Sunday 5 June 2011

PDE Two

A few days ago, I let the Kennel Club and others know that the BBC has commissioned me to make a follow-up film to Pedigree Dogs Exposed, to explore what impact the film had and to assess what progress has been made in addressing conformation and genetic issues in purebred dogs since 2008.

PDE 2 will be what the BBC call a "personal view" film - acknowledging, as of course I have to, how involved I have become in this issue since making Pedigree Dogs Exposed.

There has been no response from the Kennel Club yet. I am keen for the KC to have a voice in the film so hope they will decide to take part and to let me film at one or two dog shows between now and the end of the year so we can see what progress has been made since PDE, particularly as regards the "high-profile" breeds.

I asked, in fact, to film at Southern Counties Champ Show this weekend - and was turned down by Show Chairman David Cavill, although he has kindly offered himself as an independent expert on the film. I went along anyway yesterday and, walking along the benches mid-afternoon saw a man coming towards me who looked very familiar.  We recognised each other at the same instant. It was Ronnie Irving, outgoing Chair of the KC, who did a bit of a double-take and hurried on. A few minutes later, an announcement went over the Tannoy reminding everyone that filming was not allowed. Coincidence? It was the only such announcement I heard all day.

I am, in fact, bound by strict broadcasting rules. There's nothing to stop me going in as a paying punter and using the lenses that God gave me, but, having been refused access to film, there's no way I can sneak in with a camera.

I am at Southern Counties to check out what dogs were winning from a conformation point of view, but, boy, it's easy to be distracted by the amount of 'product' being openly applied to the dogs now that the KC has suspended coat-testing. Perhaps that was the reason Ronnie Irving looked so stern-faced. Some attribute the timing of Ronnie's resignation as Chairman to the frustration he feels over the recent uprising by breeders demanding the right to slap conditioner, chalk and hairspray on their dogs - a view particularly well-articulated by  Dog World columnist Kevin Colwell the week before last.

"It strikes me as ironic that the dog showing community mounted no mass protest against unhealthy dogs being rewarded in the show ring, no mass protest against ultra-close breeding practices and no mass protest against the systematic exaggeration of some breeds," wrote Kevin in the May 26 issue of Dog World. "We manned the barricades in defence of hair spray, silicone, chalk and lacquer. The Elnett revolution; nice to know where priorities really lie."

I hear that last week at Bath Champ Show, where Ronnie judged Best in Show, one well-known exhibitor was deliberately over-generous with the lacquer in order to ensure the KC Chair's hands were sticky with the stuff after going over his dog. Very childish if true.

Cosmetic enhancement unlikely to feature very large in PDE 2, except, perhaps, when it impinges directly on health and welfare, conformation or genetics. Which, of course, sometimes it does.

13 comments:

  1. "It strikes me as ironic that the dog showing community mounted no mass protest against unhealthy dogs being rewarded in the show ring, no mass protest against ultra-close breeding practices and no mass protest against the systematic exaggeration of some breeds," wrote Kevin in the May 26 issue of Dog World. "We manned the barricades in defence of hair spray, silicone, chalk and lacquer. The Elnett revolution; nice to know where priorities really lie."

    This would be laughable if you did'nt know it is so true - unfortunatly!

    Julie

    ReplyDelete
  2. The cosmetic enhancement crowd seems to be angry because it wants the right to continue to defraud the conformation judges. That is what gets their ire up. They've even elevated it to a matter of principle!

    I witness so many conformation handlers like this, especially around the poodle ring. This is not just hair spray and chalk, although the air can be so thick with carcinogens that one really should not inhale there. I also am referring to dying coats (they call it "a rinse"), tattooing black on unpigmented portions of noses, cutting tail tendons (what the heck: if it's okay to crop a tail, what possibly could be wrong with cutting a tendon or two?), artificial conjones, etc., etc.
    --- Rod Russell, Orlando, Florida USA

    ReplyDelete
  3. were any dogs healthier than in the past? do you think that your program has made the dogs healthier?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Retrieverman wrote: "My guess is one could recreate [Trump] trough backcrossing puggles into the pug gene pool."

    Scottie, there are breeders in Germany breeding more normal-looking pugs (actually, pekes too) without backcrossing. They've simply made the most of the natural variation, including in the case of pugs some dogs from the former East Germany where there remained some with longer muzzles. You can see the result here:

    http://www.mprv.de/

    ReplyDelete
  5. Congratulations! Hopefully, the follow up will keep the momentum for change going. It would be great if they re-screened PDE as well for the consumers currently buying domestic pets. A pat on the back for the BBC too.

    There must be behavioural implications on the dogs with cosmetic changes. Scent is a major part of their communication process. Surely the overwhelming pong from toiletries will interfere with the messages they send to each other. A freshly groomed cocker will roll in fox poop for a more natural odor. A dog returning from an overnight stay at a vet might meet aggression from its house mates because its odor has changed. Surely if we are inhibiting a dog's social behaviour, it becomes a welfare issue.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Surely if we are inhibiting a dog's social behaviour, it becomes a welfare issue.

    ???

    Have just stapled hand to desk and bashed head against screen....what is the world turning into??? I can't fathom that the previous poster just put what he/she did.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I watched the first programme and would like to say it did not go far enough.

    As a dog show exhibitor i have seen dogs bred in the back of cars in front of officals who turned a blind eye, reported it to the kennel club (not interested) i have saw a mountain of illegal to put on a dog substances ( i.e haisprays, powder) on the cages in front of the judges who are there best friends then go to become champions with some of the most major faults and genetically should not be bred from, but it all falls on deaf ears in the kennel club. They give out show certificates which do not match up to the faults the dogs have and get placed first against perfectly healthy dogs. It is so corrupt and no-one is interested in the dogs. To me the kennel club will always be in the doghouse.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good luck with the new movie. I look forward to seeing what happens with it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I would suggest that it is a little early to be looking for changes in breeds. It takes many years to breed 'faults' out so no significant change will take place for several years.
    How about making programmes about those who breed designer breeds like Labradoodles and Sprockers who give no thought to genetics or temperaments. All they see is the £ sign as many of these cross breeds cost the same as or more than a pedigree dog where thought has gone into the breeding. I know of someone who paid £1200 for a Pugle and there is no guarantee as to how healthy that will be.
    So come on Ms Harrison look at these people and maybe then people will take you seriously

    ReplyDelete
  10. Please put finger on the problem. The problem is showing as a basis for selection . . . NOT PEDIGREE DOGS. The pedigree provides a solid basis for selecting for health, temperament, and working ability. Problem is, it has been misused to select for extreme conformation, particularly in some breeds.
    I sympathize with much of PDE stuff. I just wish it didn't have the effect of turning dog lovers away from the good things in the pedigree world, making life harder for breeders who put health and temperament first, and encouraging the scum who produce DD cross breeds from dogs with no traceable health records and no tested temperament as a way to make money.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Less than 2% of ANY breed goes into the show ring and teh vast majority of breeders dont show, so how can you blame shows for the problems in breed the figures dont add up! and as for your "But sales of designer crossbreeds have never been more brisk and taking on a rescue dog is seen by many as a good thing to do.. These are not people who cannot afford the £500 - £1500 for a purebred pup; it’s a deliberate choice" Its the fools that do pay £1,000s for a designer dog with NO health cheecks and are BYB, PDE just made them SEEM the healthy option when they are not, and now resuces are full of these cross breeds. Why dont you give you fee for PDE2 to sorting out that mess you help in making?

    ReplyDelete
  12. surely dogs that are a 1st crosses are more likely to be healthy as the genetic pool is widened unlike pedigrees who sometimes are too closely inbred/line bred resulting in hereditary defects!!! its seems to me pedigree breeders are a narked that a designer hybrid can cost as much as the pedigrees they produce. jus because a dog is a pedigree it doesnt mean its healthy, in fact wivout goin to a breeder who performs hereditary tests and checks on their brood bitches u are more likely to get hereditary problem in a pedigree

    ReplyDelete
  13. Buy a x bred and you MAY be lucky re the gene pool. However you MAY get the worst of both breeds BUT most important is if there are no health and temperament checks which should be specific to the parent breeds you ARE buying trouble. It is a PDE myth that buying a 1st generation cross you are buying health. Also all mongrels are a type and ALL should have basic healthchecks. Someone has bred every rescue killed by the RSPCA they don't just appear as immaculate conceptions!! Kerrching! for the puppy farmer/accidental breeder.

    ReplyDelete