View Full Version : So I guess Pedigree Dogs Exposed was RIGHT?

7th October 2008, 01:25 PM
Or why else would the Kennel Club be saying this! What a major breakthrough! Posted (http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/2089/23/5/3) today. Of course if the KC is to be given 'statutory powers' there should also be government animal welfare legislation giving oversight over the KC and what it does (I'd like to see that 'momentum' she mentiions used for the breeds, not the breed clubs and KC). Amazing though that Caroline Kisco has gone from saying the programme was misleading and unfair and incorrect to stating that it welcomes a groundswell of public opinion... which was solely produced by the programme...!

What it also must do is require all member clubs to have clear rules and regulations regarding how member complaints are dealt with as it is a farce to allow an SGM to be used to blindly vote people on or off the club or committee. This could NEVER be done on any properly constituted organisation -- check any UK legal site on how to institute rules and regulations for companies and organisations, and there will be guidance to have *clear steps* that must be undertaken if a committee or club member is to be questioned and their membership or standing considered. As it stands now, if we organised a few hundred members of the club we could go in and remove every single member of the existing committee simply by calling an SGM. Say, come to think of it... :badgrin:

Kennel Club to Clamp Down on Breeders to Safeguard Health of Pedigree Dogs

The Kennel Club is launching a complete review of every pedigree dog breed in the UK in a move that will have far-reaching benefits for the health of many breeds. It has also called on the government to give it the statutory powers to clamp down on breeders who fail to make a dog’s health their top priority.

A breed health plan will be coordinated for each of the UK’s 209 pedigree breeds and will benefit from the extensive research that has been funded by the Kennel Club in conjunction with renowned veterinary research centres over the past 40+ years. This will include updated breed standards to ensure that no dog is bred for features that might prevent it from seeing, walking and breathing freely. Judges will be fully briefed on the new breed standards so that only the healthiest dogs are rewarded in the show ring.

The Kennel Club is releasing the first of these new breed standards today, for the Pekingese, and has taken a tough line with the breed following extensive and abortive consultations. This is set to radically improve the health of the Pekingese which for nearly a hundred years was bred to have a flat face; a feature which can lead to breathing problems; under the new health plan the breed will be required to have a defined muzzle.

The breed health plans, which are scheduled to be completed by early next year, will also incorporate the results of a thorough, ongoing analysis of the health status and genetic diversity of each breed, drawing on results from the world’s largest dog health survey, conducted by the Animal Health Trust and funded by the Kennel Club Charitable Trust in 2004. This will ensure that breeders and buyers are aware of the health tests that should be carried out for each breed. The final part of the plans will look at ways breeders can expand the gene pool of the breed.

In order to ensure that the plans are effective and reach all dogs, the Kennel Club has called on the government to give it statutory powers to make its established Accredited Breeder Scheme compulsory throughout the country. If successful, this would mean that all breeders who are not part of the scheme and who have not officially confirmed their willingness to follow the health standards set by the Kennel Club would be unable to produce or sell puppies within the law.

Additionally, breed clubs are now required to adopt the Kennel Club’s Code of Ethics, to ensure that their practices fall in line with Kennel Club policy for putting the health and welfare of puppies first. This includes a clause that explicitly forbids the compulsory culling of healthy puppies.

To complement these steps the Kennel Club is developing plans for a new Canine Genetics Centre. This will be run in conjunction with the Animal Health Trust, confirming the Kennel Club’s commitment to research into inherited diseases and the provision of DNA testing programmes which identify the genes underlying inherited health problems.

Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club Secretary, said: “The groundswell of public attention on the very important matters surrounding dog breeding is a welcomed momentum that will enable us to drive through, with added urgency, new and extended initiatives that will help to safeguard the health of our pedigree dogs. We have been listening and agree with the general public’s view that more needs to be done.

“Steps such as our breed health plans will enable us to ensure that the health of every dog is the number one priority and we are taking a tougher line with breed clubs by adjusting those breed standards that fail to promote good health. By asking the government for statutory powers we will be able to take a tougher line with all breeders and breed clubs that fail to abide by our high standards. This in turn will enable us to extend the reach of our Accredited Breeder Scheme, which is the quality control mechanism within our registration process, so that all dogs will be bred by people who abide by our stringent rules and regulations for the breeding of healthy, happy dogs.

“We have been working hard in recent years to identify and address health problems that exist in dogs, and we are taking advantage of the opportunities that advances in science have given us to improve dog health. We look forward to continuing our work with various institutions and organisations that share the same objective: to protect the health and welfare of all dogs.”

They will need to institute breed by breed guidelines for their 'stringent rules and regulations' though as the Accredited Breeder Scheme currently has no such rules and regs and either do breed clubs.

Jan Bell
7th October 2008, 01:31 PM
:rah:A move in the right direction at last!:rah:

7th October 2008, 01:35 PM
That's fantastic! Wonder what the response of the Peke community is like, though. I'm sure some are up in arms at prospect of losing the flat faces. And I do hope that the 'ridge' on the Ridgeback will be done away with altogether.

But does the bit about judges having updated standards mean that dogs can only be shown IF they have the appropriate certificates? ie, clear hearts for Cavs, and A/D status on an MRI?

Brian M
7th October 2008, 01:45 PM

And HURRAY ,Power To The People and our cavs of course ,and also a BIG
THANK YOU To all the fighting forum members for pushing the K C in the right direction .:):):)

7th October 2008, 01:45 PM
Great news, I hope they don't just work through the breed clubs.

7th October 2008, 01:48 PM
The other issue is they need to look at more recent research for deciding breed standards than their AHT review from 2004!

7th October 2008, 01:51 PM
As a new owner I am not really sure what is going on here. I must confess that I was a bit ignorant regarding the breed. I know I am behind the learning curve here, and I will confess that I did no favors to the breed in the way that I purchased Bella. I can only move forward from here, and do my best to be a better owner than I was a buyer.

Is there a short-ish recap of why so many people are up in arms? I think I understand the problem to be the genetic health issues with the CKCS. It seems that breeders may be a bit hypocritical in their dealings, and when called to the carpet the moved to quick to remove the opposition

This might be an over simplistic view of the problems, but am I at least on the right track?

7th October 2008, 01:57 PM
I also think vets should report problems (sort of like child abuse reported by law, hospital, teachers etc..) and if they do not report, a fine of some sort to make them responsible. These puppy mills who say they are vet checked? take away those licenses of those vets if they know these are not ideal conditions for the breeding of any animal.

Brian M
7th October 2008, 03:00 PM

And another great point about vets responsibility and reporting if any abuse does occur ,this will stop them in their tracks once all these have been ironed out ,cant wait till later to see what the reaction is on D W ,its been a good day.:*bay:

7th October 2008, 03:46 PM
Is there a short-ish recap of why so many people are up in arms?Two reasons: the broadcast in the UK and Ireland of the BBC Primetime Pedigree Dogs Exposed, which featured cavaliers amongst the breeds with serious health issues, and the subsequent reactions of the breed clubs and the UK Kennel Club, and the fact that the UK CKCS Club voted off their committee their health representative Margaret Carter, the whistleblower from Pedigree Dogs Exposed. She had decided that someone had to say something as too many were willing to keep giving awards and championships to cavaliers known to have syringomyelia and to breed from them regardless of the risk of knowingly producing more puppies with the same serious health issue many of us on the board are dealing with (two of my four have symptomatic SM). Margaret is a member here.

Thankfully the KC seems to be taking truly constructive steps rather than denying there are any significant issues -- they have been gradually shifting their position over the weeks since the broadcast. Nonetheless they have been denying cavaliers have the problems that were highlighted, even though many of the breed clubs clearly accept that there are greater problems than what the KC admits (just reading the info on some of the national club sites would confirm this). Many of us want to make sure cavalier breeders who have been and continue to be health focused are not now ostracised.

The majority showed by their vote on Sunday that the clubs are about breeders, and protecting interests, not the breed. It is actually very useful that so many voted in this way as it makes the argument for stricter oversight a heck of a lot easier and will have been a major embarrassment to the KC -- I think the timing of the above announcement is in many ways intended to refocus attention away from the CKCS Club vote but it enables many to instead drawfurther attention to it. The wider public as well as many MPs are truly horrified that they voted in this way and you can see the anger spreading across many online dog sites. I know there was much revulsion amongst the many health-focused breeders and general dog owners on all the lists where that circle of breeders think they are actually admired for taking such a vote!

Meanwhile I think people can gauge the wider public perception of the situation by the fact that cavalier owner Carol Fowler, Pedigree Dogs producer Jemima Harrison, and Dogs Today editor Beverly Cuddy all have been invited to the Woman of the Year awards in London, directly in response to their involvement or appearance in Pedigree Dogs Exposed. There is considerable media and political interest in what happened on the weekend too.

7th October 2008, 08:05 PM
Dear All

I attended the now infamous Cavalier Club SGM - an experience I will not forget in a hurry. I was quite stunned at the number of people who had turned out - the room was packed with about 250 people. The atmosphere was hostile and intimidating. Extraordinary. And just to add to the surreal effect there was a very obvious security presence, whose job, I believe, was to keep the press out!

An independent chairperson managed to keep order but it didn't stop one of the speakers against Margaret receiving a standing ovation. Attempts were made to heckle Margaret as she was speaking, but she remained calm and dignified throughout. One speaker in support of Margaret warned those present to be mindful of how the outcome of the meeting might look to outsiders, but her advice was ignored. Most people there had already made up their minds how they would vote and nothing anyone could say would have changed their minds. No thought was given to the consequences of their actions and the reputation of the Club in the eyes of genuine dog lovers.

This was an ignominious day for the Cavalier Club and a very sad day for the dogs. All this energy devoted to vindictiveness and revenge. Personal politics at its worst.

So glad to get home and be with Rosie but so proud of Margaret.


7th October 2008, 09:32 PM
Margaret Carter and you other notorious three-you are being validated and :hug:. I'm ever grateful that you stood with dignity at that ugly meeting, Margaret, what a horrible day for you. Do think you actually gained more for the lovely breed by being "cast" from the committee even tho' it was so painful to be repaid that way for all your endeavors. All those who are writing for you know class when they see it. Thank you

Cathy T
7th October 2008, 09:55 PM
I think the past shows that whistle blowers are usually abused when they expose a truth. If it was easy to do .... everyone would do it. I think Margaret was incredibly brave and is now being vindicated....as she well should be!!! Bless you Margaret for standing up for what you know is right and protecting the best interests of the breed!! You are my hero.

7th October 2008, 10:09 PM
I do hope now Maragret that you feel heartened by the statement given by the KC. You can feel proud and hold your head up high which is more than can be said for a certain Woman who gave the v sign at the reporters on Sunday. You will of course recognise her as I did, if that is not bringing the cavalier world into disrepute, then I do not know what is. I would have thought a low profile was the best course of action but no they have to stoop to doing that. No good will come of it and it will be there for all to see.
Members should conduct themselves at all times that it is a credit to the Club and ownership of Cavaliers.
a Member giving the v sign is not a credit to the club. I hope you all agree.

8th October 2008, 12:03 AM
:rah: Exactly

Cathy Moon
8th October 2008, 12:26 AM

Jan Bell
8th October 2008, 10:38 AM
Funny the way things turn out. I felt fair desparate that I couldn't get to the meeting and was so upset :( when I read that over 200 members had turned up to vote against Margaret.

But then the tide turned - a quick search of the internet showed me how people were viewing this, and as Ryan of K9 Magazine said, the members who voted against Margaret have really shot themselves in the foot.:xctly:

With the exception of a couple of breeder based boards, all the good wishes are with MC and all the disgust at the members who voted her out. To cap it all, the KC came out in her favour too! It has really made clear who is on the side of Cavalier Health.:thmbsup:

:thnku: A pity that Margaret had to go through all that, but a big thank you to her and everybody else who is on the side of the angels (as I like to think of my Cavaliers!)

Brian M
8th October 2008, 11:51 AM
Hi HollyDolly

Do you think another SGM is needed to deal with this persons abusive gesture the way she has brought the cav world into disrepute .Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.:thmbsup:

8th October 2008, 11:54 AM
After reading through all of this, i feel heartened that some good seems to be coming from such a bad situation.

Margaret, we are all behind you 100% :rah::rah:

Oh and whoever it was who posted the other day that a new CKCS club should be formed made up of responsible dog owner and breeders who actually care about the health of the breed - i think it was a bloody good idea

Jan Bell
8th October 2008, 11:58 AM
Oh and whoever it was who posted the other day that a new CKCS club should be formed made up of responsible dog owner and breeders who actually care about the health of the breed - i think it was a bloody good idea

This is why I think it is important that more pet owners are prepared to join and become more involved. If the CKCS Club is to become a true breed club for Cavaliers, it need a wider range of membership, not just breeders.

Things are moving in the right direction though. :xfngr:

8th October 2008, 11:09 PM
Hi HollyDolly

Do you think another SGM is needed to deal with this persons abusive gesture the way she has brought the cav world into disrepute .Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.:thmbsup:

Well it's certainly worth thinking about but I feel so sure they will close ranks it will be like:bang:
Now with the support of the KC every cloud has a silver lining, and I think that club will be feeling very sorry for themselves, so while I would not wish anyone to go through what Margaret went through it is the best possible outcome.
Chatting to Barbara Reese (I have her permission) setting up another ckcs club would be far from easy if you wanted it to have the support of the KC. One would also need the support of two ckcs clubs:eek:

Cathy Moon
8th October 2008, 11:28 PM
I was wondering if it could be a club in addition to the CKCS club. They would continue to show and use the registry at KC and be members of the CKCS club, but they would also belong to a second club, not connected to KC, which is exclusively health focused. So only KC breeders committed to breed health could belong to the second club. That's how pet owners could identify and support the best breeders. Just a thought!

8th October 2008, 11:34 PM
The CKCSC existed as a breed-only registry for cavaliers in the US for years before the ACKCSC was formed within the AKC, and they still remain separate. The CKCSC is very well established, has its own shows and so on. A range of breeds have breed-only registries of this sort. There's no reason why a separate club couldn't exist. However the option is also there to change the way in which breed clubs operate. That would seem the intention of the KC. If it isn't, then why worry about whether a breed club will be recognised by the KC?

8th October 2008, 11:38 PM
I was wondering if it could be a club in addition to the CKCS club. They would continue to show and use the registry at KC and be members of the CKCS club, but they would also belong to a second club, not connected to KC, which is exclusively health focused. So only KC breeders committed to breed health could belong to the second club. That's how pet owners could identify and support the best breeders. Just a thought!

I think that would be a wonderful idea, putting into practise would take much commitment. Perhaps a working party is needed to find out all the pros and cons and take it from there.

Cathy Moon
9th October 2008, 12:06 AM
The costs of running shows and maintaining a registry could be kept within the KC. The health focused club could just focus on checking health documents and keeping health records. They wouldn't have to bear the costs of everything else. It would allow the 2nd club to keep dues as low as possible. The benefit to breeders in the health focused club would be puppy buyer referrals!

9th October 2008, 08:31 PM
Has anyone read the dog world website today
www.dogworld.co.uk (http://www.dogworld.co.uk)
Under KC support Maragret Carter as new complaint is lodged.

10th October 2008, 12:51 PM
I'm very disappointed by the subtle suggestion that those highlight syringomyelia or indeed problems with pedigree dogs are somehow part of a conspiracy by animal rights activists to plot the downfall of pedigree dogs!!.. or that somehow only puppy mill cavaliers have thrown syringomyelia.
I find that extremely sinister and smacks of a last ditch desperate attempt to deny the existence of SM in the breed.


10th October 2008, 01:43 PM
It's the classic, pathetic attempt to discredit anyone that is interested in healthy dogs. Try to align everyone with extremist animal rights groups, even though these same people complain bitterly about being lumped together with puppy millers/puppy farmers and BYBs.

15th October 2008, 12:07 PM
Has anyone seen this yet? I searched for david cavill and found no previous conversations --- a friend of mine pointed this video to me. The video is on youtube and its duration is approximately 10 minutes. In the very beginning Mr. Cavill expresses his opinion on the document's facts being a little loose and how the documentary has seriously distorted some statements just to gain some momentum and headlines.

He starts like this: "Firstly a few facts..." and goes on introducing a fact that he has a groomer friend, who sees dozens of cavaliers every month and has never ever seen any cavaliers that would have the same symptoms as the documentary describes. He says that is not surprising as the estimate is only 2% and that the program implies the figure to be 15 times bigger, i.e. up to 30%. He then says that it is not itself untrue (what? to think the figure might be higher??) --- but I do not understand what he means by this. Pardon me for not understanding a word he says, because it sounds like he is still stating that the correct figure is the forementioned estimate of 2%.

So. Have we just jumped on a bandwagon together with other people who have been gullible enough to believe the headlines? I am a little surprised that he has chosen to begin his statement --- as sound as it is otherwise (but I still cannot really get the whole point of making it) --- referring to a dog groomer who has never even seen SM symptoms as a way of backing up (?) or to clarify his claim that SM is not such a problem in the breed as the documentary makes one believe.... I would not like to see him make these claims in public with SM-cavalier-owners in presence... :rolleyes:

Cathy Moon
15th October 2008, 12:15 PM
:lol::lol::lol: Oh my! I'll bet the ringleaders of the club are touting him as their next 'expert'!:rolleyes:

15th October 2008, 01:13 PM
He starts like this: "Firstly a few facts..." and goes on introducing a fact that he has a groomer friend, who sees dozens of cavaliers every month and has never ever seen any cavaliers that would have the same symptoms as the documentary describes.

if you'd asked my boss at the groomers she would have said all cavaliers bite ( they didnt like her for some reason ) will they be so quick to accept that as a fact ?

One of the cavaliers I groom has sm. he has no symptoms but he had an mri for something else & it showed up.

A couple of years ago i'd have said i'd never seen a dog with sm , as my girl scratched away at my feet with her "skin problem"

24th October 2008, 03:53 PM
This is in today's K9Magazine and UK Guardian. I'm not subscribed to UK Guardian

Posted By Ryan O'Meara Date: 24/10 Posted Under: Dog News (http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/category/dog-news/) Pedigree, the Mars owned dog food brand will not be sponsoring Crufts next year.
The pet food giant has cited a ‘business review’ as its main reason.
A Mars spokesperson would not comment on whether the decision was based around the documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed.
The decision is a further blow to the Kennel Club who suffered the high profile withdrawals of the RSPCA, Dogs Trust and NDWA.
Pedigree’s decision to pull their brand’s support comes at a time when the BBC is reviewing its position with regard to its ongoing coverage of the UK’s largest dog show event.
The company issued a very brief statement:
After careful consideration, Pedigree has decided to withdraw its sponsorship of Crufts