Earlier this week I published an article entitled Our Dogs Newspaper Attacks RSPCA & Dogs Trust Over Crufts Withdrawal.

The article can be read in full at the link I have posted above. Today our office received a written reply to that article from Mr Vince Hogan, managing director of Our Dogs. We publish this reply, in full, here. My response is made at the end of the piece.

Dear Ryan,

I’m sorry, I do not know you and this is a bad way to be introduced, but your article merits a reply, which you are at liberty to print in full (this included) and unedited next to your article, if you are a fair person.

Your readers need to be aware that there is another perspective.

I am happy to print your article in next week’s OUR DOGS in full; please confirm you have no problem with that.

http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/840/our-dogs-newspaper-attacks-rspca-dogs-trust-over-crufts-withdrawal/

What a shame you have decided to take a pot shot at OUR DOGS in your web site, without having the courtesy of ringing us in advance to find out why we have taken the stance we have, when all we are trying to do is redress the balance of a very biased TV programme stoked by the comments of the now very public figure of Mark Evans. (RSPCA Chief Veterinary Advisor)

What is so bad about this?

It’s all true….Ryan, what’s your problem with the truth?

You have quoted one part of an email recently sent out 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.”

Do you not think there are many thousands of breeders who are not dedicated and care deeply about the health of their puppies?

Do you not think these people have a right to stand up for themselves?

We did not say attack the Dogs Trust or RSPCA, we simply asked for people to make their views known. Do you have a problem with that?

The point you have clearly missed is that pedigree dog breeders, and show organisers appear to have been tarred with the same brush. Mark Evans is talking about ‘hundreds of thousands’ of dogs being affected and he has NO EVIDENCE for this exaggerated figure.

The RSPCA statement says: “We know that hundreds of thousands of dogs are vulnerable to illness, pain, disability and behavioural problems because they’re primarily bred for how they look rather than with health, welfare and temperament in mind,” Mr Evans said.

Why would reliable breeders, breed unhealthy dogs which would then not be sold as puppies, or perhaps sold but then returned?

There is no logic to that statement.

The vast majority of true breeders (not puppy farmers) breed primarily for health and temperament, and if the dogs look to be show quality, then they may go into the show ring, which in truth is a very small percentage of pedigree dogs bred in this country.

Get the stats for yourself Ryan before commenting.

You also say: “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”

However, the RSPCA says:

The RSPCA has commissioned an independent review of the science in this field, and will be discussing its findings with relevant experts and stakeholders later this year. Amongst a raft of specific recommendations, the following themes have been identified as possible ways forward:

An overhaul of the rules and requirements for pedigree dog registration and competitive dog showing (including breed standards). Health, welfare and temperament should be prioritised over appearance.·

Well it seems pretty clear to us that the Kennel Club is not mentioned here, so who is doing the overhauling? YOU TELL US RYAN!
RSPCA chief veterinary adviser Mark Evans said: “Dog shows using current breed standards as the main judging criteria actively encourage both the intentional breeding of deformed and disabled dogs and the inbreeding of closely related animals.

Would you not consider that as ‘dog shows under attack’? It’s certainly not supportive.

Are we reading a different press release to you?

Have you spoken to the Kennel Club to find out their views, or are you being one sided as well? Practice what you preach Ryan.

I suspect you have not contacted the relevant people at the Kennel Club, just like you chose not to contact me.

Also if you are so clearly allied to Beverley Cuddy and Dogs Today, and just wishing to follow her very polarized position,(as an ex KC employee) then you are just as guilty of some form of kennel blindness as well. As you say in a very biased way:

…….., 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.

How does that redress any balance at all? You clearly have failed to even read OUR DOGS paper before making your attack on us as in the last few weeks, we have given Beverley space to make her case as well in OUR PAPER…we were even handed in a way that the TV programme, and now your article,  was not.

We have no problem with Beverly, she has her views,  and we have no problem with the truth. Beverley would be the first to admit that she came from a family of dog breeders and show people, and worked in the whole show scene…the show scene that is being attacked by Mark Evans as RSPCA spokesman..read his statements. Did Beverly not breed Bearded Collies for good health and temperament?

DOGS TRUST:

OUR DOGS have had long discussions with the top people at Dogs Trust and asked them for their side for next week’s issue and we are in the process of doing the same for the RSPCA. But be clear, there are many breeders who are deeply offended at this barrage of criticism which MAY APPLY TO SOME but not all, and at the moment ALL in pedigree dogs feel under attack.

We certainly have taken issue with some of DOGS Trust’s comments, and quote item 4 of their recent release which is illogical:

4. 4. Purchasers of dogs should first consider a rescue dog. If it is a pedigree, they must understand the importance of determining and questioning its genetic heritage.

Logical question…if it is not a pedigree, how do you check the genetic heritage of a cross breed?

We believe they have now changed that press release.

As a newspaper covering shows, we have a duty to defend the good people whilst agreeing that there is work to be done in many health areas…….

IN FACT YOU WILL FIND THE KENNEL CLUB SHARES THE SAME VIEW..if you take the trouble to ask them.

I’ll help you out on that one.. I’ll copy this reply to their Secretary..hope you don’t mind.

I have tried to speak to you today but was met with a wall of resistance at your switchboard, and they would not give me your mobile.

I say again, what a shame you did not ring me to clarify a few things as your article contains many errors and omissions, just like the TV programme and just like Mark Evans ; he has stated that they are carrying out their own  ‘independent’ review, so I suspect there may be another agenda here. It seems strange that none of this was raised prior to the BBC programme……..do we smell the whiff of a publicity opportunity here post BBC show; RSPCA and DOGS TRUST were happy to attend Crufts year after year, collecting money from many people, including the dog breeders prior to the TV show with not a word.

LETS CLARIFY YOUR ARTICLE:

There were so many aspects of your article that need real clarification; you appear to writing in the same ‘sound bite’ manner as the RSPCA.

Ryan says: 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?

Can you please quantify how many of these breeders (you say SOME) have bred these hundreds of thousands (your words)dogs that are suffering. We think you need to keep a sense of perspective in all this, and your words are just as inflammatory as Mr Evans.

Ryan says: Personally I haven’t seen the RSPCA aim a single, solitary word of criticism against GOOD BREEDERS. Not one.

OUR DOGS SAYS: Have they yet acknowledged the good work that most reputable breeders do? (I don’t think so) But then, that would not make a good story for Mr Evans and the press department of the RSPCA.

There is no question this debate will go on, but you are sadly misguided if you think that the Kennel Club, OUR DOGS, and the many thousands of dedicated breeders do not care about health, temperament and welfare. Things need to be done, most thinking people accept that, and they will only be achieved if people get to grips with the problems (see the Kennel Club’s plans) and stop all this aggression. Keep reading OUR DOGS as we will fairly report on both sides and like you, look forward to positive action from the Kennel Club, within its position as a voluntary governing body. Remember, whatever changes come in, if people decide not to register with the KC, then they are out with any form of control at all.

We need to move forward Ryan, what are you going to do to help?

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to a few of the issues raised but I won’t take up too much of your time.

1) Mr Hogan has since written to me to apologise for forgetting how we were first introduced. It was when Our Dogs were forced to apologise for publishing material (twice) that was lifted from this very site without permission. I appreciate Mr Hogan’s admission that this episode had slipped his mind and indeed a lot of water may have flown under the bridge since.

2) What am I doing to help? The first thing I would say is I am supporting the stance of the RSPCA and repeating the concerns that I have felt have gone unaddressed for too long and continue to be unaddressed today. Bad breeders continuing to be endorsed by the Kennel Club, breeding standards that compromise health, and widening the general public’s attention to the fact that a Kennel Club registered, pedigree dog is by no means a guarantee of quality. With bad breeders allowed to register their stock and pedigree fraud ‘easy’ to commit, it is important that dog owners learn what their options are.

On a more personal level I have campaigned for the UK to sign and ratify the European convention for the Protection of Pet Animals. The fact that the UK is not represented in this convention is an ongoing disgrace.

On a more practical level, I founded the website DogsBlog.com in 2007. The site has, at time of writing, been responsible for finding new homes for 2,688 rescue dogs. This is something I more than happy to mention here as it is relevant. As people contrinue to breed more dogs, justifying the unhealthy ones is harder than ever when we consider the 100,000 unwanted animals in rescue shelters. I also founded the Pet Owners Parliament as a means to give animal lovers as voice of their own. I will never tell our readers what to think. Never have, never will. I will gladly tell them what I think, if they wish to disagree I support that right.

3) You ask…

Can you please quantify how many of these breeders (you say SOME) have bred these hundreds of thousands (your words)dogs that are suffering. We think you need to keep a sense of perspective in all this, and your words are just as inflammatory as Mr Evans.

I will clarify, with pleasure.

From the most recent KC/BVA health study “Health information was reported for 36,006 live dogs, of which 22,540 (62.6%) were healthy, and 13,466 (37.4%) had at least one reported health condition.” 37 percent of the 36,000 dogs surveyed by The Kennel Club have “at least one” health condition. Now, let us factor in that according to the PFMA:

In 2008, the UK dog population is 7.3 million. This is broken down into 75% pedigree

75% of 7.3m dogs is 5.4m pedigrees in the UK. If 37.4% have a reported health condition (according to the KC’s own stats) that would make over 2m dogs.

But for balance, let’s ignore these stats shall we (that seems the fashionable thing to do) and quote the line that has been trotted out from Clarges St since Pedigree Dogs were Exposed. They say ‘90 % of pedigree dogs are healthy’ which leads us to conclude that 10% are not. 10% of 5.4m pedigree dogs is 540,000 dogs.

Now I know that all of these dogs have not been bred this year alone. We are talking about a flow of dogs bred from (probably) the past 16 years (or in the case of the poor Bulldog, the past 6 years probably). But what we are not talking about, is dogs born in ‘Victorian times’. If you see what I’m hinting at. So the modern generation of pedigree dog breeders have produced – according to the stats that the KC will accept – at least 540,000 unhealthy dogs.

I hope this clarifies.

4) You ponder:

if you are so clearly allied to Beverley Cuddy and Dogs Today,

You must forgive me. My sense of humour at play. We are not allied to Dogs Today, we are in fact dog magazines operating in the same market. I made the remark to (perhaps too subtly) illustrate that attacking another canine publication is not good form (I admit that. But accusations of ‘bad form’ are not something I am too concerned about if they come from certain sections of the show world) but I wished to convey the fact that we share some very common ground with the views of Dogs Today’s editor on this very important issue and to signify how we have (sadly) been unable to find the same common ground with Our Dogs who have, in my view, attacked the RSPCA for things they have not actually said or done.

5) You said:

I have tried to speak to you today but was met with a wall of resistance at your switchboard, and they would not give me your mobile.

I was not in the office at the time of your call. The wall of resistance you met with was nothing more than our well drilled staff who understand that giving out my mobile will result in a fate far, far worse than the sack. Hanging, drawing and quartering would be too good for any of our staff who gave out my mobile. I am, as you may see, precious about this issue. I am sure you would concede I did respond to your email quicky.

I am sure we are both able to agree to disagree on this issue. I am happy that it is still in the public eye though.

I will bullet point some pertinent issues here

1) I have never attacked GOOD breeders and GOOD show people. I never will. I will continue to attack the ostriches though.

2) I have bred dogs myself (working dogs – fit and functional). Thus at some point in my life I have been a breeder. If I was making generic attacks on breeders, I’d be attacking myself.

3) I own two KC registered pedigree dogs. If I was generically attacking pedigree dogs, I’d be attacking myself. Likewise, I would never attack the good people who enjoy dog shows.

Nowhere have I seen anyone generically attack ALL breeders. I would like to point out my plain and simple view, that a good breeder will seek to breed good dogs (healthy dogs of good temperament that are an improvement on the generation that preceded them) and bad breeders will just breed dogs. Plain old simple continuations of whatever it was that went before them. In some cases, they’ll breed lots of them (puppy farmers). The fact that the latter is leading to the former being tarred with the ‘bad brush’ is an issue, if I was a breeder, that I would take up with the Kennel Club – why are the KC allowing bad breeders to sully the name of the good breeders by accepting registrations from both?

Highly Recommended: What dog owner wouldn’t want a piece of THIS action? – Get FREE dog food!

Related posts:

1. Our Dogs Newspaper Attacks RSPCA & Dogs Trust Over Crufts Withdrawal
2. RSPCA Responds to Our Dogs Newspaper
3. The RSPCA Responds To The Kennel Club’s Moves To Improve Pedigree Dog Welfare
4. Dogs Trust Withdraws from Crufts and All Kennel Club Events
5. Pedigree Dogs Exposed Documentary Maker Responds to Kennel Club Moves