|
|
Location: dogsville
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,141
|
09-03-2009, 09:09 PM
Originally Posted by labradork 
Comparing breeding pedigree dogs to Nazi eugenics?
Originally Posted by Ramble
Or explaining a point.
Did you read my questions I wonder?
Originally Posted by labradork
No, I think you will find that is called sensationalism. You can prove a point without playing dirty tactics and comparing a mass murdering psychopath's regime to breeding purebred dogs.
So...did you read my questions I wonder....
|
|
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,890
|
09-03-2009, 09:23 PM
Originally Posted by Ramble
To be honest, to move this on as it is going around in circles...I think we need to honestly ask and answer..
1) Is there a problem in the way some dogs have been bred? Yep
2) Have those problems caused any dogs to suffer? Yep
3) Did the problems need sorting out (properly sorting as opposed to token gesture sorting)? They did and still do
4) Were there any lies in the programme? Not that I know of
5) Has the programme ensured that people are talking about the health of our dogs? Yep
6) Has the programme made the KC sit up and start to take notice and sort itself out?
Sort of. The KC has taken the easy route and so far, its changes seem little more than a lip service. They commissioned a report by Jeff Sampson, and effectively ignored its findings, so anything that will make them take the blindest bit of notice has to be good. However, they could be doing much more. I'd like to see them offering genetics lectures (at different levels) to breeders, stressing the importance of outbreeding to unrelated lines where possible, and possibly offering incentives to import new blood from abroad. Also, they really need to be funding (or reading) some research that will benefit breeds in the future, for example, the best ways to alleviate the problems assosciated with restricted genepools, as many breeds won't be able to continue like this indefinitely.
If the answer to any of the questions is yes,then surely the documentary was a good thing?
|
|
|
|
Location: dogsville
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,141
|
09-03-2009, 09:27 PM
Originally Posted by Ramble
To be honest, to move this on as it is going around in circles...I think we need to honestly ask and answer..
1) Is there a problem in the way some dogs have been bred?
2) Have those problems caused any dogs to suffer?
3) Did the problems need sorting out (properly sorting as opposed to token gesture sorting)?
4) Were there any lies in the programme?
5) Has the programme ensured that people are talking about the health of our dogs?
6) Has the programme made the KC sit up and start to take notice and sort itself out?
If the answer to any of the questions is yes,then surely the documentary was a good thing?
I can see nothing negative that has come about as a result of this programme.
People are asking questions about health and the KC are starting to put their house in order.
I am truly at a loss as to what the problem people have with it is.
Jemima didn't ever say all breeders were bad, or showing was bad...just SOME breeders. That's true. If those breeders sort themselves out, great.
I'm leaving the thread too as it is getting silly.
I do admire what Jemima Harrison has done, just like I admired her documentary about dogs sniffing our cancer. I find her programmes both interesting and thought provoking.
|
|
|
|
Location: dogsville
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,141
|
09-03-2009, 09:30 PM
Originally Posted by mse2ponder
Hope this wasn't rhetoric Ramble, as I've taken it literally!
And the eugenics thing - wasn't it just to illustrate the point that an obsession with pure bloodlines can go too far?
No it wasn't rhetoric.
Yes, I totally agree...both with your eugenics point and this:
|
|
|
Location: Co. Durham, UK
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 11,213
|
09-03-2009, 09:31 PM
I agree something needed to be done about pedigree dogs and the health problems, what bothered me so much was that the programme was anti showing.
The programme was incredibly biased and focused only on the dog showing fraternity and bad breeders within that fraternity, when we all know that puppy farmers and byb are just as much to blame for the state of pedigree dogs.
The Boxer for example - it wasn't mentioned whether the dog was show bred or not. This to me suggests it wasn't as going by the anti show feel of the programme if it was JH would most certainly have said so. Which then leads to the question, why didn't she mention it wasn't show bred???
As far as I'm concerned it's because she's anti showing.
What annoys me the most is that there are many, many good show'ers and show breeders, but there was no such mention of these people and the efforts they make to breed happy healthy dogs.
If JH made the programme to help dogs, then surely the programme would've done far more good to the dog population if it covered bad breeders from all walks of life?
I'm in no doubt the JH loves dogs, but in the same breath I'm in no doubt she hates dog showing and all those involved in it. Be them good or bad.
|
|
|
|
Location: Alberta, Canada
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 285
|
09-03-2009, 09:31 PM
Originally Posted by mse2ponder
Hope this wasn't rhetoric Ramble, as I've taken it literally!
And the eugenics thing - wasn't it just to illustrate the point that an obsession with pure bloodlines can go too far?
|
|
|
|
Location: dogsville
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,141
|
09-03-2009, 09:36 PM
Originally Posted by Ripsnorterthe2nd
Ok, from a "show persons" view I can see why people are so up in arms.
I agree something needed to be done about pedigree dogs and the health problems, what bothered me so much was that the programme was anti showing.
The programme was incredibly biased and focused only on the dog showing fraternity and bad breeders within that fraternity, when we all know that puppy farmers and byb are just as much to blame for the state of pedigree dogs.
The Boxer for example - it wasn't mentioned whether the dog was show bred or not. This to me suggests it wasn't as going by the anti show feel of the programme if it was JH would most certainly have said so. Which then leads to the question, why didn't she mention it wasn't show bred???
As far as I'm concerned it's because she's anti showing.
What annoys me the most is that there are many, many good show'ers and show breeders, but there was no such mention of these people and the efforts they make to breed happy healthy dogs.
If JH made the programme to help dogs, then surely the programme would've done far more good to the dog population if it covered bad breeders from all walks of life?
I'm in no doubt the JH loves dogs, but in the same breath I'm in no doubt she hates dog showing and all those involved in it. Be them good or bad.
I do know however that the footage shown was the tip of the iceberg, she researched this for 2 years.
I think she has had the worst reception from show people because they feel threatened, challenged and criticised but she didn't say they were ALL bad, far from it.
I am sure she is fully aware of bad breeders in all walks of life given she set up a rescue.The programme wasn't about puppy farms or byb though....that's a whole other programme surely?
|
|