Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Sequel

[raz]

Mind you, if Ingrid had said "all livestock for slaughter overseas" she'd have not heard a peep out of me.

She could say the sky is blue and she'd still get a peep out of me, Poods. I'll smack my head into a brick wall before I ever agree with a thing she says, such is my loathing for her

[sandgrubber]

PETA = PITA (too American? Make that PITB, for Pain In The Bum).

How about ganging up on the Pedigree Dogs Exposed blog and pointing out that the bad apples haven't spoiled the bin: That many breeders breed for health, working ability, and temperament; and that many breeders of non-pedigree dogs breed for the almighty dollar (or pound . . . pun intended); that if you want predictable dog, purebred is better; that pedigrees mean something.

I do not think this is a case of all hanging together or we'll all hang separately. I think the public has general sympathies for pedigree dogs, but are made uneasy by extremes of 'conformation' as sometimes sought in the show ring. I think it's important to put pressure on breeders who put 'winning' above all and in the process take cruel shortcuts to beauty, or relax standards for health and/or temperament. I don't want to be allied with people who breed for conformation extremes, or with people who wax their dogs. I think that hanging them out to dry would improve the pedigree dog world AND reduce the criticism.

Shaar, I believe you don't shave or wax. But do you know people who do? Do you belong to a breed club? How about working with the breed circle to gain acceptance for the fully haired Crestie as well as the hairless, and to bring shame on those who go to extremes to remove hair. Personally, I think that would be more productive than railing against PDE.

p.s., I know nothing about Cresties . . . other than having been involved, once, in a search for a valuable stud dog who had escaped from a breeder's kennels, and was especially hard to catch because it ran from everyone, especially the breeder.

[sandgrubber]

Here's the original source for this thread . . . extract follows.

http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2011/06/pde-two.html

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.

[WoofnHoof]

Mind you, if Ingrid had said "all livestock for slaughter overseas" she'd have not heard a peep out of me.

She could say the sky is blue and she'd still get a peep out of me, Poods. I'll smack my head into a brick wall before I ever agree with a thing she says, such is my loathing for her

Lol I agree with her on a couple of things, doesn't mean everything else she says isn't completely bonkers, after all even a broken clock's right twice a day :D

Interesting about PDE2 I wonder if any breeders or breed clubs will be approaching her to show off examples of how they've improved their breed? Logic would suggest that stonewalling is probably not the best strategy on this issue...

[shortstep]

I do not think this is a case of all hanging together or we'll all hang separately. I think the public has general sympathies for pedigree dogs, but are made uneasy by extremes of 'conformation' as sometimes sought in the show ring. I think it's important to put pressure on breeders who put 'winning' above all and in the process take cruel shortcuts to beauty, or relax standards for health and/or temperament. I don't want to be allied with people who breed for conformation extremes, or with people who wax their dogs. I think that hanging them out to dry would improve the pedigree dog world AND reduce the criticism.

Well problem is everyone thinks you are talking about someone else and not them. Look, I have no idea what your labs are like, but I have not seen a lab in the kennel club in years that was not over done, too big boned too heavy. I look at pics from 50 years ago and they were as I remember them in my childhood, which was not what they look like today. Then I read their OCD, elbow and hip rates. So where you see yourself and where those who are going to hang you out to dry if the see what you do as 'wrong' may be a very different places.

Anyway I think what you want is what is happening and is going to happen even more. It really is going to boil down every man and his dog for himself? Will is be a case of the Last dog standing?? I for one have given up trying to convince all dog owners and breeders that the gun is pointing directly at them!

BTW I have heard there is soon going to be a call for banning the breeding of all Neo Mastiffs in the UK. Welfare and cruelty related to extreme loose skin, bone and joint disorders, eye disorders, high rates of cnacer and very low life expectency.

If I had to bet, I think they will be featured on PDE 2 and it is not going to be pretty. Are those breeders doing anything now while they still have a chance to be seen as proactive? Not that I have heard of.

[mita]

I agree with this, but the UK KC has been doing a ton of work on these issues and made fast progress compared to other KCs, including our own.

The difficulty is that in any group of animal owners there will be people doing the wrong thing - pet owners, the racing fraternity, farmers, hunters, dog sports and yes, show. It comes down to how widespread it is and what harm you think is being done.

My difficulty is that her position seems not to be "you people need to fix this problem over here" but "there is a fundamental program with pure breed dogs". I think dog shows are the low hanging fruit, and once we are dealt with, they'll go after the others.

And I couldn't agree more with SSM's comments. The Pedigree Dogs Exposed program was an exercise in over-generalisation and under-reporting about what was already being done about the very issues raised.

The producer herself admitted, in an interview quote, that she'd exaggerated in this way, in order to grab attention. Who'd want to watch a program called 'Some Pedigree Dogs Need Attention, Most Don't. And Here's the Evidence about Both Aspects.' Ah, yes, such a balanced report, based on evidence, would be delegated to a science program. Not exactly a crowd puller for ratings.

So, for her follow-up, there'd be not a hope in Hades that she'd pop across to nearby Denmark & collect their evidence how a bunch of pure-breeds came out top of the list....over mixed-breeds, too...in the longevity stakes.

Edited June 10, 2011 by mita

[raz]

Mind you, if Ingrid had said "all livestock for slaughter overseas" she'd have not heard a peep out of me.

She could say the sky is blue and she'd still get a peep out of me, Poods. I'll smack my head into a brick wall before I ever agree with a thing she says, such is my loathing for her

Lol I agree with her on a couple of things, doesn't mean everything else she says isn't completely bonkers, after all even a broken clock's right twice a day :D

This clock is broken every minute of the day as far as I'm concerned, Woofy. She's a mental case

“I plan to send my liver somewhere in France, to protest foie gras (liver pate) ... I plan to have handbags made from my skin ... and an umbrella stand made from my seat.”

— PETA President Ingrid Newkirk speaking to onMilwaukee.com, Feb 2005

eta sorry I stuffed the quote

Edited June 10, 2011 by raz

[chevorne]

I do not think this is a case of all hanging together or we'll all hang separately. I think the public has general sympathies for pedigree dogs, but are made uneasy by extremes of 'conformation' as sometimes sought in the show ring. I think it's important to put pressure on breeders who put 'winning' above all and in the process take cruel shortcuts to beauty, or relax standards for health and/or temperament. I don't want to be allied with people who breed for conformation extremes, or with people who wax their dogs. I think that hanging them out to dry would improve the pedigree dog world AND reduce the criticism.

Well problem is everyone thinks you are talking about someone else and not them. Look, I have no idea what your labs are like, but I have not seen a lab in the kennel club in years that was not over done, too big boned too heavy. I look at pics from 50 years ago and they were as I remember them in my childhood, which was not what they look like today. Then I read their OCD, elbow and hip rates. So where you see yourself and where those who are going to hang you out to dry if the see what you do as 'wrong' may be a very different places.

Anyway I think what you want is what is happening and is going to happen even more. It really is going to boil down every man and his dog for himself? Will is be a case of the Last dog standing?? I for one have given up trying to convince all dog owners and breeders that the gun is pointing directly at them!

BTW I have heard there is soon going to be a call for banning the breeding of all Neo Mastiffs in the UK. Welfare and cruelty related to extreme loose skin, bone and joint disorders, eye disorders, high rates of cnacer and very low life expectency.

If I had to bet, I think they will be featured on PDE 2 and it is not going to be pretty. Are those breeders doing anything now while they still have a chance to be seen as proactive? Not that I have heard of.

Well that sentence made me sit back and look! How correct you are.

[chevorne]

Oh yay.. more sensationalist fodder for PETA types to go to town on.

How about someone does crossbred dogs exposed... lots of problems there too and not a single genetic health test that can help prevent them.

When we see cases like Lab x Poodles PTS aged less than 2 years due to chronic HD, I'll consider the program to be a bit more balanced.

Love your work Poodlefan!

[Are You Serious Jo]

Why would anyone let this woman and her production crew have raw footage of them knowing that she has already mislead people and has an agenda to push, you would have to be bonkers to let her stitch you up.

[mita]

Well problem is everyone thinks you are talking about someone else and not them.

No, the problem in the reporting, is over-generalisation. And this is another. 'Everyone thinks you are talking about someone else and not them.' To misquote Groucho Marx, 'Send out & get me an Everyone!'

What most people associated with purebred breeding would ask for, is a balanced reporting on the state of purebred dogs.

There is rigorous research to suggest that an overgeneralisation of all pure breeds going to Hell in a handbasket, doesn't fit the evidence. The evidence is that there's a mixed bag, of soundness & less soundness. And when compared along with mixed breeds re longevity, it was a group of pure breeds which emerged at the top.

Reporting of the reality, then, should have incorporated a balanced view. It's as important to know what has been done 'right' and how....as it is to know what has been done 'wrong' and why.

As it's said that this follow-up program will reprise the basic of the first program, then it seems to be a case of more over-generalisation and under-reporting to follow.

Edited June 10, 2011 by mita

[shortstep]

Well problem is everyone thinks you are talking about someone else and not them.

No, the problem in the reporting, is over-generalisation. And you've added another. 'Everyone thinks you are talking about someone else and not them.' To misquote Groucho Marx, 'Send out & get me an Everyone!'

Mita you took that out of context and you have used it out of context.

Sandgrubber said that she did not want to be judged by what some folks in the KC were doing, extremes for example and that she did not think she wanted to defend those breeders, she said it is not a case of all hanging together for her. My statement nor Sandgrubbers had nothing to do with PDE.

What I was talking about is how every breeders seems to think that any time there is something wrong witha breeders methods, everyone is talking about someone else and never them. Look at the term BYB, some people apply it to everyone who is not breeding champions, some apply it to anyone breeding more than 1 litter in 3 years, some apply to anyone whois not a licensed breeder in a coummunity where there are strick breeding laws like you support so stroungly. The number of people who can be labeled BYB by other breeders is endless, but of course they are never talking about me because I am not a BYB! Get it?

[mita]

Well problem is everyone thinks you are talking about someone else and not them.

No, the problem in the reporting, is over-generalisation. And you've added another. 'Everyone thinks you are talking about someone else and not them.' To misquote Groucho Marx, 'Send out & get me an Everyone!'

Mita you took that out of context and you have used it out of context.

Sandgrubber said that she did not want to be judged by what some folks in the KC were doing, extremes for example and that she did not think she wanted to defend those breeders, she said it is not a case of all hanging together for her. My statement nor Sandgrubbers had nothing to do with PDE.

This thread is about PDE and people are giving responses to it. From all angles. Including those who think there's substance in some of the reporting, & who don't support the 'wrongs' in the breeding. As with that KC example.

My comment stands. The evidence is, that not one position tells the full truth. Yet the program under discussion, suggested otherwise.

What was wanted by most discerning people in the world of purebred dog breeding, is a balanced view, admitting of the 'wrongs' but conscious of the many 'rights'.

[mumtoshelley]

What I would call a backyard breeder is someone who doesn't health test the parents dogs, aren't registered, breeding the female every time she comes into season, be it purebred or crossbred. They also seem to ask for alot of money on these dogs that have no health tests etc. Who in there right mind would pay $1200 for a labrador cross poodle some shed worse then a purebred lab,where some don't shed,all labs cross poodles don't look the same, some are aggerssive, some are friendly.So in a way you don't really know what you are getting.

If you want a crossbred please rescue one from the pound that needs a good home instand of supporting the backyard breeder.

[shortstep]

Well problem is everyone thinks you are talking about someone else and not them.

No, the problem in the reporting, is over-generalisation. And you've added another. 'Everyone thinks you are talking about someone else and not them.' To misquote Groucho Marx, 'Send out & get me an Everyone!'

Mita you took that out of context and you have used it out of context.

Sandgrubber said that she did not want to be judged by what some folks in the KC were doing, extremes for example and that she did not think she wanted to defend those breeders, she said it is not a case of all hanging together for her. My statement nor Sandgrubbers had nothing to do with PDE.

This thread is about PDE and people are giving responses to it. From all angles. Including those who think there's substance in some of the reporting, & who don't support the 'wrongs' in the breeding. As with that KC example.

My comment stands. The evidence is, that not one position tells the full truth. Yet the program under discussion, suggested otherwise.

What was wanted by most discerning people in the world of purebred dog breeding, is a balanced view, admitting of the 'wrongs' but conscious of the many 'rights'.

No of course not, I would never expect you to say you are using my words incorrectly.

Well you are not going to get what most discerning people want (define discerning please as that could mean almost anything except I am sure I am one of the descerning people as it sounds like that is 'good').

She is not making films to show what you want her to show, she is making films to show the bad she sees. Maybe you can name a breed that you think should be highlighted as an excellent example of purebred dog breeding, but she will highlinght the breeds that she feels are the worst examples.

If she highlights the neos as predicted, is she over dramatizing? Have you looked over the photos they are showing on their web site?

http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2011/03/parade-of-mutants.html

Who can not feel for those dogs.And what are the Neo breeders doing to address the situation? Nothing that I am aware of, and perhaps they feel they do not need to do anything.

Just like the bad practice of a few slauter houses being used to judge the whole industry including talking away the livelyhood of thousands of Australian families linked to the industry. Think 4 corners needs to show the 'otherside', not a chance, no one wants to hear that.

Edited June 10, 2011 by shortstep

[sandgrubber]

I emailed JH, in part to tell her about an awful link on her personal page (which she says was hacked), emphasizing that there were still healthy working dogs and that the problem wasn't PEDIGREE, it was breeding for show conformation. Her response: "I am particularly keen to highlight what can be learned from the working sides of the breeds - and probably haven't done enough of that recently." It would be great to have a PDE III that focussed on good breeding. . . and I think that could happen.

I agree with others that PDE is doing damage to the pedigee dog world. I think the emphasis on PEDIGREE is wrong, AND logically inconsistent with the goal of breeding healthy dogs. The pedigree system is the best basis for rescue of breeds that are in trouble, as the good features of the breeds we love have been concentrated through good pedigree breeding.

. . . as for Labradors

The breed standard for Labradors says 'powerful' (I think it's the secon word in the breed standard) and you are right, conformation judging is pushing the breed to exaggerate big bones and broad heads. Unfortunately, the part of the breed standard that stresses endurance and hard work is poorly tested in the ring. We in the Labrador community need to reverse that trend. We have to stop referring to the leggier working type Lab as being 'ugly' and appreciate the inherent soundness of a medium build. On the other hand, Labs should be powerful and athletic, and, being bred originally to bring in fishing nets off the coast of Newfoundland, they should be solid and able to carry a little blubber. Solid bone is good, and I think the breeders of 1950 would have preferred strong boned over lanky. Physiology permitsbalanced, stocky animals to be sound if the balance of muscle to bone is right and the architecture of bone is efficient. I'd hate to see people breeding Labs to look like greyhounds. But I would love to see Australians allow the local interpretation of the breed standard move toward a dog with a lighter coat and leaner frame, capable of sustaining work at high temperature. As for melting big brown eyes, I don't see the harm in giving a few points for experssion .

I think you are incorrect on the health question. Labradors have a reputation for HD and all quality breeders pay attention to both HD and OCD. The reputation for HD is not justified by the statistics: Australian Labrador HD average score (sum of both sides), at 12, is the same as SBT and below the KC Cavalier, Goldies, GSD's, and Airdales, to name a few. Of course, there is room for improvement . . . but Lab breeders take hip scores seriously and there should be further gradual improvement over time. I have never found statistics comparing breed average elbow scores, and would appreciate pointers to them, but given the emphasis that even show people put on looking for 0,0 elbows, I would guess OCD is fairly low and declining. Of course, there are Labrador breeders who compromise the breed by breeding their lines close and putting conformation above health and temperament.. . and these are concentrated in the show ring (and unfortunately, are rewarded by many judges). Look at the Labs selected for Guide Dogs or at sniffer dogs used by the police, or as hunting dogs (US, Scandanavia and UK are better than Oz on this score because there is much more bird hunting going on), or by the military as bomb detection dogs. You will see a much healthier looking dog. You will also find many show Labs are dual purpose, and compete in both retrieving and conformation. I'm not a showie, but I suspect that for Labbies, the worst judging comes from the 'all breeds' judges, and the breed specialists, at least with Labs, tend to emphasize 'balance' over 'power'.

What needs to happen with Labs, and with every breed, is for those who breed for moderate/balanced conformation and emphasise health and temperament in breeding programs to take a firm stand against the pressure, coming from the show ring, to exaggerate the hallmark conformational features of the breed, and to focus on breeding for health and the temperament expected in the working ancestral stock (for Labradors, biddable, intelligent, trainable, non-aggressive, stable).

Strangely, working within breed clubs Jemima Harrison prescribes . . .though she makes a lot of comments I find irritating. See:

http://pedigreedogse...d.blogspot.com/

Well problem is everyone thinks you are talking about someone else and not them. Look, I have no idea what your labs are like, but I have not seen a lab in the kennel club in years that was not over done, too big boned too heavy. I look at pics from 50 years ago and they were as I remember them in my childhood, which was not what they look like today. Then I read their OCD, elbow and hip rates. So where you see yourself and where those who are going to hang you out to dry if the see what you do as 'wrong' may be a very different places.

Anyway I think what you want is what is happening and is going to happen even more. It really is going to boil down every man and his dog for himself? Will is be a case of the Last dog standing?? I for one have given up trying to convince all dog owners and breeders that the gun is pointing directly at them!

BTW I have heard there is soon going to be a call for banning the breeding of all Neo Mastiffs in the UK. Welfare and cruelty related to extreme loose skin, bone and joint disorders, eye disorders, high rates of cnacer and very low life expectency.

If I had to bet, I think they will be featured on PDE 2 and it is not going to be pretty. Are those breeders doing anything now while they still have a chance to be seen as proactive? Not that I have heard of.

Edited June 10, 2011 by sandgrubber

[Are You Serious Jo]

JH has already been here and nothing anyone said made not one iota of difference.

[sandgrubber]

JH has already been here and nothing anyone said made not one iota of difference.

Please run a logic checker. You've got a double negative above [nothing . . . made not one iota] that blunts, if not turns around your argument. But responding to what I think you meant, as opposed to what you said . . .

How do you know? Positions, especially positions with a poor factual basis (or that defy the laws of physics), are often undermined by long sustained pressure. Immediate responses are often superficial. Think of the many people who, as youths, thought one way, and as mature adults, have changed their attitudes. KEEP UP THE PRESSURE!!!!! Maybe I'm a hopeless idealist, but I still believe in force of reason. Btw, what was the quality of the things people said? In particular, how strong was the element of denial?

When you have a debate with two sides parading half truths, improvement is possible when both sides increase their quotient of truth. May be gradual. WTF. It's taken a long time for things to degenerate. It'll take a long time for them to improve.

If I may be so vain as to use my response (posted on PDE blog) as an example . . . I think things like this need to be said, over and over and over again. No doubt others can say it better than I. I do believe the unbalanced stance of PDE can be turned. . . and the grotesque aspects of show-directed breeding can be reversed to put function before cosmetic form. I think moderation and balance are as important in argument as in dog breeding. Here's my entry to the PDE blog . . . which includes many, many interesting entries:

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.

JH has owned danes, Labbies, and now owns a flat coat. Wouldn't surprise me if she has experienced the sorrow of a sweet and beautiful, but unsound, dog (so common with danes). I'd guess she's as vulnerable to the marvels of a good working dog as I am,

Edited June 10, 2011 by sandgrubber

[shortstep]

I emailed JH, . Her response: "I am particularly keen to highlight what can be learned from the working sides of the breeds - and probably haven't done enough of that recently." It would be great to have a PDE III that focussed on good breeding. . . and I think that could happen.

I think there is a hell of lot to know about this topic. I personally think JH wil know even less about real working dog breeding practices then she knows about KC breeding practices.

But before you can even start talking about it, it is the degree or interpretation of what is meant by working.

I like the form follows function as the guideline. Lets take border collies.

Some folks think if they do a dog sport, say agility with a border collie, then that is a working dog and they breed working dogs. I think they may breed for fitness, maybe athletic ability, trainability, but agility is not the work of border collies. Border collies doing agility over the past 300 years did not drive the formation of the breed. However I think there is great potential that agility border collies will become a new breed of dog. This is where the expression form follows function can be applied to find your way through to the truth. Personally I believe that the traits that make a real working dog are the very traits tham make them good agility. I would never look to agility dogs to build a working program for border collies, the parents need to work stock not work seesaws and jumps.

Some folks would think that attending the local trials on weekend is breeding for working dogs. But the mental, fitness and even the body trait levels needed to do weekend trailing is far different than what a station dog would need to work long hours often day after day. Trials just like dogs shows come with similar faults, though trials may be bases on some idea of what is required to be considered a working dog, it is pretend, staged and not real and will never really reflect the work that developed the breed. The border collie breed was not built on 300 years of selction based on attending trails on the weekend. Though in recent times we are seeing far more breeding programs bases on popular trials dogs that have no real work background behind them, these are dogs only used to compete in trials. Usually, in days of old when the idea of trials were developed, the dogs already lived the life of a working dog, so trialing could have been considered an adjuct, but today that if often not the case. Dogs that enter the trials and never do a real days work in my mind are not as suitable to assess the bennifts of breeding for work as would be dogs and breeding programs that actually do work on a daily basis. I think we can already see some dogs that have lost abilities they need for practical work because of this type of narrowed test and selection process. (also think of the sled dog race breeding leading to new breeds that are very different from the dogs started with). I would also add there are many levels of tests or trials and it is important to understand the different levels of work needed to be sucessfull.

Some folks think that dogs that work every day on farms doing the real everyday jobs are breeding for working dogs. I would have to agree with this. It is what actually drove the formation and development of the breed over the past 300 years and it is what will keep it functional and true to type in the future. Very few breeds still are used in the original function. In many cases this is not possible for some breeds as the original work and life style has been for ever lost. But for those breeds where it is posible, I believe there is much to be gained.

So when we talk about breeding for work, I think we need to be clear exactly what we are talking about.

In all cases of doing activiates, from something like agility to recreational trialing or living the life of real work dog, there are benefits to be gained, but those benefits are not all equal and will give different results.

Edited June 10, 2011 by shortstep

[Steve]

Well problem is everyone thinks you are talking about someone else and not them.

No, the problem in the reporting, is over-generalisation. And you've added another. 'Everyone thinks you are talking about someone else and not them.' To misquote Groucho Marx, 'Send out & get me an Everyone!'

Mita you took that out of context and you have used it out of context.

Sandgrubber said that she did not want to be judged by what some folks in the KC were doing, extremes for example and that she did not think she wanted to defend those breeders, she said it is not a case of all hanging together for her. My statement nor Sandgrubbers had nothing to do with PDE.

This thread is about PDE and people are giving responses to it. From all angles. Including those who think there's substance in some of the reporting, & who don't support the 'wrongs' in the breeding. As with that KC example.

My comment stands. The evidence is, that not one position tells the full truth. Yet the program under discussion, suggested otherwise.

What was wanted by most discerning people in the world of purebred dog breeding, is a balanced view, admitting of the 'wrongs' but conscious of the many 'rights'.

So who will decide what the truth is? Who is able to see "from all angles" ? Who are these discerning people? Who is able to see the wrongs and do something about it rather than think that when a comment is made its always about the other person or the other group?

Those people who are primarily responsible for breeding purebred dogs which suffer poor quality of life are not admitting their mistakes - who ever they are- unless Ive missed something because Ive not noticed any group admitting fault . Unless of course you count the Kennel clubs making their token breed standard changes.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Steve