I've already responded to Jackbox's post, apologising for the confusion in my post. Tbh, I was rushing, as I had to do the school run and wanted to quickly look up the situation regarding this particular Cav that we are talking about (in the JH programme). I didn't word my post correctly, due to rushing. I should have said "in the situation of this Cav" as I knew that the situation was a pretty serious one and that he was not meant to be bred (well not responsibly anyway). I believe I did say in one of my posts, that I hadn't seen the programme for months and that I wasn't completely sure of the circumstances. Anyway, before I had a chance to check, Rubylover kindly gave all the information that was required for the post, hence my referral of your question to Rubylover's post.

Now that I have explained myself twice (and apologising to Jackbox for not being clear), I hope that is sufficient for you to stop picking my post apart.

The matter in hand is that JH exposed a Breeder for breeding a dog totally irresponsibly. This thread is about Jemima Harrison and her take on the Kennel Club, etc. So instead of pulling my posts apart, perhaps you'd like to comment on why JH was so out of order for doing what she did. Unless of course, you agree that she did right???? Or are you just intent on pulling everything I say to pieces. That being the case, pull away, as I will not be explaining myself to you any further..........

Save your "Oh dears" """Joedee""" - I have explained myself twice and I'm not about to do it for a third time

Like I said to Labradork, instead of picking my posts apart (even after I have explained myself), wouldn't you like to comment on why this show/breeder was using her dog at stud when clearly she shouldn't have been. I thought show/breeders were so responsible and ethical???? My point being, it isn't so bad of JH to point such matters out, is it????? - if it stops dogs being bred that could produce sick pups. JH just highlighted that there are SOME (not all by any means) unscrupulous breeders out there.

Haha -- who said that? I'm sure no one is naive enough to believe that. Of course not all show breeders are responsible. Equally, not all working breeders/pet breeders are responsible. That would be nice in an ideal world, but is far removed from the truth.

In a very one sided, bias way. If the documentary had actually bothered to report about responsible breeders it would have had far more credibility. Instead it focused on the minorities, PETA style.

I've never defended the breeder of the dog with the malformation allowing her dog to be used at stud, but equally guilty are the bitch owners who used him knowing this. As I have said elsewhere on this forum, there is a breeder on here who has used a dog she bred that is the litter brother of my Lou(who has asymptomatic SM)& is by a dog who was PTS with SM & I very much doubt that she told the puppy buyers about the familial links to SM affected dogs & as I have never seen anything about Lou's brother being scanned normal(& I bet it would be shouted from the rooftops if he had been)

The dog in the program has as far as I know, not produced any symptomatic SM affected puppies.

You cannot deny that the program was very one sided, why not contrast two breeds-The Cavalier & the Border Collie ? Border Collie breeders are very open about the breed & as soon as any possible health issue raises it head(like Glaucoma)then related dogs are tested(if there is a test)& DNA research started. Research is being done into Epilepsy in Border Collies & WSD here in the UK & into glaucoma in Australia.

JH has admitted that she deliberately omitted all of the health testing to make the program have more impact(for impact read more sensational & higher ratings)

Breeders who do not register their dogs with the KC are claiming that only KC registered dogs are affected(just have a look at the free puppy advert sites)& that their dogs aren't unhealthy & have been vetted(by their GP vet who will not be able to scan or accurately read HD/Elbow plates or eye test, because they are not specialists)

The Animal Activists Coalition demonstrators outside the NEC-have no interest in pet dogs welfare, they are closely linked to PETA who want all animals released from slavery as humans have no rights to "own"animals.

The program tarred all breeders who register their dogs with the KC with the same brush-it claimed that the GSDs shown had severe HD(which they don't have)& in their country of origin(both dogs were bred in Germany) health testing is compulsory as is fit for function)& now she is claiming that she has brought about MRI scanning in Cavaliers-that was already being funded by the breed clubs long before the program(Loukar was scanned under the system nearly 5 years ago)Research has been ongoing for over 10 years & had been funded by the breed clubs & the KC before the program.

BTW the KC had already funded research into SM in Cavaliers before the program.

JH claimed she was involved in Pedigree withdrawing from Crufts, but this happened before that program & the money raised by the current pedigree rescue promotion is given to the KC Charitable Trust to dispense-not something they would do it they truly believed that the KC was responsible for the health concerns in pedigree dogs.

There are many people not involved in the dog world who believe registration papers alone show a well bred dog. I'm sure there ARE many naive enough to believe a show bred dog is one up from that. I can name numerous friends and relatives that believe so. That is one of the reasons I appreciated the documentary as it dispelled this myth.

Unlike others, I did not think it tarred all breeders with the same brush. There are places in the documentary it mentioned the health schemes and it DID mention that there are concientious breeders (I'll watch and find the quote if you'd like).

Out of personal interest, would you PM me this collie's name and ISDS number, thanks.

It may be as a result of the programme that people will assume any non KC registered dog must be a better dog than those that are registered. This would be a sad outcome which could have been avoided by giving all the facts rather than just those that make the most shocking headlines. There is a lot of ignorance about health testing and it would have been good if potential dog owners had been pointed in the right direction rather than just being warned of the defects of the KC registration system.

He produced a dog made up to Champion in the USA that developed symptomatic SM, had surgery, and died due to complications of another PSOM surgery.

http://www.ckcsc.org/ckcsc/healthreg...a?OpenDocument

I don't remember that at all. And it certainly didn't SHOW the work of responsible breeders. It didn't mention puppy mills and backyard breeders as another source of genetically unsound puppies, either. The program gave the impression that only individual breeders (emphasis on people who show, and are thus KC registered) are responsible for genetic health problems in dogs.