Dog World news archive - February 2012

Outrage at new Standard for Pekes

16 Oct 2008 08:20

This article has 16 Comment(s)

OUTRAGE at the way in which the new Pekingese breed Standard had been imposed was expressed at an emergency meeting called at the weekend.
Those present were disappointed that the Kennel Club had ‘focused solely’ on changes to the conformation of the Pekingese and cross that no ‘democratic discussion’ had taken place ahead of the KC’s announcement.
It was agreed unanimously that the KC would be asked to publish the ‘detailed evidence’ it holds which resulted in the new Standard and to request a meeting between ‘the KC’s experts’ and the breed’s own ‘in the near future.’ The breed ‘should be united and speak with one voice’, the meeting agreed, and should work with experts in the field of genetics and veterinary medicine.

Top priority

A spokesman said afterwards that those at the meeting, which was independently chaired by Geoffrey Davies, were in full agreement that the health of the breed was the top priority but that they felt the KC had not recognised some of the activities members of the breed had already undertaken to improve its general health. These include breed-wide health surveys, veterinary examinations at shows and cardiovascular screening.
In addition, they said, further proposals had been submitted to the KC including a focus on genetics, evidence-based breeding programmes, mentoring of newcomers to the breed, judges’ assessment of the breed’s health, publication of A Guide to Brachycephalic Dogs and educational workshops.
A co-ordinator was appointed at the meeting, but has not been named publicly. Finally, those present called for ‘all breeders and Pekingese lovers’ to unite to ensure that the breed remained ‘fit for function, fit for life in the 21st century.’
This emergency meeting was preceded six days earlier – and 24 hours before the KC announced the new Standard – by one between representatives from a number of Pekingese clubs to formulate a response to the KC’s recent letters. At this it was agreed that the clubs would accept the KC’s new code of ethics, an application to the KC should be made to form a Pekingese breed council primarily for health, a breed-specific code of ethics should be drawn up, newcomers to the breed should be mentored, there should be a judges’ assessment of breed health and educational workshops on genetics and ‘healthy dogs/healthy living’ should be staged next year.
And yet another meeting is planned for next Thursday at Midland Counties to which delegates from each Pekingese club have been invited. The agenda includes the KC’s new health review, the new Standard and whether confidence remained in health co-ordinator Roy Stott who claimed this week that he had become the subject of a witch-hunt.
“I only found out about the meeting yesterday and I haven’t seen the agenda,” he said.
“I think they are trying to remove me from the health committee. I have worked hard on research and a survey over 18 months but I think there is a group of people who don’t like the findings and are using me as a scapegoat.
“I won’t let them belittle me, but I’m feeling really stressed and I can’t be doing with it all. I am considering resigning – I’m not wanted.”

You need to login to add your comment. Already registered? Log in now! Not registered? Register now!

    1

    Don't have this breed but I thought Liz Stannards notes in DogWorld were very sensible. Don't like witch hunts and those who always try to place blame with individuals or the KC - move on and work for the better of dogs.

    Posted at 11:39 on 16 Oct 2008 by
    stevenhoward | Report as inappropriate

    2

    It seems like a very long time ago that "that" television programme was aired. I know my house was worth more, the few shares I own were actually worth something and my bank was not in part public ownership. The world has changed for good and our little world of dog showing has changed too. The KC has answered calls to take action and show leadership. It might, of course, all be too little too late. Only time can be the judge of that. What we do know is that regulation in the world of dogs, just as in the financial world, is going to get much tougher. We have been asked to back the KC. I'm sorry to all the good Peke people out there but that's what I intend to do!

    Posted at 11:43 on 17 Oct 2008 by
    convict 225 | Report as inappropriate

    3

    What were the findings in Roy Stott's 18 month survey which warrants trying to get rid of him?

    Posted at 19:47 on 17 Oct 2008 by
    Hayley | Report as inappropriate

    4

    obviously "convict" has never owned a pekingese, or he would know how unfair this decision by the kc is,

    Posted at 22:55 on 17 Oct 2008 by
    lizzy | Report as inappropriate

    5

    I think were health is a consideration then the KC must act, pity it took so long though. Many breeds suffer due to human intervention and poor gene pool management , I hope the KC continue to look at ALL breeds and be as vigourous. I know some breeds have serious conditions that the respective breed clubs have thus far denied existed, yet they write on web pages for the public to only buy pups from their members, now that is hypocricy.Some even set up puppy sales ads on site stating only quality pups come from breed club members...... misleading, misinformation, hypocricy ABSOLUTELY ! They couldnt even get their membership to complete health surveys, and we all know why .... WE ARE ALL RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT WE BREED ..............

    Posted at 09:18 on 19 Oct 2008 by
    Rachey | Report as inappropriate

    6

    Now im not taking sides at all but there is no need to be so rude when putting your points accross. I understand the need to emphasise what you're saying in order to make your point heard but thats not the way to try and educate people. Showing and breeding is these peoples passion and to come on a site dedicated to that and preach PETA type policies is not going to work. I have noticed more and more that people have stopped responding to your posts for simply that reason. I always listen to both sides of an arguement but when one starts getting cocky and throwing sweeping and innaccurate statements all over the place i just switch off, as do many other people by the looks of it. They are damned if they do and they are damned if they dont. They cant win no matter what they say.

    Posted at 08:25 on 20 Oct 2008 by
    pashley | Report as inappropriate

    7

    So exactly what point within the posts are you saying are inaccurate? I can assure you and any other person reading these posts accuracy is clear, rudeness doesnt exist , unless of course you do not understand the points being raised. Are you saying: 1 that breeders are not resposnible for what they produce 2 the KC are wrong in being proactive here 3 breed clubs are always correct 4 hypocricy doesnt exist in the dog world 5 every breeder breeds for betterment because if you are, I suggest accuracy is not close to your heart. If people dont respond to posts its because the arguments placed before them have been given equal balance and they can no longer excuse themselves from the way they behave. If exhibition and breeding are

    Posted at 12:57 on 20 Oct 2008 by
    Rachey | Report as inappropriate

    8

    So exactly what point within the posts are you saying are inaccurate? I can assure you and any other person reading these posts accuracy is clear, rudeness doesnt exist , unless of course you do not understand the points being raised. Are you saying: 1 that breeders are not resposnible for what they produce 2 the KC are wrong in being proactive here 3 breed clubs are always correct 4 hypocricy doesnt exist in the dog world 5 every breeder breeds for betterment because if you are, I suggest accuracy is not close to your heart. If people dont respond to posts its because the arguments placed before them have been given equal balance and they can no longer excuse themselves from the way they behave. If exhibition and breeding are

    Posted at 12:57 on 20 Oct 2008 by
    Rachey | Report as inappropriate

    9

    passions then stop destroying that passion by playing god with gene pools and encouraging genetic disease through mismanagement of the gene pools.

    Posted at 12:59 on 20 Oct 2008 by
    Rachey | Report as inappropriate

    10

    Do ya all agree that Pekes is just the tip of iceberg and that all breeds will follow.

    Posted at 13:11 on 20 Oct 2008 by
    Fifi | Report as inappropriate

    11

    I agree it is the tip of the iceburg but unfortunatly it would seem that the tip is all that is being targeted. With all the best intentions the KC proposals and future changes in the standards will only effect the show breeder/exhibitor with yet more, allbeit well intended, limitations and paperwork with the hope that this will 'improve' the breeds. With the breeder/exhibitor only having a minority of the litters being registered it would seem to be an act of desparation and political correctness by the kennel club. Even if all those wishing to continue showing and breeding complied to all the KC want, it would not effect in any way the other breeders whose sole concern is making money from the breeds. I agree that there is much to be done for the betterment of many breeds but this smacks of a kneejerk reaction and too much too soon, all sides have been asking for an independant review so what is to be gained by impulsive, half concocted measures now. Lets face facts that the demand for puppies is a set value and if those that do thier best for homing and look to the welfare of thier pups are going to be dimished for what ever reason, even with the best of intentions, by the KC and other societies, then the surplus demand WILL be met by the unscrupulous who are either beyond the control of those groups or who will exploit the system as they have to date. It would seem to this reader that the KC have taken a leaf out of the politicians book and lept in with a very nice sounding proposal of action without consultation nor clear thought on the implementation nor result.

    Posted at 21:48 on 20 Oct 2008 by
    Millarcus | Report as inappropriate

    12

    So Millarcus are you saying that those who exhibit dont breed for money ? They may disguise it as betterment, but in reality if that was true then we wouldnt be here today talking about these issues would we? Some points you raise are very accurate indeed such as a knee jerk reaction by the KC, just hope that those who breed for the right reasons and are not delusional about what they get from it are not put off.Once again its noted with interest that you make the point that exhibitors only register a minority of litters in the UK, that frankly is irrelevant, its NOT quantity but quality that matters , one untested mating by an exhibitor will have the same damage effect as ten by a volume breeder, just feel people need to actually grasp that FACT.

    Posted at 19:05 on 21 Oct 2008 by
    Fifi | Report as inappropriate

    13

    I totally agree that quality and health are the paramount issues but to attempt a control via standards,enforced membership of the ABS etc. will only influence what is quite likely the minority of breeders and whilst this is a step in the right direction, to target a minority on an issue as important as this seems bizaar. My point on quantity I must stand by, but perhaps I was not clear, and surely must be relevant. Whilst an untested mating by an exhibitor may have a damaging effect surely ten untested matings by a volume breeder will produce ten times that. Not to mention that a number of breeder/exhibitors do go to great pains to secure good homes for the offspring as well as many endorse them with the KC to deter new owners from having litters , to be fair even if we assume that there are a similar number of other breeders that do this the numbers are still in favor for the volume breeders to keep suppling quantity, poor, untested puppies to the general public who are often looking for the nearest and cheapest puppy. I must salute all the good intentions of the KC,RSPCA etc. But to think a solution to a problem, that has had decades to reach this level, will be found overnight is dangerously niave.

    Posted at 22:06 on 21 Oct 2008 by
    Millarcus | Report as inappropriate

    14

    Well Millarcus I have to agree , with your comments on the ABS and the KC's stand to enforce registration. It seems somewhat misguided and out of touch with the sentiments of the real animal lover. However , the point about quality and quantity remains an issue, as not every volume breeder will produce genetically flawed pups, the percentage isnt actually known to be fair, but I am sure we have all seen some dodgy dogs from both suppliers.The effects however will be similar within a gene pool.It only takes one poor untested dog to destroy a breed and popular sires are a real problem in the UK. I know one breed , a rare one in the UK and even committee members of its breed club were concerned at how many times this male was being used in the UK. Now if a breed club support such stupid behaviour what can we expect from pet profiteers, nothing less is the answer... The KC are reacting and not being proactive, as one poster succinctly put it which will cause problems for many breeds. What I have a great issue with is the KC had a perfect opportunity to show how much they DO for dogs , they should have come out all guns blazing and informed about health schemes they do have (not many yet ), what they have done to prevent poor breeding, instead they up with some ideas that can only cause distress to some breeders and owners who will now think their little dog is ill or flawed to some degree. I am dead against the support seen by some breeders who are misguided and believe the KC is the ONLY answer to canine management, its not, in fact, if we look at the development of the KC since its conception , it has actually encuraged poor breeding policies that have caused some breeds to suffer. I would like to see the KC giving some of its powers to outside organisations , they can then work together to encourage through education breed betterment.Sadly the KC is just a huge money making scheme that has forgotten its way....

    Posted at 11:29 on 22 Oct 2008 by
    Fifi | Report as inappropriate

    15

    Fifi - how exactly can the KC be a 'huge money making scheme that has forgotten it's way' - they are a NON PROFIT ORGANISATION. Profits are ploughed back into to dogs, find me one organasation that have given the same ££££'s to rescues/health issues - YOU WON'T.

    Posted at 14:25 on 22 Oct 2008 by
    stevenhoward | Report as inappropriate

    16

    Hi Well both the breed clubs and the KENNEL CLUB need to get their houses in order, Why does the kennel club register inbreeding which multiplies bad conditions and points. I recently read a KC registration where a min dachs whose parents were a half brother and a half sister The kennel club has one aim TO MAKE MONEY. Maybe we should all register in europe before we show dogs? and let the Kennel Club and it's registration of any pup whose owner pays the fee DIE and DISSAPPEAR Paul

    Posted at 18:24 on 22 Oct 2008 by
    neutral | Report as inappropriate