Jemima Harrison

[shortstep]

http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/News/2011/Feb2011/pedigree.htm

Jemima Harrison Pedigree Dogs Exposed gets Exposed.

JEMIMA HARRISON has hardly been out of the headlines since the transmission of her PDE programme which caused such a furore. However, it now appears that she has created her own headline after a top winning dog was the subject of wildly inaccurate accusations.

In emails to a top breeder Ms Harrison admits that her own research and accuracy has been found wanting.

Attending the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare (APGAW) in December 2010, Ms Harrison not only prepared a damning and inaccurate two page document for circulation at the meeting but also has admitted transmitting it electronically.

The meeting, which was devoted entirely to the breeding of dogs and dangerous dogs, featured attendees from the Kennel Club, the National Dog Wardens' Association, the RSPCA, the BVA, the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group and Jemima Harrison of Passionate Productions.

Speaking at the meeting, the minutes of which are in the public domain on the APGAW website, she said, ‘I made the Pedigree Dogs Exposed documentary and now I run a blog on pet owners who are experiencing problems. People don’t know how to buy a dog and where to go. We live in an age where we expect things we buy to be of merchantable quality. I have had recent examples of poor Shar Pei breeding, where the current top show dog has both parents having suffered from heredity disease, and yet the dog continues to be bred from. Not much is done if a disease or problem is identified, so I want to say don’t underestimate the scale of this problem and I think the problem is that ultimately we do not have an organisation overseeing the whole thing, which ensures dogs are of merchantable quality before being sold to the consumer.’

On the leaflet she prepared about the Shar Pei, one of the 15 high profile breeds recently designated for special treatment by the Kennel Club, Harrison had cut and pasted unprotected images from the Kennel Club's Crufts website and that of the Shar Pei Club of Great Britain, and also incorporated these same photographs of Shar Pei ‘Wrink’ on her internet blog.

However, the inclusion of the Crufts 2010 Best of Breed Ch/Am Ch Asias Red Marsh Whip It Good, proved to be a big mistake.

Resolute

Just four days after the meeting in the House of Commons, one of the co-owners of the American imported dog, Tim Ball, received a copy of the document, addressed to both him and Joy Bradley (another co-owner), anonymously in the post. Initially believing this to be a malicious act, they very quickly realised this was, in fact, a very friendly act which was intended to give them the opportunity to defend their Shar Pei.

It was however, the first they were to know about this document and the spurious accusations contained in it about Wrink.

It would be impossible to describe the utter distress, pain and ultimately anger that these allegations caused Tim and Joy as individuals, and equally as devotees of the breed. Both have been actively involved in the breed since the early 80s. Tim is currently a Vice President and Honorary life member of the Shar Pei Club of Great Britain and Joy is the club secretary. They devote much time and effort to promoting the breed, with health foremost in their endeavours. It was abhorrent to them to be accused of proliferating a disease that they are, in fact, at the forefront of raising funds for research into the very condition they are accused of ignoring.

Resolute in the knowledge that their ward was not as he was being portrayed, they set about getting the evidence to prove just how spurious these accusations were and, with little effort, were able to disprove every false statement made about the dog and his lineage. It seems incredulous that the author of this leaflet could not have achieved the same result with very little research required to do so.

At no time, prior to the publication of the document, were any of Wrink’s owners contacted to comment on the information collated by Ms Harrison from her ‘reliable source’, something surely so fundamental that any researcher/presenter would hold it paramount before rushing into any sort of print. Information was, almost immediately, forthcoming from within the Kennel Club that the author had already recanted the spurious allegation that Wrink had produced puppies with Familial Shar Pei Fever. Very soon after that, Wrink’s co-breeder and co-owner, Lisa Myers, had received a full apology from Ms Harrison, admitting the totally erroneous remarks about his parents both having died of amyloidosis. In actual fact, Wrink’s father (and grandfather) had both been shown at the recent Chinese Shar Pei Club of America’s National Specialty in Lawrence, Kansas, both as veterans and both in beautiful bloom. Wrink’s dam is deceased, but had died in a tragic accident some years previously at the home of Lisa, sadly while she was elsewhere.

At this point, even though Ms Harrison was now in possession of the full and correct facts, she still failed to contact either of the English owners, a fact which totally disgusted both of them. All the allegations had been shown to be unfounded but no contact from her was forthcoming, and this fact alone prompted the first contact between Tim and Ms Harrison.

Replying just a few hours later, Ms Harrison sent an email back to Tim Ball saying that an apology was clearly owed and another one for not pre-empting his email and getting in touch with him before he contacted her.

Jemima also said that the flyer was based on what she believed to be good information from a reliable source. However, she clearly realised it wasn't and went on to apologise for any distress caused. She also told Tim that she had strong views about the Shar-pei, as was clear from her blog. She said that she believed that the conformation needed to change and that the breed was ‘juggling a lot of health problems with, unfortunately, no test available currently for one of the breed's biggest problems.’ She stated she was ‘normally very careful about naming particular dogs’ - not least because she was aware that world of dogs was is awash with misinformation and, if ‘I get it wrong, it discredits me as a commentator.’

She said that the flyer was never intended for publication. ‘It was prepared for a small meeting’ she said, ‘I took only five copies of it with me and returned with two, so it had very limited distribution at the meeting.’

She said that she had then sent it electronically to the same three people and one other, none of whom should have forwarded it to anyone and none of whom were in Shar-peis. However, she admitted that this was ‘no excuse’ for getting the facts wrong in this instance. ‘I really should have checked it more thoroughly,’ she told Tim.

Errors

Ms Harrison said that as soon as soon as she found out the mistake, she had contacted the four people who had copies of the flyer, pointing out the errors, and asked them to not forward it to anyone, so there should not be any further distribution.

She concluded: ‘I am very pleased to hear that Wrink's sire is still alive and going strong; also that he has been health-tested for hips/patella and thyroid (and I can see from the OFA database that his results were good). Do you also test him for urine/kidney function - I see this is recommended by Dr Jeff Vidt but am not sure if it is standard procedure/considered necessary by breeders.’

She agreed that she herself would be ‘furious too’ in the same situation and completely understood why the owners were upset. She finished by saying: ‘I really am so sorry for

getting the facts wrong in this instance and I very much hope you will feel able to accept this apology.’

Electronic

It is difficult to understand how anyone can say, ‘it was never meant for publication’ when the very same document was taken to a ‘small meeting’ – a full meeting of the APGAW at the House of Commons, and admits to sending it electronically. As a direct result of Ms Harrison placing this

information into the realm of electronic communication, all control of who read it was lost and the furore began.

To cast such aspersions on any individual dog without substantiated evidence seems wanton, but to select a dog purely because of its success in the show ring is despicable. As his owners told OUR DOGS: ‘Wrink is probably the most health tested Shar Pei in this country and come the day when the test for FSF/Amyloidosis is available, he will be first in line to ultimately prove what we already believe.’

Although Tim and Joy have been subjected to this onslaught of character assassination and their ethics questioned, they wholeheartedly thank the person who sent them the document and they remain resolute in working towards the betterment of the breed they cherish and Wrink will continue to do what he does best – enjoy life!

Speaking to OUR DOGS last week Tim Ball and Joy Bradley pointed out that the Shar Pei they had been fortunate to co-own and campaign in the UK show ring had been one of the breed's most

successful show dogs of all time, as well as being an absolute pleasure to live with.

‘Wrink’ was BIS at Bath Championship Show last year, has won five Groups and multiple Group placings, has 21 CCs to his credit and was Group 2 at last month's Manchester Dog Show Society Championship show. In addition, he was Top Utility 2010 and last year was ranked eighth overall across all breeds.

How so much unsubstantiated information was gathered is worrying given that it was placed before many senior members of the APGAW presumably including Professor Sheila Crispin.

OUR DOGS contacted Ms Harrison on Monday this week, and late on Tuesday afternoon; after further calls from OUR DOGS Ms Harrison declined to comment.

[Jed]

Ms Harrison's usual modus operandi.

Shame the public believes her.

A pointer to her agenda

Ms Harrison

I think the problem is that ultimately we do not have an organisation overseeing the whole thing, which ensures dogs are of merchantable quality before being sold to the consumer.’

Anyone who believes purebred dogs will exist in 25 years is naive.

[Tralee]

Anyone who believes purebred dogs will exist in 25 years is naive.

Jed

Why?

Who, how and when will they be taken away?

I think you are underestimating the Environmental Imperative that is now facing us.

All animals, great and small, must become sacrosanct.

P.

[shortstep]

Anyone who believes purebred dogs will exist in 25 years is naive.

Jed

Why?

Who, how and when will they be taken away?

I think you are underestimating the Environmental Imperative that is now facing us.

All animals, great and small, must become sacrosanct.

P.

By/As the end result of people who use words like enviromental impertive and dogs in the same sentence.

BTW Domestic animals are not Sacrosact to an enviromentalist.

Anyway I have to go, time to take my SUV carbon equivalent for a run.

Edited February 12, 2011 by shortstep

[Jed]

Anyone who believes purebred dogs will exist in 25 years is naive.

Jed

Why?

Who, how and when will they be taken away?

I think you are underestimating the Environmental Imperative that is now facing us.

All animals, great and small, must become sacrosanct.

P.

Animal rights have been working for 20 years to have dogs wiped out. It took a while, but it is working now.

With many other dog breeders, I believe that people like Ms Harrison will have legislation and rules enacted which make it too difficult and too restrictive to breed dogs, so breeders will walk away.

It has happened already, over a period of years - I think about 60,000 something registered purebred dogs were bred in Aus last year, a number which is lower than previous years.

Docking legislation saw some walk. First degree matings are now banned, soon second degree matings will be banned also, the people who approve of those things leave the hobby.

It is a hobby - the hobby breeders will go -too hard, too expensive - and the puppy farms will flourish ... they can afford it, and when you are making a profit, you want to see that continue, so you will do more than someone with a hobby

Most breeders over 50 agree with that.

[jr_inoz]

i have to say - some people's responses are a little more than interesting too.

[shortstep]

And don't you love this rhetoric....

'organisation overseeing the whole thing, which ensures dogs are of merchantable quality before being sold to the consumer.’

Yep that is what we need, dog breeders working under a government directed program to provide Merchantable Quaility dogs. I do hope the Uni will be working with these merchantable quality breeders to insure the latest and greatest in dog breeding trends and theories are being followed to the letter.

[mita]

Thanks for posting that article. There's one hero in the telling....the person who anonymously sent a copy of JH's statement for the Committee, to the dog's owners. A dog that she'd said had died from some appalling condition. But actually, is alive & well.

Way back when JH made her first dramatic critique of pedigree dogs, she acknowledged in an interview that she'd over-stated to get attention to the subject.

So, here we go again. Her behaviour has lived up to the name of her enterprise, Passionate Productions. I'd have trouble with anyone who was offering 'research' or 'information', under that label. If I were chair of any committee where such a 'company' was giving a submission, I'd tell them to change their name to Rational Productions. And only come back, after trying some of that.

There's also an excellent comment at the bottom of the article, by 'Dr Barnes'. All he says was posted here on DOL, when JH's program first surfaced.

[Shazzapug]

Anyone who believes purebred dogs will exist in 25 years is naive.

Jed

Why?

Who, how and when will they be taken away?

I think you are underestimating the Environmental Imperative that is now facing us.

All animals, great and small, must become sacrosanct.

P.

Search the forum for all the PETA discussions.....thats Why?

[Steve]

Anyone who believes purebred dogs will exist in 25 years is naive.

Jed

Why?

Who, how and when will they be taken away?

I think you are underestimating the Environmental Imperative that is now facing us.

All animals, great and small, must become sacrosanct.

P.

Some months ago I was approached to join a board which was intended to come together to oversee dog breeders. The theory and driving forces behind that is that when the Bateson report was released in the UK one of the recommendations was that there should be a board introduced - which has now been established in the UK to over see the breeding of dogs. I also remember a lengthy conversation I had with one of the driving forces behind anti purebreds in this country where he told me that there would be a major push as part of their strategic plans to introduce an umbrella org in this country to oversee dog breeders.

If this happened it would mean that an outside body would have the final call on things such as breed standards,breeding COIs - basically what breeds could and could not be bred based on welfare grounds etc.

The conversation I had which was asking us to join a voluntary board had a sales pitch which at first seemed appealing. Come onto a voluntary board so that we can then say we dont need government intervention because we now have our own board to oversee the dog industry. Vetab was used as the example where a voluntary baord was established and prevented a government run board calling the shots. At least this woul dgive as access to the ground floor and maybe we could have a voice in what comes next - right? As we chatted a bit more and I was told who else would have a seat on this advisory board it became very clear that the numbers would most definitely be stacked against those who understood and/or who supported purebred breeding. In effect it would be like asking 5 sheep to sit down with 15 wolves and vote on whats for dinner. We would be the sheep.

I suppose to a degree the thinking behind the introduction in two states of an accredited breeder program may have stemmed from the same seeds but Im guessing.

Look at Victoria where already under the prevention of cruelty to animals act it is illegal to breed a certain breed of cat with the legislation already in place to simply add more breeds.Where certain matings can see a breeder placed in gaol. Where showing a dog which has been debarked in another state by a certified vet can see you become a crimminal.

Take a good look at regs which dictate breeding protocols designed for a PR exercise and have no basis is science or what is best for the species to a point where even our own believe it and start to beat their drum in time with the animal rights. Always taking more and more decision making ability out of the hands of the breeders.

Professor Clare Wade did the research and said we rarely in bred publicly at a meeting soon after the PDE program - she told me personally that it was a given that the worst advice you can say to a breeder who has been line breeding is to outcross, she told me that the problem with purebred dogs in her opinion had little to do with in breeding and mostly had to do with selection and yet the ANKC have banned certain types of mating on relatedness and not on selection issues. Why? They have taken a tool from us which we may have been able to use to the breed's health advantage. Now when they propose laws to make breeders crimminals if they breed closely there is no resistance and they have to just go along with it.

Why? Because across the board the idea that purebred dogs are less healthy is being promoted and some have an agenda to stop all dogs from ever breeding again.

because breeders have become idiots, scum who are cruel and dont know what they are doing.

Who ? Animal rights and brainwashed do gooders who will and have infiltrated politics and government. Fuelled by peopel like JH.

When ? More and more every day. Every time you introduce regs and laws which make it harder and less enjoyable for those who have been doing it as a passion, every time you place expectations on breeders which make them responsible for things they cannot be reasonably held responsible for, everytime you give in even a little bit to the interference of loonies who know crap about what it takes to consistently breed a healthy well temperamented predictable dog.

How do you make it harder for people to own more than two dogs and breed a litter now and then. Stop them from having the right to have them debarked, stop them from having the right to own an entire dog, stop them from being able to breed a puppy with out a licence, planning permits and lack of privacy and freedom of choice.

encourage them to learn about the species but then take away the ability to decide what is bets for their dogs in their back yard because what they know or learn isnt counted. Split the groups and have them working against each other - showies against those who dont show, purebred against cross bred etc so when new laws are presented against one group the other cheers. You can probably do a fair job having the breeders of different breeds working against each other too.

The fact that this person has used lies to perpetuate and continue to stir the pot is disgraceful and it has far far reaching consequences way into the furture and I hope someone gets lots of money out of a law suit for it.

[Jed]

Steve

Split the groups and have them working against each other - showies against those who dont show, purebred against cross bred etc so when new laws are presented against one group the other cheers. You can probably do a fair job having the breeders of different breeds working against each other too.

And that happened about 10 - 15 years ago. And the divide will continue to widen.

Steve

The fact that this person has used lies to perpetuate and continue to stir the pot is disgraceful and it has far far reaching consequences way into the furture and I hope someone gets lots of money out of a law suit for it.

the consequences will be the end of purebred dogs, because "everyone" who shouts loudest believes this. As the people here believed what came out of PDE, no matter what those "at the coal face" said. No one will sue because there will never be a cohesive whole

There is no hope. Newer breeders will struggle on, not knowing any better.

[shortstep]

Good post Steve!

Jed, I agree.

25 years ago, we knew there was an eye disease in our breed. We knew it was simple recessive, but had no way to know which dogs carried it. We all did eye exams on the adult parents, eliminated all affected dogs and kept extensive lists of dogs eye results, attempting to see what lines or combination of lines might be carrying the disease. Where was Jemima then, did she own dogs then? I have no idea.

About 18-20 years ago we found out that very young dogs could have the disease but the symptoms faded and could not bee seen as they got older, so we started eye screening whole litters at 7 weeks of age just in case we might miss it. We also started to donate money to genetic eye research. The breeders of my breed were very self motivated to do what ever we could. Where was Jemima then? I do not remember the name.

Then (was it maybe around 15 years ago) members of our breed got a DNA research project going, and we raised more money, year after year. We collected data on thousands of dogs, by offering eye examines. Where was Jemima then, was she making docos yet about how bad dog breeders were?

Then the gene was found and a test was made!!!! (about 2002 from memory) We had what we needed at last, a way to prevent this disease, but Jemima missed the party. Still can't say that I had heard of Jemima by this time either.

Since then thousands upon thousands of dogs have been tested. I can not think of breeder that is not eye testing the parents of their litters, can not think of any pups born with this disease since we had the test. A real victory for the breed, made possible by the dedicated breeders/owners who would not give up and with the help of those dedicated in science. Too bad Jemima has not reported a doco on this breeds wonderful success story (by self motivated breeders), not enough shock and horror I guess to sell another doco.

So life goes on. We are now busy supporting research to find other genes for diseases our breed can have, and just as busy doing everything else we can to breed healthy and happy dogs. Jemima, her doco, nor her ongoing witch hunting efforts have not had anything to do with this.

Edited February 15, 2011 by shortstep

[aussielover]

Anyone who believes purebred dogs will exist in 25 years is naive.

Do you really believe that?

Where will the police, customs, guide dogs, assistance dogs etc source their dogs from?

[shortstep]

Anyone who believes purebred dogs will exist in 25 years is naive.

Do you really believe that?

Where will the police, customs, guide dogs, assistance dogs etc source their dogs from?

OK I will play the Why game.

Why do these sorts of jobs require purebred dogs over cross bred desigener dogs made for these jobs, or even better why not dogs selected from the animal shelter?

Why do we as selfish humans inslave any dog purebred or not purebred, to do these jobs? That is what animal rights groups would answer to your WHY.

Why do people think that you can have animal rights groups and the government direct and manage how dogs are to be bred and anyone in their right mind would want to step into that no win situation?

Edited February 15, 2011 by shortstep

[aussielover]

Anyone who believes purebred dogs will exist in 25 years is naive.

Do you really believe that?

Where will the police, customs, guide dogs, assistance dogs etc source their dogs from?

OK I will play the Why game.

Why do these sorts of jobs require purebred dogs over cross bred desigener dogs made for these jobs, or even better why not dogs selected from the animal shelter?

Why do we as selfish humans inslave any dog purebred or not purebred, to do these jobs? That is what animal rights groups would answer to your WHY.

Why do people think that you can have animal rights groups and the government direct and manage how dogs are to be bred and anyone in their right mind would want to step into that no win situation?

These sort of jobs have a strict criteria- physical and mental. They need dogs that have a proven history of success and certain temperament traits. They also require a specific size of dog (for police and guide dogs) and many need to very sensitive puppy-raising period, in order to get the best out of the dog. You can't get these from cross bred dogs or shelter dogs.

Is it not more selfish to let humans suffer without the aid of an assistance dog? Many of these dogs are also loving companions for their handlers and enjoy their work.

[Steve]

Anyone who believes purebred dogs will exist in 25 years is naive.

Do you really believe that?

Where will the police, customs, guide dogs, assistance dogs etc source their dogs from?

OK I will play the Why game.

Why do these sorts of jobs require purebred dogs over cross bred desigener dogs made for these jobs, or even better why not dogs selected from the animal shelter?

Why do we as selfish humans inslave any dog purebred or not purebred, to do these jobs? That is what animal rights groups would answer to your WHY.

Why do people think that you can have animal rights groups and the government direct and manage how dogs are to be bred and anyone in their right mind would want to step into that no win situation?

These sort of jobs have a strict criteria- physical and mental. They need dogs that have a proven history of success and certain temperament traits. They also require a specific size of dog (for police and guide dogs) and many need to very sensitive puppy-raising period, in order to get the best out of the dog. You can't get these from cross bred dogs or shelter dogs.

Is it not more selfish to let humans suffer without the aid of an assistance dog? Many of these dogs are also loving companions for their handlers and enjoy their work.

But who is going to bred them?

[shortstep]

Anyone who believes purebred dogs will exist in 25 years is naive.

Do you really believe that?

Where will the police, customs, guide dogs, assistance dogs etc source their dogs from?

OK I will play the Why game.

Why do these sorts of jobs require purebred dogs over cross bred desigener dogs made for these jobs, or even better why not dogs selected from the animal shelter?

Why do we as selfish humans inslave any dog purebred or not purebred, to do these jobs? That is what animal rights groups would answer to your WHY.

Why do people think that you can have animal rights groups and the government direct and manage how dogs are to be bred and anyone in their right mind would want to step into that no win situation?

These sort of jobs have a strict criteria- physical and mental. They need dogs that have a proven history of success and certain temperament traits. They also require a specific size of dog (for police and guide dogs) and many need to very sensitive puppy-raising period, in order to get the best out of the dog. You can't get these from cross bred dogs or shelter dogs.

Is it not more selfish to let humans suffer without the aid of an assistance dog? Many of these dogs are also loving companions for their handlers and enjoy their work.

But who is going to bred them?

My hand it not up, I don't want to breed government controlled, merchantable quality dogs.

However, I am sure the puppy farms will be very interested. Just write out the governement breeding plans, set up the license and inspections programs, state how much they will get paid for merchantable quaility pups for service work, place your orders and they will breed all the dogs you want.

[aussielover]

Puppy farm dogs, like many shelter dogs, will not have the quality, temperament or upbringing required for a service dog.

[Jed]

Jemima was quick to criticize those dishonest breeders busily breeding unhealthy dogs. I notice the cocker breeders worldwide who undertook a variety of fund raising efforts for years to provide funds for researchers to discover the gene, and subsequently, a test for FN in cocker spaniels didn't even rate a mention.

I notice Jemima wasn't mentioning the hundreds of thousands of pounds raised by cavalier breeders and clubs world wide to try to discover a test for heart murmurs.

I notice that when she slates the Australian CKCS with SM, she uses out of date figures, and forgets to say that because of the cost and difficulty of having tests done 10 years ago, it was only the dogs suspected of having SM which were scanned, so the results could go into the studies, in the hope of finding the cause.

And she has been proved a liar. Shame people still believe her

aussielover

Puppy farm dogs, like many shelter dogs, will not have the quality, temperament or upbringing required for a service dog

The service organisations, or the government, will need to breed them. Or they will need to come from puppy farms.

(Jed @ 12th Feb 2011 - 10:41 AM)

Anyone who believes purebred dogs will exist in 25 years is naive.

Aussielover

Do you really believe that?

I wouldn't write it, or have been writing it for at least 6 years if I didn't believe it.

Now we are in a situation where it is all beginning to happen, and more breeders are walking away. You don't need me to tell you, simply look at the numbers of puppies bred. They do shape up with other years, but as the population increases the pup numbers should increase too.

Some people who would like a purebred dog simply cannot have one, and with new regulations in the pipeline, more breeders will leave. Initially, they will be replaced by young inexperienced breeders. They will not have the mentoring or advice of previous generations, and will probably leave fairly quickly.

And more regulations will bite harder

Edited February 15, 2011 by Jed

[shortstep]

Now we are in a situation where it is all beginning to happen, and more breeders are walking away. You don't need me to tell you, simply look at the numbers of puppies bred. They do shape up with other years, but as the population increases the pup numbers should increase too.

Some people who would like a purebred dog simply cannot have one, and with new regulations in the pipeline, more breeders will leave. Initially, they will be replaced by young inexperienced breeders. They will not have the mentoring or advice of previous generations, and will probably leave fairly quickly.

And more regulations will bite harder

Here are the numbers

ANKC pup registration

1990 87,768 pups registered

2010 66,040 pups registered

In the past 20 years, a drop of 21,728 ANKC pups.

Yet the number of mix bred, cross bred and unregistered pups born in Australia each year has increased dramatically (some say by 100's of thousands a year) which is very hard to pin down as they are all unregistered BYB breeders and puppy fams.

There is no question that the constant attacks on purebred dogs and the (inadvertant??) promotion of puppy farms and BYB by animal rights groups, the unis, the government, the AVA may well bring an end to purebred dogs in Australia.