<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Our Dogs Newspaper Attacks RSPCA &amp; Dogs Trust Over Crufts Withdrawal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/840/our-dogs-newspaper-attacks-rspca-dogs-trust-over-crufts-withdrawal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/840/our-dogs-newspaper-attacks-rspca-dogs-trust-over-crufts-withdrawal/</link>
	<description>the lifestyle magazine for dog lovers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jun 2011 15:23:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Dawson</title>
		<link>http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/840/our-dogs-newspaper-attacks-rspca-dogs-trust-over-crufts-withdrawal/#comment-24637</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Dawson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:36:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dogmagazine.net/?p=840#comment-24637</guid>
		<description>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&#039;t share but please do not make personal attacks on the holders of those opinions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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&#8217;t share but please do not make personal attacks on the holders of those opinions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arthur Clinton</title>
		<link>http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/840/our-dogs-newspaper-attacks-rspca-dogs-trust-over-crufts-withdrawal/#comment-21280</link>
		<dc:creator>Arthur Clinton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 04:30:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dogmagazine.net/?p=840#comment-21280</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr Hogan</p>
<p>Thank you for your observations and for informing me that I have got things wrong.</p>
<p>We live in an apparently democratic society/country, so surely we are allowed to comment on issues?</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>If they are unable to do anything to control bad breeding, just what is the point of the organisation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ryan O'Meara</title>
		<link>http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/840/our-dogs-newspaper-attacks-rspca-dogs-trust-over-crufts-withdrawal/#comment-21252</link>
		<dc:creator>Ryan O'Meara</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:54:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dogmagazine.net/?p=840#comment-21252</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not &#039;supposed&#039; to be the editor, I am the editor. I don&#039;t deny being &#039;bullish&#039;. I didn&#039;t reveal anyone&#039;s identity. I can comment as much and as often as I like, as is my right. I won&#039;t be told by the likes of you to &#039;grow up&#039;. And, erm, I think that&#039;s it. Anything else?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not &#8216;supposed&#8217; to be the editor, I am the editor. I don&#8217;t deny being &#8216;bullish&#8217;. I didn&#8217;t reveal anyone&#8217;s identity. I can comment as much and as often as I like, as is my right. I won&#8217;t be told by the likes of you to &#8216;grow up&#8217;. And, erm, I think that&#8217;s it. Anything else?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/840/our-dogs-newspaper-attacks-rspca-dogs-trust-over-crufts-withdrawal/#comment-21251</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:51:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dogmagazine.net/?p=840#comment-21251</guid>
		<description>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&#039;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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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&#8217;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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ryan O'Meara</title>
		<link>http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/840/our-dogs-newspaper-attacks-rspca-dogs-trust-over-crufts-withdrawal/#comment-21250</link>
		<dc:creator>Ryan O'Meara</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:46:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dogmagazine.net/?p=840#comment-21250</guid>
		<description>You reckon people won&#039;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 &#039;bullish&#039; attitude puts people off commenting I can only apologise and point them in the direction of www.disney.com

If I am an idiot (which I undoubtedly am) my views won&#039;t affect anyone&#039;s thinking - so I wouldn&#039;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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You reckon people won&#8217;t comment because of me? Because I dare to express my own views on my own site? Lol.</p>
<p>This is a serious issue, to be debated by people with serious views. No place for wallflowers. If my &#8216;bullish&#8217; attitude puts people off commenting I can only apologise and point them in the direction of <a href="http://www.disney.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.disney.com</a></p>
<p>If I am an idiot (which I undoubtedly am) my views won&#8217;t affect anyone&#8217;s thinking &#8211; so I wouldn&#8217;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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sazza</title>
		<link>http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/840/our-dogs-newspaper-attacks-rspca-dogs-trust-over-crufts-withdrawal/#comment-21248</link>
		<dc:creator>Sazza</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:35:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dogmagazine.net/?p=840#comment-21248</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rachael</title>
		<link>http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/840/our-dogs-newspaper-attacks-rspca-dogs-trust-over-crufts-withdrawal/#comment-21246</link>
		<dc:creator>Rachael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:32:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dogmagazine.net/?p=840#comment-21246</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ali Smith;</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Such a shame.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ryan O'Meara</title>
		<link>http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/840/our-dogs-newspaper-attacks-rspca-dogs-trust-over-crufts-withdrawal/#comment-21245</link>
		<dc:creator>Ryan O'Meara</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:27:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dogmagazine.net/?p=840#comment-21245</guid>
		<description>Sazza, any particular reason you keep posting different comments under different names? You not know how to use a proxy IP yet?

I&#039;ll say it again, I don&#039;t present myself as an expert but if you wish to deduce that from what you read, that&#039;s up to you.

My advice is stick to one posting name, you&#039;ll get less confused.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sazza, any particular reason you keep posting different comments under different names? You not know how to use a proxy IP yet?</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll say it again, I don&#8217;t present myself as an expert but if you wish to deduce that from what you read, that&#8217;s up to you.</p>
<p>My advice is stick to one posting name, you&#8217;ll get less confused.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sazza</title>
		<link>http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/840/our-dogs-newspaper-attacks-rspca-dogs-trust-over-crufts-withdrawal/#comment-21243</link>
		<dc:creator>Sazza</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:23:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dogmagazine.net/?p=840#comment-21243</guid>
		<description>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
&quot;I am passionate observer but a simple dog lover first and foremost&quot;- I would stick to that Ryan cos that is all you are good at!

once you start i just switch off!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
<p>Ryan<br />
&#8220;I am passionate observer but a simple dog lover first and foremost&#8221;- I would stick to that Ryan cos that is all you are good at!</p>
<p>once you start i just switch off!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moreen Davie</title>
		<link>http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/840/our-dogs-newspaper-attacks-rspca-dogs-trust-over-crufts-withdrawal/#comment-21012</link>
		<dc:creator>Moreen Davie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:24:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dogmagazine.net/?p=840#comment-21012</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.<br />
The following letter was published by Dog World in July 2006 and was neither challenged nor responded to by the K.C.</p>
<p>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.<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
In all the cases whereby owners had contacted the Kennel Club they were either not interested or refused to make an investigation.<br />
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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Served from: www.dogmagazine.net @ 2012-02-10 06:57:01 -->
