In the wake of the BBC programme about the serious health problems affecting dogs which have been bred to breed standard as set down by the Kennel Club, should the BBC stop broadcasting Crufts or is it not their mandate to show an opinion by selecting out the subject?

For those who didn't see the programme, it is posted on Youtube...I don't have the precise URL but a search for "pedigree dogs" would find it. It is in 6 parts.

It's not really up to the BBC because if they didn't show it some other broadcaster probably would.

The issue is with the Kennel Club who could end this barbarism at a stroke. It is amazingly a Charitable trust which receives tax relief on donations received and other financial perks, not to mention Corporate sponsorship. I feel tht pressure should be brought to bear there as the world is run by beancounters

I have little interest in 'so called' pedigree dogs when I was young all my dogs were rescue animals from the PDSA (Don't get me started on the RSPCA!) they were all brilliant animals cross-breds and mongrels that lived longer and with less illness and expensive dietry requirements than the over hyped Pedigree equivalents.

Anyway didn't I hear somewhere that the concept of a pedigree dog was only introduce 200 years ago?

__________________
Pone ubi sol non lucet!

Dog Genetic health

Here is the Kennel Club statement in response to hearing about the programme

__________________
Pone ubi sol non lucet!

I didn't see the programme, however if the claims are independantly substantiated then I think any broadcaster would have to at least review whether they should include KC sposnsored activities on it's channels.

The Brits love their dogs, but it's many of the same people who buy KC registered pedigrees in perfectly good faith that they are buying a "top dog" that would normally be the target audience of Crufts.

Maybe a question best answered by a pedigree dog owner? Anyone on the board got one?

I got two but they are both rescues, one from a puppy farm and the other no longer wanted once she had been all used up!!! I hate Crufts and all it stands for!!!

I'll second that...I own pedigree dogs but they are working Border Collies and were bred form long ancestry of good working dogs on both sides. They were bred for stamina, intelligence, their natural working instincts and their "biddabiity" (desire to work WITH humans as opposed to being in their own world apart). Those like me don't give a hoot about what they look like. My 11 year old Jess was retired from the field last year though I know of many BC's which are still working at 12 or 13 years old. She is still running and playing happily.
Crufts is the acceptable face of a world which does indeed practise eugenics...and like the famous 1930's experiments, they deny the most obvious realities even when they experience the results themselves. I am appalled that the British public still allows this kind of abuse to go on.
Sooty was right...the financial props which make this happen should be withdrawn and legislation to disallow incestuous breeding should be introduced immediately. As a sub-clause, I feel that all breeders who sell pups through whatever channel should take a course in canine care and be licenced. When I bred BC's in France I had to do a three day course at their equivalent KC and do an exam. It covered health, sanitation, genetics, finance and sociaisation of the pups. It was a super idea and one we should copy.
I hope this issue doesn't fade away...it needs to be made a national cause, IMO.

sadly a licence does not make a breeder a good person and as the law states that as long as an animal can stand up and turn around then breeders generally go with this rule to cram as many breed bitches into a small area as possible.........of course even them that do not hold a licence there are ways of getting around this law by having one dog under the number required by law in the pens and the rest in the house being claimed as house dogs

The problem is that licences now held under the Local Authority are not fllowed up and inspections are a rare event. But the keeping of dogs and back-yard breeding isn't the same issue as in-breeding and show breeding. Tio be fair, most of the show breeders do keep good kennels...it is their breeding priorities which are creating the problems.
In nature, any dog found to be deficient in health is naturally culled. Veterinary science and a cushy llife has made it easy to keep disfunctional dogs ut when I was reading a canine discussin list there seemed to be an undercurrent of calm acceptance about culling pups which didn't conform to breed standard. In addition, many breeders would sell pups but with a contract that the owner neuter it so they could keep their line to themselves. Of course with AI now this is silly...but I mention it as an example of the cut-throat seriousness with which some of these people play "the game".
I have always been saddened by the huge holes in the current licencing details, even after the 1999 Animal Welfare Act was supposed to change so much. I know of one man who gets around the rule about a bitch only having one litter a year by constantly buying in and seing out bitches. Everyone knows he does it, but technically he is legal. He gets as many litters as he wants. But by licence I meant also that there should be legislation to prevent in-breeding, which can now be traced via DNA testing. We have the technology, but the KC exerts so much pressure on MP's etc that it will be a long time before it ever happens.
I am aftraid that public awareeness and outcry is only temporary and that as I write, more deformed pups are being born, registered and entered in dog shows.

If only this were true, I know of first hand experience of a person who kept a lot of small pedigrees just to show them, they were kept in cages stacked up on top of each other and were in a neglected condition until she wanted to show them and then they were clipped, preened, ears stripped ect and the day after the show back they went into there cages

how very sad

Sad yes but I hesitate to make assumptions of a general naturee based on one anecdote.
However I would like to go back to the original purpose of this thread...should the BBC show any opinion in the matter THEY researched by axing Crufts, or have they done their job and should now let the general public's opinion take its course? Looking a bit further down that road, what if they did a report on the Labour/conservative party and found serious breaches of financial conduct...should they then refuse to cover all Labour /Conservative Party gatherings, functions and campaigning? Surely then they would be accused of bias and lose all credibility. By the same token, if they show bias towards the KC and refuse any dealings with them, are they then not showing bias? Yet they perhaps should take a moral stand on behalf of the public...but where does it stop?

I see this as an interesting example of the moral conundrums that the press have to decide and which ultimately creates public perception of an issue.