I am afraid i will have no choice but to boycott reading the paper and will cancel my online membership.
Such a shame.
I used different names because if i revealed to much about myself it would become obvious to the dog showing world and as a breeder, exhibitor, field trial trainer and championship show judge i thought it was best not to reveal that identity. Now im not too fussed. I only hope you are proud of yourself as you have probably stopped a lot of people expressing their views on this site. So unfortunate you need to feed that ego of yours.
You reckon people won’t comment because of me? Because I dare to express my own views on my own site? Lol.
This is a serious issue, to be debated by people with serious views. No place for wallflowers. If my ‘bullish’ attitude puts people off commenting I can only apologise and point them in the direction of http://www.disney.com
If I am an idiot (which I undoubtedly am) my views won’t affect anyone’s thinking – so I wouldn’t worry about it too much. The fact that this is still an issue being kept in the public eye is important to me. I care about dogs, see.
I just could not resist coming on one more time to see what else you had to say Ryan. SHOCK HORROR. There is a perfect example of your bullish behaviour. I honestly feel like im back at school. Grow up. You are supposed to be the editor of this site yet you let somebody’s identity be known because that person makes you look silly. Very resposible. They are just putting their views accross like you. How is this helping the issues you are trying to highlight. I hope it deters people from writing in these forums because its not worthy if people like you are editing it.
I’m not ‘supposed’ to be the editor, I am the editor. I don’t deny being ‘bullish’. I didn’t reveal anyone’s identity. I can comment as much and as often as I like, as is my right. I won’t be told by the likes of you to ‘grow up’. And, erm, I think that’s it. Anything else?
Mr Hogan
Thank you for your observations and for informing me that I have got things wrong.
We live in an apparently democratic society/country, so surely we are allowed to comment on issues?
The issue is that there are bad breeders out there in whatever form and that the supposedly head organisation, the Kennel Club is seemingly not doing anything about it and acting in an arrogant manner to address the concerns of the public whether dog or non dog owners.
If they are unable to do anything to control bad breeding, just what is the point of the organisation.
Getting personal merely serves to devalue the discussion. Fact is there are breeds with obvious deformities (in some cases seemingly required by the standard). There are also breeds with aberrant genes (for example the Cavalier, but others as well). The only potentially useful way to discuss such topics is, yes, disagree with opinions you don’t share but please do not make personal attacks on the holders of those opinions.