I hope this news is not taken as an excuse to rubbish PDE or the health reform that has come through since the programme was broadcast. The core issues raised by PDE were in no way new. These were very long standing issues that had been ignored for far too long. Whatever complaints end up being upheald by Ofcom the core of PDE's criticism remains totally valid. PDE captured the public imagination to a greater extent than ever before. That said, the KC had faced serious public concern in the past and just battened down the hatches to ride out the storm. Ranks closed against all previous criticism but PDE provoked real change, why? Three main reasons; the prospect of real change forced by government or European legislation already existed, influential people in our own KC were already convinced that real change was needed and, thirdly, too many ordinary individuals in the world of dogs were no longer prepared to look the other way and defend the indefensible. I'm not saying PDE was a perfect television programme, I could have done without the reference to the Nazis for a start. I do say Jemima Harrison shouted, "the king is naked" and made the world of pedigree dogs face up to issues that we had ignored for far too long. PDE was a catalyst for change and change for the better.

Posted at 21:57 on 09 Nov 2009 by
convict 225 | Report as inappropriate

I agree . 100% If we are to move forward and PROTECT dogs for the future we must start by addressing some of the core issues that thus far have caused dogs suffering and distress through the perpetual mismaganement of the gene pools in some breeds. Fit for Function , Fit for Life should be tattooed across the chests of every breeder of dogs so that when they look in the mirror daily they can be reminded of why it is so very important not to shun any health provisions being made to serve dogs.

Posted at 00:20 on 10 Nov 2009 by
Fifi | Report as inappropriate

While the sentiments both of you have uttered are very worthy they have little to do with the question posed by the BBC's stalling tactics with regard to the Ofcom decision. Complaints were made to Ofcom about the impartiality and accuracy of the programme. From all accounts, some of these complaints have been upheld, and as such they should be addressed. Just think back to the 'Jonathan Ross affair' - how quickly was that dealt with by Ofcom? This is, or should be, exactly the same procedure, but the BBC won't accept the ruling, and would appear to be trying to bully Ofcom into backing down. I dread to think how much of the licence payers' money has been spent by the BBC on defending Ms Harrison's reputation as a programme maker!

Posted at 08:00 on 10 Nov 2009 by
Rildey | Report as inappropriate

Everything we do we see we live with in the UK has some kind of political agenda, here is one such example. The dog world doesnt escape the highly charged world of daily politics. I am in no doubt that PDE was edited to expose the abhorrent practices of some breeders and the way those surrounding them protect yet vilify genuine health orientated breeders.My concern is that for some not all readers of doggy daily doo doo will in fact grab this with two hands and parade it from the trees for all who cannot seem to think for themselves. PDE did what it said and that was to have an expose, no where did I ever read it was a debate, as such the only complaint some have is that it did what it said it would do and expose the harmful and in some instances the dangerous breeding practices of dogs. Yes it was edited to prove a point and I think those at Ofcom will take that into account, having said that, the recent report from apgaw will indeed back up the PDE tv programme, so all I see is stalemate.

Posted at 09:41 on 10 Nov 2009 by
Fifi | Report as inappropriate

Whilst I agree with you Fifi, yes it did expose, the way the programme was edited was terrible and went against their code of impartiality. I agree that the BBC should stop the stalling and just accept the ruling. I also object that my licence fee should go towards defencing Ms Harrison.

Posted at 10:37 on 10 Nov 2009 by
Jacqui | Report as inappropriate

Ofcom's only concern is with the accuracy of the programme - not its message. What is coming out is that they have found evidence to prove some of the statements in the programme were either factually wrong, or that an inaccurate bias has been put on certain facts.

Posted at 10:43 on 10 Nov 2009 by
Rildey | Report as inappropriate

The apgaw report is flawed and most know it. Full of " Tabloid statements" lets face it the people on that panel are not experts they took their info from others, a lot was hearsay as it where . Whats the betting the AHt reports will back up the apgaw report hmmmm i smell a dead rat here .

Posted at 12:43 on 10 Nov 2009 by
Nemesis | Report as inappropriate

There is some interesting articles on this........ Things are not quite as simple as posts 3 and 6 suggest..... The Person that oversaw both the initial complaint and the appeals process was a former KC judge.........A quote from 'Broadcast Now' ....."They got the same person to be judge and jury. It took a record time for Ofcom to rule on and there was an unprecedented level of protest to Ofcom, right up until the last minute,” a source said. It is understood Ofcom has restructured its appeals process following the complaints".............Read the articles yourself. In the second, the Times article, there is an interesting little snippet of news that fits neatly with the eugenics issue!.................... http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/regulation/ofcom-backs-down-to-bbc-anger-over-pedigree-dogs-ruling/5007898.article?referrer=RSS............. http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6910296.ece..............Margaret Carter

Posted at 12:59 on 10 Nov 2009 by
Cassandra | Report as inappropriate

the writer in post 9 , it would appear to some is trying to concoct some sort of conspiracy theory on who or how Ofcom investigated. One that the BBC has been jumping up and down claiming to be unfair. Well consider the following, 1) the makers of PDE when writing those concerned in dogs at the start of their “research” claimed the programme was to show a balanced and objective view , which was soon proved to be far from the truth 2)The stance taken by PDE was that as the KC had had un critical coverage of Crufts for many years it was fair game for them to be so critical, well the editorial content and control of the BBC Crufts coverage had only been the BBC’s and never the KC, and yet the same commissioning editor of PDE was the SAME ONE who had commissioned the coverage (and by doing so must of approved of the style and content) of the BBC Crufts coverage. 3) the BBC is said to have held it own internal review of the content of PDE (much of this had been made by Ms Harrison to vindicate the programme , i.e her recent interview when the programme aired in Australia), yet neither who carried out the investigations or what research or evidence they had has ever revealed by the BBC , despite outside request for this to be disclosed, the very fact that Ofcom could have upheld complaints on this programme must show that first BBC investigation at best be flawed or at worst a white wash. 4) When the BBC decided to suspend (and later stop further) coverage of Crufts, they said it was based on the decision of an appointed panel, yet again the REFUSED to say who was on the panel, what credentials they had, what evidence they had taken to make such a decision or who appointed the people to the panel, ALL THIS INFORNATION WAS KEPT SECRET even when requested under the Freedom of Information Act the BBC declined to publish the information. So we now here the BBC cry that Ofcom is unfair and they would not listen to all their information (something they decided was ok to themselves from the many people who contributed to PDE but their positive news/views/information did not match the story they wanted to sell, ended up on the cutting room floor). Just how many hundreds of thousands of pounds (or is millions a more likely figure) has the BBC now spent of license fee payers money on this. I wonder will they offer to pay the KC the extra costs involved in correcting the inaccuracies spread by the programme in the media (that could of gone to the research into canine health, as it has done in the past), or will they also have to abide by Ofcom and broadcast the ruling in all the other countries the programme was sold to?

Posted at 13:42 on 10 Nov 2009 by
Sirius | Report as inappropriate

Sirius, I wonder how much money the KC has spent making the complaint? That is a very, very, expensive firm of lawyers they employed..............Margaret Carter

Posted at 13:48 on 10 Nov 2009 by
Cassandra | Report as inappropriate

Well Margaret I am sure the amount the KC have had to pay is not as much as the BBC have done so, and both sides could have avoided such cost had the PDE been accurate , balanced and fair in the first place. However if you feel that the KC and the dog owners and breeders it represents are not allowed to defend themselves, and by the very nature of such bodies as Ofcom there is now a need to employee lawyers, that is a great shame to have such a view. As for layers making so much money out of this situation the only other person I can see who has made a large financial profit from the situation is Ms Harrison and her production company, or are you happy to defend her on that point too?

Posted at 14:22 on 10 Nov 2009 by
Sirius | Report as inappropriate

Sirius, I think Jemima Harrison has done the world of dogs an enormous service...........I don't know how much profit Passionate Productions made, not a great deal I would imagine, considering the film took two years to make..............But whatever it was, as far as the welfare of dogs is concerned, I would say Jemima most definitely deserves it.............Margaret Carter

Posted at 14:52 on 10 Nov 2009 by
Cassandra | Report as inappropriate

There were other issues in the programme as well as the question of Syringomyelia. I don't think anyone is questioning the validity of much of the programme. The problem is that when sensationalism is used, exaggeration can quickly creep in, and then people, quite rightly, want inaccurate statements corrected. Unfortunately, it may well be that in the end the retractions and apologies that will be required will negate the positive influence of the programme as it will be thought of as flawed. Incidently, the 'record' time is surely because it took so much longer than usual? Your statement seems to infer that the ruling was rushed through - certainly not true!

Posted at 15:15 on 10 Nov 2009 by
Rildey | Report as inappropriate

Hello Ridley, if you are referring to my comment number 9, where there is a mentiom of 'record' time this is in a quote from the times article, not a statement by me................If I have read things correctly there were 20 complaints and it would seem 17 of them failed....... Three are left, and to talk of retractions and apologies negating the positive influence of the programme is perhaps a little premature until more is known. There must be some good reasons why the BBC is refusing to accept the Ofcom's decisions ............."It is understood Ofcom has restructured its appeals process following the complaints"............Not altogether surprising, I feel most people would think that having the same person ( a former KC Judge ) adjucating both the initial complaints and then the appeal was somewhat questionable................Margaret Carter

Posted at 16:13 on 10 Nov 2009 by
Cassandra | Report as inappropriate

as far as I can see no one is questioning the conditions shown in the programme. It is the sensational and exagerated way they were shown - after all who would bodily throw themself of a dog that is having a seizure to "control" it. As for the cavi that was shown, the owner should have been taken to task as to why they continued to let the dog suffer. I did not see the RSPCA returning the money given to them by the KC. If the BBC was that concerned about the health of pedigree dogs why did they not withdraw from showing crufts earlier. PDE is not the only programme to highlight these problems, however it was the sensationalism and inaccurate statments that was objected to.

Posted at 16:18 on 10 Nov 2009 by
Jacqui | Report as inappropriate

"I feel most people would think that having the same person ( a former KC Judge ) adjucating both the initial complaints and then the appeal was somewhat questionable" - almost as questionable as the BBC conducting its own enquiry into the validity of comments made in the programme, or the RSPCA conducting an enquiry into pedigree dog breeding???

Posted at 16:23 on 10 Nov 2009 by
Rildey | Report as inappropriate

From Ofcoms own site Kath Worrall First term of Appointment: 3 years (1 May 2003 to 30 June 2006). Reappointed Term: 3 years (1 July 2006 to 30 June 2009). Term extended to 30 June 2010. Kath Worrall was appointed to the Content Board in May 2003. She chairs the Ofcom Fairness Committee, our most senior decision making body in matters of fairness and privacy, and is a member of the Sanctions Committee. Kath Worrall works as a freelance consultant following a distinguished career in broadcasting with Border Television, where she was Director of Broadcasting, and the BBC. She is a Fellow of the Royal Television Society. Sounds to me like she has more than enough experience to decide if a programme was fair and balanced and if the claim that she once judged dogs over 33 years ago is true, surely this means she also has some knowledge of the canine world which would make it easier to understand how and why the complaints were justified and was well positioned to judge both side of the argument for the BBC and the KC, those who feel underhand measures were in place I feel will always look for conspiracy and make prejudgements based on such views.

Posted at 16:34 on 10 Nov 2009 by
Sirius | Report as inappropriate

"The following quote has really given me a great deal of amusement considering who has been shown to be on the leaked BNP members list. 'The regulator is understood to have concluded that the programme was unfair to the Kennel Club when it likened the body’s stance on pedigree breeding to the eugenics movement and the Nazis'" Why? There is no suggestion that anyone directly connected with the KC is a member of the BNP is there? Mrs Kisko, a paid employee, is not on that list and her husband has no connection with the KC. And before any conclusions are jumped to, I absolutely abhor the BNP and what it stands for - and indeed any form of intolerance whether it is racist, sexist, or any other -ist :-)

Posted at 17:48 on 10 Nov 2009 by
Rildey | Report as inappropriate

"Underhand measures such as detailed in the Times article..... 'When Ofcom notified all parties of its provisional findings this summer, a leak appeared on the Dog World magazine website suggesting vindication for the Kennel Club. This was deleted after the watchdog complained that its confidentiality rules had been breached' " Funny how it's a good thing that DW's comments on the Ofcom findings should be removed because they 'breached confidentiality' but quite OK for the Times article to actually pass comment on the, at present confidential, Ofcom findings! For what it's worth, I have actually read the letter sent by Ofcom to all those who complained - detailing the findings that were to have been published by Ofcom last Monday - so I do know exactly what they were. And, unlike whoever spoke to the Times, I respect that confidentiality.

Posted at 17:56 on 10 Nov 2009 by
Rildey | Report as inappropriate

Ridley I quite agree that the double standards the BBC are now showing are quite astounding, to complain that DW brief website posting had breached confidentiality yet the Times and a number of other website are what is still presently stating what is still a confidential decision, yet they do not have the wraith BBC descending upon them is very two faced. As for this BNP (a party who’s ideals and policy’s I abhor) smokescreen they are now trying to peddle seems to smirk of desperation, after all the Duke of Windsor shook hands with Adolf Hitler in 1937, does that mean the BBC should claim the Queen is a facist!!!!???? (or perhaps a certain independent production company are more suited to such stupid claims?!?!). When we see in post 18 that “"The BBC is understood to believe that Ofcom asked “misleading” questions when it began its investigation, and sources said that the corporation became aware of the path the watchdog was following only when it released provisional findings. The BBC submitted new evidence but claims that Ofcom refused to consider it"................. “ well isn’t that the same manner in which Ms Harrison and her company courted the KC and a great many others by their misleading letter, which hid their true agenda? And indeed when the KC and others did find the misleading way they had been used they too ceased to co-operate with Passionate Productions, so yet again the BBC double standards seem to apply. As for the “The BBC submitted new evidence but claims that Ofcom refused to consider it".....” isn’t this just the same as all the other people who interviewed but either were not included in PDE or edited to abstraction as their original words did not suite the story PP wanted to sell...again double standards. The double standard the BBC have shown on the whole of this matter seem to make a mockery of their ability to self regulate, was this not the same corporation that deemed the public could not risk being shown St Bernards at Crufts, yet introduced one as a part of a story line at prime viewing in its flag ship soap opera!!!...Double Standards by any view.

Posted at 18:37 on 10 Nov 2009 by
Sirius | Report as inappropriate

Oh dear, just as I feared this has done nothing for building consensus in the world of dogs! I guess that when you touch a nerve we all revert to type. Too many in the dog world revert to an insular type, distrustful of outsiders and with healthy respect for tradition converted into unhealthy sycophancy. If anyone directly mentioned in PDE was treated unfairly then I hope there is redress for them. Let’s not, however, pretend that resentment towards at PDE was all about the righteous anger of the misrepresented. Much of it was and is the squealing of those who thought a few CCs was all the justification they needed for any outrageous practice from ultra close line breeding to culling puppies that didn’t made the grade. PDE captured the public imagination and dramatically accelerated change - good. Too many of us had quiet sympathy for the arguments of people like Beverley Cuddy but then always pulled back from giving real support. Yes, the Basset’s too wrinkled but it’s none of my business. Yes, the Bulldog can’t give birth naturally but my friend’s in bulldogs and I can’t hurt her feelings. Yes, I look at photographs from 50 to 100 years ago and see dogs I much prefer as representatives of their breed but I won’t let on in case I’m considered ignorant. Yes, the king is naked, his dangly bits are swinging in the breeze, but we’ll all pretend he’s suited and booted in wonderful new clothes!! You see I revert to type too. I’ll bash on about not being too focused on our own narrow world, about welcoming criticism, about needing outsiders to tell us when we’ve gone too far and about necessity of engaging with serious organisations like Dogs Trust and, Shelia, the RSPCA. I only hope those of us with different views on this subject don’t just take up positions and shout at each other. That would be a disservice to dogs.

Posted at 19:32 on 10 Nov 2009 by
convict 225 | Report as inappropriate

Shelia, we will have to agree to differ on the RSPCA. I believe the KC taking on the RSPCA is a little like a one legged man in a backside kicking contest - except the one legged man is a better bet. I agree they are politically smart and that's one reason why I favour engagement with them to find first principle consensus. As FDR almost said, "Better in the tent peeping out than outside peeping in" (cleaned up both metaphores!)

Posted at 00:13 on 11 Nov 2009 by
convict 225 | Report as inappropriate

Mmmm - I almost agree with you Margaret. My trouble is that I can't see that there is anything better out there - and I think that the KC could be turned around. Other countries manage to have a caring KC, but then they do have a membership that is open to all those concerned with dogs, not just the rich and powerful.

Posted at 08:55 on 11 Nov 2009 by
Rildey | Report as inappropriate

Can I answer Rildey ,Post 13, Syringomyelia is mentioned ,and in the same sentence Sensationalism, . At least by it being mentioned on the PDE TV Program the Public are now aware of this Problem in Cavaliers.

Posted at 09:16 on 11 Nov 2009 by
bolshie | Report as inappropriate

Bolshie were the public really aware/informed or miss-informed by the sensationalist slant given after the media went on to say about the “exploding brains” which I believed you had an issue with before on how the issue where not covered with balance or accuracy, but did Ms Harrison or the BBC try an correct this either in the programme or in the aftermath?

Posted at 15:47 on 11 Nov 2009 by
Sirius | Report as inappropriate

PDE did not talk of exploding brains. You as usual attribute the wrong issue to the wrong source. As for Irving and Kisko losing confidence in the regulatory body and feeling "bewildered and aggrieved" well at last I have something in common with them. As the self appointed regulator of pedigree dogs I lost confidence in them years ago. And perhaps now they may truly empathise with so many hundreds of pet owners who also feel bewildered and aggrieved by the suffering of their pet dogs brought about by very poor yet accepted breeding practices. The nuance of the highland fling being enacted out between ofcom, and the KC around this spurious (and scandalously expensive) complaint on the basis of simply their hurt pride and wounded ego is I admit beyond me. Safe to say it has done nothing for the dogs. Meanwhile the Dalmatians await to be liberated from their bladder stones and deafness, the bulldogs await to be liberated from their vast unecessary mass and breathing difficulties and the poor pugs await to be liberated from well just about everything really. The KC with this latest PR fiasco (I'll draw a veil over the BNP connection but it is relevant) with their appointment of one of the most costly law firms in the business have proved to me they are not minded to do anything to help liberate those dogs. The BBC and PDE have. What they have done is truly good for the dogs. Long may they prevail.

Posted at 18:02 on 11 Nov 2009 by
Philippa | Report as inappropriate

Yes Sirius ,that comment did appear in the Press. It is now acknowledged that Cavaliers have Big Brains and Smaller Heads. That it is not known why this has happened.. only I believe to Cavaliers. The only thing I know ,that the Shape of many Cavaliers' Heads has altered since the late 80's early 90's , they now have a Deeper Stop, where the Cavalier Breed Standard says that the Cavalier should have a Shallow Stop.Is this a Link with SM in the Cavalier Breed ,I don't know. All I know, is that there are many Cavalier Owners ,who have Cavaliers suffering from this dreadfull Condition,who are grateful to Jemima Harrison,for bringing it to the Public's Attention. I know I said after the Program, that I felt it was the wrong way to do it,but after Battling for around 20 Years to get many Cavalier Breeders to accept that there was a Heart Problem in Cavaliers,and getting no-where, but I sure realize that I was wrong in what I was saying in those early days of SM appearing in the Cavalier Breed, and that many Cavalier Breeders needed the wake up call that was given on the PDE Program, . Bet Hargreaves

Posted at 18:12 on 11 Nov 2009 by
bolshie | Report as inappropriate

Suppose Ms Harrison didnt do that programme, would pedigree dogs have been given much thought in the minds of the KC, the breed clubs, the owners and even the buyers? Head in the sand is how I would describe most breeders of longevity in many breeds that was until the PDE was aired. For many years there have been quite a good few breeders who have been banging on about health testing, yet they have all been given short shrift from the KC the Breed Clubs fellow owners, so I for one am very glad that openly being discussed across the UK is the manner in which some breeders breed.

Posted at 22:34 on 11 Nov 2009 by
Fifi | Report as inappropriate

I have a long history of posts on this site and a years' worth of contributions as a Dog World columnist. I think I've been consistent in my views and generally very supportive of PDE. I've also said I didn't personally like the reference to eugenics. It was a tiny part of the programme and it sticks in our mind far more than in the minds of the general public. Even so I’m sorry Jemima Harrison put the reference in. The point I would make, a point I’ve not seen made by anyone connected with dogs, is that it risks trivialising the human suffering inflicted by the Nazi eugenics policy to compare it to pedigree dog breeding. I’d make a similar point about the BNP. In my student days I was involved in peaceful demonstrations against the far right. I know the tactics of groups like the National Front and Combat 18; the groups that were the predecessors of the BNP. If the husband of a senior Kennel Club official appears on a list of BNP supporters then that is a source of discomfort. An association, however tacit, I would much rather was not there. It is, however, an extremely tacit association. Scares about undue far right influence in the Kennel Club seem to me to be the stuff of black comedy. It is laughable compared to justified concerns about the far right in the police service and in education.

Posted at 00:46 on 12 Nov 2009 by
convict 225 | Report as inappropriate

There must be cooperation between kennel clubs, breed clubs and scientists.For cooperation to succeed, we must respect and trust each other; honesty is vital for success.Surely by researching a pedigree and reducing possible matings to ones YOU as a breeder find more acceptable you ARE indeed practising eugenics in animal form. To shy away from that is ignorant A breeding programme should be a guideline for dog breeders. Ethics should be the same for every breed, in addition to important breed specifi c health issues.For diversity we must continue to choose mates that are free from inherited disease but we must not totally discount all carriers as some diseases can be bred out in the next generations. If we simply look at diversity our own KC is lagging behind through breed recognition The Kennel Club acknowledges 200 canine breeds, but innovative diversity goes to the FCI which acknowledges 354 different breeds. The latest one to date, a hound called the Gonzcy Polski, comes from Poland. The Swiss White Shepherd, the Stumpy Tail Cattle Dog, the Mioritic dog (Romania) also belong to newly recognized breeds.Yet despite all that level of diversity more than 50% of the births usually come from only a few of breeds.Eradication of genetic diseases and breeding only genetically healthy dogs is a totally unrealistic goal. Too strict regulations and demands in breeding programmes could have the opposite effect, as it will exclude too many dogs, reducing the breeding population and result in inbreeding.(again) If we look at the nature of malocclusion Most malocclusions are inherited problems that resulted from selective breeding for other traits, such as body size, shorter face, or longer nose. Small breed dogs have a much larger tooth-to-bone ratio (the size of their jaw bones has decreased more than the size of their teeth) resulting in tooth crowding androtation. Genetic elongation or shortening of the face affects the maxilla more than the mandible, resulting in disproportion between the upper and lower jaws and malocclusion.By US altering conformation we interfere with the natural process of evolution all pets have the right to have a pain free and functional dentition. However, they do not have a “right” to a perfect occlusion or “show bite”. Since most malocclusions are genetic, we have an ethical responsibility to avoid performing procedures that could mask a genetic defect on intact purebred animals. There are many facets to dog breeding that most simply cannot contemplate and we all must strive to educate those who are needy and re educate those who still refuse to admit to problems. If we as a dogworld cannot work together then sadly dogs will continue to suffer and that will reduce diversity and see some breeds lost.

Posted at 09:15 on 12 Nov 2009 by
Fifi | Report as inappropriate

Eugenics ,definition in the Dictionary....The Doctrine relating to the Physical Betterment of the Human Race .Is that not what Dog Breeding is all about? Bet Hargreaves

Posted at 10:31 on 12 Nov 2009 by
bolshie | Report as inappropriate

Fifi, the reference to eugenics in the PDE programme was more in association with the KC’s ethos of breeding within a closed gene pool, breeding for aesthetics, and the culling (killing) of ‘inferior’ animals (eg the breeder who spoke of euthanising ridgeless RR puppies), rather than the practice of breeding to improve health. I do though agree with convict in that the reference to Nazi eugenics policy would have been best avoided. Your point about the number of recognised breeds having an influence on diversity, I think you have in reverse. The greater the number of individual isolated populations (breeds) within a community the more genetic diversity will reduce, not increase, as there is only a finite number of possible breeders and owners. By accepting ever increasing numbers of breeds we are actually increasing the number of subdivided populations. The answer to this is to amalgamate breeds and/or allow crossbreeding. Julie Vaughan

Posted at 11:17 on 12 Nov 2009 by
pod | Report as inappropriate

Bet, I admire the way you have stood up for your dog breed but your last post was plain silly. The pseudo-science of eugenics had people locked up, forcibly sterilised and given inappropriate medical treatment against their will - and that was in the USA. In Nazi Germany it was used as the basis for systematic racial discrimination, slave labour and ultimately attempted genocide. Eugenics is a highly charged word. I’m sure many breeders would object to idea that they are following the philosophy that lay behind the holocaust. Equally I believe it is insulting to the human victims of eugenics to consider it in any way equates to the breeding of any animal. This is the one area, a very small percentage of Jemima’s television programme, where I take issue with her.

Posted at 16:16 on 12 Nov 2009 by
convict 225 | Report as inappropriate

Sorry Convict ,had no idea what the word meant,just looked it up in the Dictionary.Never had heard of it. Bet Hargreaves

Posted at 17:09 on 12 Nov 2009 by
bolshie | Report as inappropriate

BBC Top Salaries revealed ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/running/bbcstructure/index.shtml

Posted at 18:36 on 12 Nov 2009 by
Guy | Report as inappropriate

Sorry Julie you miss my point entirely. Inbreeding is a two-edged sword. On the one hand a certain amount of inbreeding can fix and improve type to produce excellent quality animals. On the other hand, excessive inbreeding can limit the gene pool so that the breed loses vigour. Breeds in the early stages of development are most vulnerable as numbers are small and the cats may be closely related to one another. It is up to the responsible breeder to balance inbreeding against crossings with unrelated cats in order to maintain the overall health of the line or breed concerned.

Posted at 22:22 on 12 Nov 2009 by
Fifi | Report as inappropriate

This isnt just about dogs maybe here yes, but diversity inbreeding, linebreeding has in fact its essence in other species, maybe we need to learn from THEM

Posted at 22:23 on 12 Nov 2009 by
Fifi | Report as inappropriate

A pedigree is really just a list of known ancestors. How “pure” pedigree breeding must be varies from species to species. In some cases very close line breeding is interspersed with complete outcrosses. In other cases crosses with related breeds are considered commonplace within a pedigree breeding programme. Dogs are unique both in the number of pedigree breeds that exist and in the fact that bringing in blood from related breeds is incredibly difficult. Moving forward we may have to reconsider what constitutes a breed think much more about how we use controlled outcrosses.

Posted at 23:11 on 12 Nov 2009 by
convict 225 | Report as inappropriate

Fifi, the webpage that your text is from - http://www.messybeast.com/inbreed.htm gives an overall balanced view of breeding methods but the one paragraph that you have picked does show some flawed thinking and is typical of pedigree breeding, it seems in cats as well as dogs. There’s no doubt that inbreeding can fix type within a breed but this is at the expense of diversity. What use is ‘type’ if health and vigour has to suffer? Breeding within a closed gene pool, whether this is close inbreeding or what’s generally known as linebreeding, insidiously leaches the gene pool as the effects are cumulative. And so the vulnerability increases as the breed progresses. There may be more individuals as the breed becomes established but diversity will not increase without outcrossing to another breed. Julie Vaughan

Posted at 00:16 on 13 Nov 2009 by
pod | Report as inappropriate

On the other hand, excessive inbreeding can limit the gene pool so that the breed loses vigour. Post 38 the reference to diversity wasnt about inbreeding just making a point of the vast differences with the two systems of kennel club, ours stifles breed recognition which in turn may well stifle the ability to outcross which in turn may lose some vulnerable breeds.

Posted at 05:00 on 13 Nov 2009 by
Fifi | Report as inappropriate

Fifi, am I missing something in your argument. A "breed" is a more or less a closed gene pool. Only very rarely do the KC allow blood (new genes if you like) in from other breeds. I know there are suggestion that new genes have slipped in to some breeds "unofficialy" but that's a seperate point! The KC recognising more breeds does not therefore widen or deepen the gene pool. It's not like pouring another glass of water into a bowl. It's more like having an extra glass of water on a tray. The issue, surely, is not about recognation of more breeds but about controlled crosses between breeds and accepting currently unregistered strains into pedigree breeds. I have a keen interest in our vulnerable native breeds the Gonzcy Polskie is unlikely to be used to bolster the Otterhound gene pool !!

Posted at 11:41 on 13 Nov 2009 by
convict 225 | Report as inappropriate

ha ha yes you are, maybe its the way I am writing it lol. If lets say a breed was not recognised by our KC, but it was by the FCI and it had certain attributes to its genetic make up that would help with a breed that was facing loss or poor quality due to its mismanagement of the gene pool then to limit access to these animals would be silly and short sighted. Controlled crosses can only occur with registered breeds do you see what I mean ?

Posted at 14:08 on 13 Nov 2009 by
Fifi | Report as inappropriate

The dog as a species is incredibly diverse. We already have more than adequate resources in the UK for outcrossing should it become acceptable to do so. And if it did so happen that an unrecognised foreign breed was the only source of certain attributes, then breed recognition, with all of its negative effects on the resident populations, would not be necessary. Who has said controlled crosses can only occur with registered breeds? A mongrel or crossbred will contribute more to genetic diversity per dog than a pedigree.

Posted at 14:42 on 13 Nov 2009 by
pod | Report as inappropriate

Fifi, I take your point now. I would say, however, that I'd be inclined to look at unrecognised British breeds like the short legged Jack Russell before the more exotic FCI registered breeds. Pod, I advocate change in the pedigree dog world but I am also a staunch defender of the concept of pedigree breeds. Breeds pre-date showing by hundreds, if not thousands of years. Introducing new genes into a breed would need to be controlled or you’d risk totally losing the core breed qualities without solving the problems you set out to solve. It’s a far from perfect analogy but let’s say you’ve painted three walls of a room white, you haven’t enough paint to finish the fourth wall so you’ll have to add one of another colour to your pot of white. You’d keep more of the character by adding light grey than by adding black and you wouldn’t want to use a tin of paint where the label had come off and you’d no idea what was inside!

Posted at 19:12 on 13 Nov 2009 by
convict 225 | Report as inappropriate

Now Im getting confused, Julie I after reading your last posts find it hard to work out if you are in favour of genetic diversity , out crossing or inbreeding? Must be my age.

Posted at 20:04 on 13 Nov 2009 by
Fifi | Report as inappropriate

Convict, yes I agree that controlled outcrossing is the way to go to salvage some of our most threatened breeds. But the concept of pure breeding within a closed gene pool is relatively new and started at the time of the formation of registries and dog showing.. no more than a couple of hundred years ago. Working dogs up until then were more landraces with regional differences, but still open to new blood from travellers or neighbouring stock. Many of our breeds have been founded on just a handful of landrace dogs taken into the registry and then the stud book closed. Whilst some breeds, eg the northern sled dogs, may have been relatively isolated by geographical location, they still has a large population with interbreeding amongst types. We have now subdivided these down into distinct breeds of isolated populations for the showring.

Posted at 22:01 on 13 Nov 2009 by
pod | Report as inappropriate

Just got the paint analogy :) Ok, better the devil you know, I take the point. I was thinking more of a crossbreed from two known breeds. Say a Newfoundland/Border Collie cross introduced into the Bernese Mountain Dog gene pool. The greater heterozygosity of the crossbreed would benefit the Bernese breed more than either of the two parent breeds.

Posted at 22:10 on 13 Nov 2009 by
pod | Report as inappropriate

yes I agree that controlled outcrossing is the way to go to salvage some of our most threatened breeds. (pod) so in effect post 44 is correct ? why then question it ?

Posted at 23:45 on 13 Nov 2009 by
Fifi | Report as inappropriate

Answer in post 45 Fifi.

Posted at 08:40 on 14 Nov 2009 by
pod | Report as inappropriate

pod, we're finding some common ground here. Distinct breeds have existed for hundreds of years but the defination of a "breed" has altered over time to become far more focused on pure blood. I think we need to reconsider the older and looser concept of "breed" as a way forward. The problem is many will fight tooth and nail against any outcross blood. I believe some are looking to testing to solve all problems. The next big battleground will be genetic diversity.

Posted at 08:47 on 14 Nov 2009 by
convict 225 | Report as inappropriate

Yep, I'm with you. Testing will become increasingly crucial as gene pools further diminish, throwing up more and more recessive defects. The concept of breed cleansing (of defects) is fundamentally flawed as it is never ending.

Posted at 09:05 on 14 Nov 2009 by
pod | Report as inappropriate

What I would like to ask ,is the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Breed now at the cross-roads because of the Two Serious Health Problems afflicting Cavaliers ,Syringomyelia and MVD Heart Trouble,that Out -Crossing should be being considered. I know that a Cavalier was mated to a Cocker Spaniel in the early 1950's. Maybe this should be thought about again for the SM Problem ,where it is now acknowledged that the Cavaliers Brains are too Large for their Heads, that many Cavaliers have much Smaller Heads than 20 years ago. Maybe Cavaliers being out-crossed to Cocker Spaniels, would give them the chance of a Larger Head ,if their Smaller Head is involved with their Syringomyelia Disease Bet Hargreaves

Posted at 10:15 on 14 Nov 2009 by
bolshie | Report as inappropriate

excellent so you do agree with controlled outcrossing, which is exactly the point being made on several occasions. Bolshie think there would need to be a temperament test just in case the odd rage doggy got through. Who here feels that a temperament test should be established before being allowed to (breed) thus register a litter between two dogs.

Posted at 12:04 on 14 Nov 2009 by
Fifi | Report as inappropriate

Temperament is a difficult one because it's very subjective and open to enviromental factors. I might see a game dog I can work with (give me a game dog rather than a timid dog anytime) but you may see aggression. Training and socialisation can have such an effect on temperament that I'm not sure how a test could work in practice. In my breed there are those who have deliberately bred for easier temperament and those who feel that controlled gameness is a key feature of the breed. Yes, there is a significant difference between the two but the difference between a well trained and well socialised dog and one that has a "wishy-washy" owner is much more marked.

Posted at 13:08 on 14 Nov 2009 by
convict 225 | Report as inappropriate

over 35 yrs ago I had a jack russell this was just before you could register them with the KC they had shorter legs and came in rough or smooth coats today they look nothing like that , thats mans doing not nature , because of the breeders of yesteryear and breeders of today we have in effect ruined a good number of breeds , to undo the damage will take a good many years by people who take any and all health tests very serious , also the dog show people need to wake up because when they are judging they tend to set trends of how a breed of dog should look like and don't take into account what it was bred for

Posted at 13:17 on 14 Nov 2009 by
jac02 | Report as inappropriate

yes Jackie what you say has so much truth in. Convict I agree 100%

Posted at 18:09 on 14 Nov 2009 by
Fifi | Report as inappropriate

This is somewhat off topic , but how much have the KC given to support dogs in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East war zones?

Posted at 21:38 on 14 Nov 2009 by
Fifi | Report as inappropriate

I am not sure Fifi but I do know that the KC and dog show people raised funds together during WWII to buy a Spitfire called “Dogfight”, but of course I don’t suppose Ms Harrison would of thought that would of gone with here Nazi claims now would it!!

Posted at 22:36 on 14 Nov 2009 by
Sirius | Report as inappropriate

That is brilliant indeed wish more things like this was given airspace.

Posted at 09:45 on 15 Nov 2009 by
Fifi | Report as inappropriate

Sirius, I've outlined why I wish the reference to the eugenics hadn't appeared in PDE - post 29 of this thread pretty much covers it. I don't, however, see anywhere in the programme where Jemima calls the KC or any breeders Nazis. She likens certain pedigree breeding practices to the eugenics movement of the 1930's. It's not an analogy I like but hardly suggesting the KC was pro-Hitler in the second world war. The eugenics reference was a tiny part of the programme and certainly not the core critique. Do you accept the core charges made, or rather repeated in PDE; 1) that some breeds are suffering health problems by default as line breeding to excess has created genetic health issues, 2) that some breeds have become unhealthy by design as ever greater exaggeration has been rewarded in the show ring with no considerion for health and welfare of the breeds concerned. If you accept these as real problems would it not be better for you to use your infulance on the KC to direct their energies toward addressing these issues rather than fighting Jemmima Harrison? Whatever the eventual outcome with Ofcom most ordinary dog owners will be unimpressed. They want to see a change in the emphasis of the KC so it overtly promotes canine health it's number one piriorty. The rest is a side show.

Posted at 11:51 on 15 Nov 2009 by
convict 225 | Report as inappropriate

Convict excellent post and one I happen to agree with in its entirety. I think that PDE was undoubtedly the biggest kick up the rump breeders have ever had in the UK. Her points were valid , highly charged and rightly so and more importantly accurate in her assumptions that breeding practices were encouraging canine suffering through a veriety of forms. So, for once can we all stop swinging a left hook at Ms Harrison and get together to ATTACK the KC, the breed clubs and those who encourage poor breeding practices yes that includes mass producers and pet profiteers. If you health test SHOUT from the roof tops , publish your results like we do, tell people if you find one of your dogs has a health issue . BE HONEST and dont be scared of the reaction from your breed clubs or the KC, tell them to get in line or you will publish what you know about their lines, they soon toe the line.

Posted at 12:27 on 15 Nov 2009 by
Fifi | Report as inappropriate

Hear ,Hear ,to Posts 60 and 61. I know for the Cavalier Breed ,what a great service Jemima Harrison and her PDE Program has done for Cavaliers.It has made Prospective Cavalier Buyers aware now of the two Serious Health Condidions afflicting the Breed ,and that the question should always be asked from a Cavalier Breeder to see a Health Certificate as proof that those Health Tests have been carried out on Cavalier Breeding Stock. Bet Hargreaves PS Over the years I have collected about 400 Pedigrees of Cavaliers suffering from Heart Trouble ... sent them to Researchers , but if I did publish them , and I do have permission from those Cavalier Owners, FIFI, would the Cat be Amongst the Pidgeons!!!!!

Posted at 13:06 on 15 Nov 2009 by
bolshie | Report as inappropriate