register for free

Dog News

Ofcom rules on BBC's pedigree dog expose

...has received 40 comments (page 3)
Ramble
Dogsey Veteran
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,141
Female 
 
10-12-2009, 10:45 AM
Originally Posted by johnderondon View Post
Frankly PDE has been vindicated (again).

Having had 90%+ of the complaints against them judged to be baseless the KC has come across as whinging, weasel-worded whiners.

They haven't come clean on how much they've wasted on legal fees and costs in this failed attempt to wriggle of the hook but it is doubtless a staggering sum - that could have been invested in health programmes.
I agree.
At the end of the day Jemima H did a programme which highlighted the appalling breeding practices in some breeds. If one dog has been saved from a lifetime of pain as a result then hoorah...good for her. If one new puppy buyer researchs properly before getting a pup as a result of the programme...hoorah again.
Jemima H is not some awful person who hates pedigree dogs...she cares VERY deeply about the health and welfare of all dogs. That's why she did the documentary.
Reply With Quote
johnderondon
Almost a Veteran
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,283
Male 
 
10-12-2009, 10:45 AM
Originally Posted by Jackbox View Post
But the back lash from the programme gave exactly that impression, to the man on the street, all breeds of pedigree and breeders were tarnished by the same brush.
If that is true then one could equally say that, prior to the programme, that the public laboured under the misconception that KC registered confered some quality assurance.

The fact is that some of the public do sometimes take false impressions but unless they have been actually misinformed then that is their own concern.

Rescues where inundated with pedigrees in the fall out,
Rescues are inundated anyway. There's no evidence to suggest that PDE was responsible for that. There's evidence that the recession has had an impact but not PDE.

the ethos of the programme was to rock the pedigree dog world, with no care to to the outcome.
The outcome was to make public several concerns that had languished in the shadows far too long. The outcome is 78 revisions to breed standards, the 'Fit for Life, Fit for Function' initiative, increased uptake of health testing, etc, etc.

The programme was one sided, to give a balanced account of the pedigree world, they should have for every negative , shown a positive, and educated those who dont know , as to where and how to buy healthy.
So if I wanted to make a programme about the Yorkshire Ripper I should, for every victim, include a person who he didn't kill, point out that he was kind to cats, perhaps? The programme was about highlighting the lack of effective action to tackle to problems affecting hundreds of thousands of dogs and the part that the show ring played in those problems. It was about, as the programme said, 'the greatest animal welfare scandal of our time'. It certainly wasn't incumbent on the programme makers to undermine that message by devoting time to non-relevant material.
Reply With Quote
johnderondon
Almost a Veteran
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,283
Male 
 
10-12-2009, 10:52 AM
Originally Posted by JoedeeUK View Post
One of the breeds shown was stated to be very unhealthy,
Is that an interpretation or a statement of fact?

Are you talking GSDs? The breed from whom the KC has removed all CCs because of a lack of meaningful progress on their health issues? If so, then keep your powder dry for the Bateson report next month.

I've a feeling that GSD breeders are going to be the lamb sacrificed to the cause of KC public relations.
Reply With Quote
Borderdawn
Dogsey Veteran
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 18,552
Female 
 
10-12-2009, 10:55 AM
Whatever some may think the program did as regards to hurting pedigree dogs or showing them is totally the opposite of what actually happened. Its stronger than ever!
Reply With Quote
Ramble
Dogsey Veteran
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,141
Female 
 
10-12-2009, 10:59 AM
Originally Posted by Borderdawn View Post
Whatever some may think the program did as regards to hurting pedigree dogs or showing them is totally the opposite of what actually happened. Its stronger than ever!
I agree...but I also think people are discussing health tests a lot more and so the dogs have benefitted.
Reply With Quote
johnderondon
Almost a Veteran
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,283
Male 
 
10-12-2009, 11:10 AM
Originally Posted by Ramble View Post
I agree...but I also think people are discussing health tests a lot more and so the dogs have benefitted.
Absolutley. The Animal Health Trust says it has had a “huge increase in breeders” wanting to help in the development of new DNA tests since the programme and there's been a three-fold increase in the number of MRI-scanned dogs listed on the Cav's Club’s website.
Reply With Quote
Borderdawn
Dogsey Veteran
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 18,552
Female 
 
10-12-2009, 11:12 AM
Originally Posted by Ramble View Post
I agree...but I also think people are discussing health tests a lot more and so the dogs have benefitted.
On the other hand (and I dont disagree with you) there has been a HUGE increase in unregistered, untested dogs because the breeders claim registered one are unhealthy!! There are still adverts for unregistered "healthy" puppies.
Reply With Quote
Emma
Dogsey Veteran
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,032
Female 
 
10-12-2009, 11:18 AM
Originally Posted by Jackbox View Post
But the back lash from the programme gave exactly that impression, to the man on the street, all breeds of pedigree and breeders were tarnished by the same brush.

Rescues where inundated with pedigrees in the fall out, (my local one was) byb of cross breeds had a field day in selling pups, with the tag of " pups are healthier than pedigrees) I have had this conversation with some people who should know better, but the ethos of the programme was to rock the pedigree dog world, with no care to to the outcome.

The programme was one sided, to give a balanced account of the pedigree world, they should have for every negative , shown a positive, and educated those who dont know , as to where and how to buy healthy.
I get what you are saying but the show was about highlighting the inadequate standards people are willing to lower to, to win at shows, and people who think by getting a pedigree dog that has won at shows, does not mean, they are better than byb dogs (or could have worse health problems, induced by people who claim to love dogs and actually have knowledge on dogs, which is even worse than a person with byb standards, as they have more knowledge, but use it to win in a ring but less healthy dogs out of the ring).
I guess it comes down to a lot of people with block thinking, it is not all breeds, all breeders, all people that show their dogs but to look closely into the health of their potential new dog, pedigree or not, health check not just show check, it is the people watching it and their interpretation that is wrong not the intent behind the making of it.
The show did not need to be balanced it was to show something that people were not looking at enough and get it the attention it deserved, again it is the person on the street with block thinking and tarring every predigree with the same brush that is wrong.

Originally Posted by Ramble View Post
At the end of the day Jemima H did a programme which highlighted the appalling breeding practices in some breeds. If one dog has been saved from a lifetime of pain as a result then hoorah...good for her. If one new puppy buyer researchs properly before getting a pup as a result of the programme...hoorah again.
Jemima H is not some awful person who hates pedigree dogs...she cares VERY deeply about the health and welfare of all dogs. That's why she did the documentary.
I agree

Originally Posted by johnderondon View Post
If that is true then one could equally say that, prior to the programme, that the public laboured under the misconception that KC registered confered some quality assurance.
The fact is that some of the public do sometimes take false impressions but unless they have been actually misinformed then that is their own concern.
Rescues are inundated anyway. There's no evidence to suggest that PDE was responsible for that. There's evidence that the recession has had an impact but not PDE.
The outcome was to make public several concerns that had languished in the shadows far too long. The outcome is 78 revisions to breed standards, the 'Fit for Life, Fit for Function' initiative, increased uptake of health testing, etc, etc.
So if I wanted to make a programme about the Yorkshire Ripper I should, for every victim, include a person who he didn't kill, point out that he was kind to cats, perhaps? The programme was about highlighting the lack of effective action to tackle to problems affecting hundreds of thousands of dogs and the part that the show ring played in those problems. It was about, as the programme said, 'the greatest animal welfare scandal of our time'. It certainly wasn't incumbent on the programme makers to undermine that message by devoting time to non-relevant material.
Yeap
Reply With Quote
johnderondon
Almost a Veteran
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,283
Male 
 
10-12-2009, 11:21 AM
Originally Posted by Borderdawn View Post
On the other hand (and I dont disagree with you) there has been a HUGE increase in unregistered, untested dogs because the breeders claim registered one are unhealthy!! There are still adverts for unregistered "healthy" puppies.
There have always been unregistered dogs (whether they are tested is not a function of registration).

That some people are making claims about their unregistered pups does not translate as a "huge increase" in their numbers.
Reply With Quote
Jackie
Dogsey Veteran
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,122
Female  Diamond Supporter 
 
10-12-2009, 11:21 AM
Originally Posted by johnderondon View Post
Are they? Well, that's just speculation. It could equally be that the BBC feel that the KC are, at last, taking serious steps to remedy the failings of previous years.

Good, as they wont be missed

BTW the BBC gets its funding from the licence fee which is not dependent on Crufts TV ratings



Made an impression, did he?

Peter purves..actually yes, I liked his coverage on the internet screening.

But you will have to forgive these old brain cells of mine, they need a little caffeine to stimulate them, first thing in the morning

It may take a while, but things usually come back to me
Reply With Quote
Page 3 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >


 
Thread Tools

Where next?

Dog News Homepage
Latest and popular news, by week, month, year and all-time!

Dog News Forum
Shows dog related news by latest activity

Submit A News Story
Info on how to submit a news story

Latest Dog News...

© Copyright 2016, Dogsey   Contact Us - Dogsey - Top Contact us | Archive | Privacy | Terms of use | Top