|
Location: West of Scotland
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,034
|
09-03-2009, 07:46 PM
Originally Posted by Pidge 
It wasn't a very balanced view at all but it was an excellent programme that highlighted the need for change in a lot of breed standards.
That cannot be denied.
The programme wasn't balanced BUT it did make people aware about several severe problems that many breeds suffer from, and these issues needed to be highlighted.
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,122
|
09-03-2009, 07:49 PM
And this is the way I saw it, I have said before that a number of times I have had to defend my healthy RR when people have pointed at his ridge and knowingly say spina bifida.
I think her intentions started off pure but then JH realised this could be her defining moment and all balance went out the window. This doc could have been great and a true picture of what is wrong in the world of dog breeding but instead it went down the cheap route of Nazi visuals and sound bites. If she had done this honestly, she would probably have found a lot of support from all the people that she has alienated
|
|
|
|
Location: Elsewhere
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,227
|
09-03-2009, 07:53 PM
Originally Posted by Ramble
I don't think she would ever have got support for saying that some show dogs ahve problems and a re badly bred...
it surely was a true picture of what is worong in the world of show dog breeding?
I think it was Rubylover gave some quotes?
I think if she had shown a balanced, honest view then she might have been surprised by support but you win nothing when you back everyone in a corner.
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,122
|
09-03-2009, 07:54 PM
Originally Posted by Ramble
I disagree. I think it did give a balanced view.
Originally Posted by Ramble
It was an expose though...so it was never going to be a balance...
I for one see it as the latter
|
|
|
|
Location: dogsville
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,141
|
09-03-2009, 07:56 PM
Originally Posted by Lionhound
I think if she had shown a balanced, honest view then she might have been surprised by support but you win nothing when you back everyone in a corner.
I'm not sure who she has backed into a corner? If it is poor breeders, then I see no problem with that?
|
|
It was a balanced expose.
|
|
Location: dogsville
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,141
|
09-03-2009, 08:02 PM
Originally Posted by JoedeeUK
Well the number of Cavaliers seen by my vet with SM are mainly from either one of two show kennels(one of which has had all their breeding dogs scanned & they are normal !)or from one of many pet/BYB whose dogs are not KC registered & the vast majority are not KC registered.
I run a pet DTC & the number of people turning up with non KC pedigree puppies has tripled since that program & all the proud owners have stated they bought the puppy because all KC dogs are unhealthy(ironical really as several of the puppies have inherited conditions from blindness from CEA to epileptic fits with HD, ED & slipping patellae in between) & yes one of the unreg puppies is a Cavalier with MRI scanned SM !
In fairness that's about as useful as my 'I have spoken to lots of dog owners...'
|
|
|
Location: West Sussex
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,749
|
09-03-2009, 08:03 PM
adj.
1. Evenly proportioned, balanced, or regulated.
2. Mentally stable; sensible or sound.
The documentary did not represent all sides of the argument, so technically speaking it was not balanced at all.
|
|
|
|
Location: Elsewhere
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,227
|
09-03-2009, 08:05 PM
Originally Posted by Ramble
It was honest though. She didn't lie. All the things in it are totally true and happen.
I'm not sure who she has backed into a corner? If it is poor breeders, then I see no problem with that?
Do you think that some of the bad breeding practices carried out are horrific enough without all the sensationalism? I do.
|
|