Friday, 30 December 2011

What do you hope will be in Pedigree Dogs Exposed 2?

We're writing an article looking back at the original documentary - Pedigree Dogs Exposed (PDE) and asking what we'd all like to see in PDE 2 - which will be shown in the New Year by the BBC.
Jemima Harrison's documentary sent shock waves around the dog world. It was undeniably a pivotal emperor's new clothes moment.
Many of us had long voiced concerns about the future welfare of pedigree dogs, but much of the content of the documentary had even the most pessimistic commentator shocked. Things would never be the same again.
Unfortunately the better breeders felt they were tarnished by the documentary, that the general public would think all breeders were just as bad as those on the documentary. They felt equal air time should have been given to the good as well as the bad - but that's not how TV works.
When Panorama looked at MP's expenses it would have been a very dull show if they'd told us about everyone who had made reasonable claims!
It was after all called Pedigree Dogs Exposed - not Pedigree Dog Breeders Appraised.
When you make a big splash there is going to be unexpected ripples, but some in the dog world became polarised into extreme positions and became stubbornly anti-reform and hated the documentary and the maker rather than reacting to the content.
A small group of these denialists formed a facebook group that has attempted to sabotage the making of Pedigree Dogs Exposed 2.
We'd like to know what people from lots of different parts of the dog world would like Pedigree Dogs Exposed 2 to achieve.
I personally would like to see some harmony - where everyone who loves dogs agrees to work together to try to solve the problems that we all know lie ahead.
But how do we get there?
Email with what you'd to see covered by PDE2.
We're not encouraging anonymous contributions, there's already been far too much mud slinging by people made brave by anonymity.
But we would love to hear what you think should be in it and why. What has been the effect of PDE 1 in your opinion? We would also like to hear from people who have perhaps changed their mind about PDE over the years since it was made.
Do please share your opinions.


jean kincaid said...

more exposure about the state of puppy farms

Anonymous said...

Definitely more exposure about the terrible conditions the poor dogs ar4e in on puppy farms for breeding

Anonymous said...

More about the cruelty of puppy farming.
Ensuring facts are correct at the time of transmission so that apologies don't have to be made after a threat of court action (re. Rhodesian Ridgebacks and the dermoid sinus falsehood)

Karen Sanders said...

Me and my husband have noticed i big difference at Crufts since you did the last programme, there arn't as many big name sponsers anymore, and a lot of companies that used to have stalls including charities don't go anymore.

And as for what we would like the 2nd programme to achieve, for dogs to be bred how they used to look years ago, not to have exaggerated body lines, for example the GSD looking like a hyena with no back end, labs having short stumpy legs and chibby bodies where as yrs ago they were a lot taller and muscular, there are many breeds that need to change still, and also yes the puppy farms, which don't always mean a farm which most people think, its peoples houses too, I for one know as my dog cme from such a puppy farm/house, I couldn't leave her there once I had saw her, it opened my eyes indeed.

Thank you for hard work, which sometimes cannot be very pleasent

Anonymous said...

How the KC remove breeders from the ABS as they are proven to be unethical, yet still register litters from the exact same breeders!

Wendy said...

I would really like to see a report showing that those abused breeds have been turned around and are now fit and healthy. Perhaps '2' could show the contrast between excellent breeders who care about their dogs and do the best to breed happy healthy puppies and those who churn out litter after litter with only money in mind. Not all breeders are bad guys and that should be acknowledged.

Sian Thompson said...

The KC allowing breeders to charge for removal of breeding endorsements and not intervening. Even though endorsements are supposed to be there for the actual dogs, Some breeders are charging anything upto £1000 for actual removal as another way to make money from the pup...This is on top of cost of some breeders insisting that the bitch is mated with one of their studs, that's another £1000-£1500 PLUS health screening which anything upto a £1000 this is without the purchase price already paid for a dog...for instance a giant breed costs on average £1200...In total that's nearly £5000 for a dog and yet there is no money in breeding??? The KC should be ashamed of themselves for allowing a scheme supposedly in place to protect dogs, to be used in such a corrupt way!

Topseyt said...

I definitely agree about exposing the appalling conditions on puppy farms.

I also think advice on how to source and choose a responsibly bred puppy would be appropriate (explaining health testing schemes etc.).

That is because it is all very well seeing what can sometimes go wrong when things are not done properly, but people need to know what they should be looking for instead. This would also help to reverse the trend of tarring all breeders with the same brush.

Also, some follow up on what changes organisations such as the Kennel Club have been making in the wake of the first programme would be useful.

I live for dogs and The Boss said...

Yes puppy farm breeding needs to be exposed, dismantled, and abolished - I would have thought they're largely responsible for the majority of health problems in pedigree dogs.

Although saying that my mum bought a King Charles Spaniel from an old fashioned highly regarded breeder and had to have her poor 16 month old pup put to sleep because of auto immune disease. Mum had feared getting another one of these lovely but ill-fated dogs and did the best she could and was still let down.

Sally said...

I would like to see advice given to people who have bought pedigree dogs from what they thought were reputable breeders, which then turn out to have problems, and how you go about bringing these people to account. In my experience the breed club set up to oversee the welfare of the breeds usually take the side of the breeder, so what recourse does the average, trusting person have when they discover genetic problems in their dog that was never disclosed?

Is there any point taking these issues up with the Kennel Club or will they do the same as the breed club and take the word of the long-standing breeder against the novice dog owner?

Chris said...

To highlight puppy farms & backyard breeders who sell through free ads who have no thought at all for the welfare of the puppies produced, or the welfare of their breeding dogs.
Many of the ads on sites like gumtree are for pedigree puppies, or designer breeds.

More on those breeders & breed clubs who refuse to see that there are health &/or temperament problems in their chosen breeds.

It needs to be balanced, by
showing the breeders & breed clubs who ARE doing their bit to not only improve the health &/or temperament of their breeds, but the general welfare of all dogs of their breed, who operate ethically, & have good practices such as breeders with good puppy contracts, & breed clubs that will help to rehome any dog of their breed.

Margery said...

An open medical database must be kept to document health issues. Breeder should mail/email a form to owners yearly and post responses to the database. If no response, say that. This would be similar to the data AAA and Consumer Reports (in the US) keeps on automobile repairs. In fact, start a version of Consumer Reports for Pedigreed dogs.

Mary philips said...

I would like to see exposed
1.the KC's ABS scheme, and how easy it is to join without being vetted!
2. how the KC continue to register litters from puppy farmers who breed extortionate amounts of litters per year.
3. How breed clubs set recomended health tests/code of ethics which many KC and breed club members do not adhere to
4. Champion dogs with poor health test results. STILL!
5.90% of KC reg puppies are not of "breed standard" so what is the point of kc registration? & What does KC registration give a dog which is not in the show ring?
6. False pedigrees and why is in not mandatory for ALL parentage to be officially DNA'd?
7. How the KC continue to register litters from Dam/sires with extortionate hip/elbow scores way over the breed average!
8. How some breeders pass on their breeding stock once they have stopped making money from them.
9. How dogs are tossed to one side if they do not "make it in the ring" ::Sigh::

Frances Murphy said...

I agree - now is the time to click and treat the breeders and breed clubs that are genuinely working to improve their breeds, and the small changes made to standards by the KC. I would also like to see some discussion of the "designer breeds", and of alternative registries. Imperfect as the KC is, it is still infinitely better than some of the alternatives!

But I think the main thrust of the programme still needs to be against the lunacy that has led to rewarding more and more extreme type, at the expense of health and longevity. There is still a huge degree of breed and kennel blindness out there.

Kaz said...

Breed clubs changing the standards to suit the "type" of dogs coming through at the present time by their members, rather than trying to preserve the original breed standard(s)

the Boss said...

An honest programme exposing registered and unregistered puppy farms and also the councils that allow them. Carmarthenshire is rife with them and yet Carmarthenshire council are still allowing more. The puppy love campaign would be a good start for getting the evidence as this is what they are very good at.

Anonymous said...

Artificial insemination being used on maiden bitches but mating's being registered as natural mating's, & how two litters per dam can be registered a year before a full year has elapsed betwwen each whelp.

Anonymous said...

I have owned and loved two beautiful Golden Retrievers, bought from the same 'reputable' breeder, who both developed terminal cancers within a year of each other. One was eleven and the other seven.

I would like the 'hidden' diseases, such as cancers and auto-immune diseases to be investigated, and more pressure put on breeders to not breed from dogs with cancers and auto-immune diseases in their line, as this 'reputable' breeder had, and as far as I know is still doing. I found out too late, and it is a terrible thing to see your beloved dogs going through the suffering involved, and knowing that this could have been avoided. I will never get over this even nearly two years on, and I will never forgive her either.

Maxine said...

Puppy farmers can be anyone who subjects their bitches to constant breeding. They do not care about the dogs welfare or the puppies only the money. People living down anyones street can be a puppy farmer they churn out dogs all year long for profit. I cant get my head round the law that if 5 or more litters a year qualify for a breeders licence!!!! 5 litters of any breed of dog is a lot and a lot of money to be earned. ie. 5 in a litter is 25 puppies and if they sell for a minimum of £500 each thats £12,500.00 cash!! MOST of these breeders are not licenced with the local council or the TAX MAN. Lets stop this happening. PLEASE.

Anonymous said...

Please expose so-called `hobby breeders` who hide under the cloak of the show world & breed excessively for demand & monopolisation rather than for the betterment of a breed.

Anonymous said...

Many thanks to all those who have emailed me!
If anyone else would like to be considered to be quoted, please do get in touch via my email address (given in post).
Claire Horton-Bussey

Jo Lovell said...

To explain what health testing is. I have had people contact me thinking that HIGH hip scores are better than low! To push for people to get on a waiting list before pups are born or at least small enough to be seen with their mother. To explain that 3rd party sellers are not breeders.

To show that not every one who shows is evil and also that not everyone who never shows is good. To give some balance to help the public purchase a pup in a responsible manner.

To highlight what they should be looking for. Also to make it known that not everything can be tested for or prevented. Mother Nature can be an evil bitch and all the health testing in the world CANNOT prevent problems from arising - it can only help reduce the incidence of problems. I have been told by my vet that HD is declining, but not gone and although parents can be tested for numerous problems, some unfortunately still occur despite having parents with low numbers in hip / elbow scores.

Jo Lovell said...

Also the person who posted anonymously about the AI on maiden bitches should check the rules. See its dogs who have to have sired a litter normally before being accepted for AI.

Peter Dempsey said...

How crossbreeding of pedigree dogs to make designer crosses actually have more health problems then their individual pedigree counterparts.
The Labradoodle Trust shows this to be the case with these doodles.

bijou said...

My hopes for PDE2 would be

to tell the truth about where most pups are bred ....... the overwhelming majority come from BYB's and puppy farms with the most basic of standards

to stop targeting the one section of breeders who do the most testing, issue contracts, calculate Co -efficients of inbreeding and offer life time support for their puppy buyers and pups

to highlight and condemn the sale of pups through pet stores

to highlight and condemn the many many designer cross breeds that are bred for no other reason than their name sounds 'cute' ( and certainly with no health tests etc )

To look at the kind of dogs that are filling up rescues throughout the Uk - and targeting their breeders ( the show world has been the sole target of PDE so far yet how many show dogs end up on rescue ? )

but above all - to work towards ending the misery, pain and suffering that is puppy farming

Dr David Calthorpe said...

The good things that have been achieved and not a program about the minority of breeders who are unethical. Good and bad, we see this in all walks of life, for example there are bad and good magazine publishers and good and bad TV producers. The public deserve the truth,the facts and not hype, personal opinion, bias and sensationalism.

Anonymous said...

A truthfull programme not anti KC and highlight the real reason there are so many unhealthy pups ,PUPPY FARMERS no health checks poor temperament also "designer"pups bred solely for money as per puppy farms.Show that the vast majority of "show breeders" use health schemes and try to breed sound healthy pups

Anonymous said...

"They felt equal air time should have been given to the good as well as the bad - but that's not how TV works." why cant TV work like that? isnt there two sides (or more to every story), if the public pay for these programmes through the TV license shouldnt they expect to have balanced information? the BBC are ment to inform and educate, but by allowing just one persons view to be the only one heard how can they inform and educate, would the BBC think it ok if the News just showed one person view all the time.........isnt that what a dictator thinks is right?