Vet News PETA gloms onto Pedigree Dogs Exposed...and earns a smackdown

This news just in courtesy of Terrierman, Patrick Burns:

“The makers of Pedigree Dogs Exposed, the BBC documentary film that led to the BBC withdrawing from televising Crufts Dog Show in the UK are furious with PETA for jumping on the film’s bandwagon.”

If you’ve never seen this excellent documentary, here’s an exemplary clip. As its title suggests, it’s an exposé of dog breeding for the show ring in the UK, complete with examples of poor trait propagation while interviewed dog industry reps urge welfare reform in the show dog world.

As profiled on Dolittler in many past posts, (here’s one), the breeding of dogs with an eye towards conformation often means that health takes a back seat. Some breed standards are even gravitating towards more extreme conformation (reference the English bulldog in America, among others), which essentially rewards show dog breeders for their dogs’ increasingly poor health.

These are the real designer dogs in the most literal sense. They are crafted of existing genetic material so that, by design, many breeds cannot breathe, cannot breed, cannot run, cannot live what most of us would consider “normal, healthy dog lives.”

For these breeders, “normal, healthy dog life” is a subjective quality that holds minimal sway in the face of their breed’s history and the show ring judges’ opinions.

Then there are the unintended consequences that arise from the craft of genetic manipulation. These are the offspring of dogs “line-bred” to enhance certain traits. These are the result of popular “sires” who taint the breed by widely distributing genetic defects that may or may not be in evidence at the time of breeding.

The resulting detritus trickles down to the “pet-quality” dogs who suffer seizures, severe angular limb deformities, congenital eye and heart malformations, hip dysplasia and other unwanted traits. We, the public at large, are their recipients.

Predictably, perhaps, PETA has spoken out in favor of Pedigree Dogs Exposed and its message. The documantary’s producers, however, have rejected PETA’s support. Instead, they’ve taken this opportunity to lambast PETA for its record on shelter pet euthanasia and extreme agenda. Here’s their response to PETA’s glom:

“I am horrified that PETA is using the film to further its own, warped agenda,” says Jemima Harrison, of Passionate Productions, which made the film for the BBC. “Our film is about animal welfare, not animal rights.

“PETA’s animal welfare record is appalling. It kills 97 per cent of the dogs that come to its shelters and admits its ultimate aim is to rid the world of what it calls the “domestic enslavement” of dogs as either pets or working dogs.

“In stark contrast, and the reason we made the film, is that we believe pedigree dogs are of tremendous value to society and that something needs to be done to arrest the damage caused by decades of inbreeding and selection for ‘beauty’. The film is a passionate call for urgent reform to save them before it is too late. To do that, there needs to be urgent reform of breeding practices and dog shows.

“PETA is a bunch of crackpots who do not care about anything but publicity and making money. They have not bothered to contact us - and, indeed, if they did we would make it very clear we do not want their support. It devalues and marginalises a film that raises a serious issue that needs to be addressed, and quickly.”

I couldn’t agree more. Nor can I think of a better approach than the Terrierman’s take:

“If we want to IMPROVE dogs we cannot allow the movement to be hijacked by lunatics who would KILL all dogs.”

This, I believe.

January 9th, 2009

Add Comment41 Comments

I laughed all the way through this - not at the circumstances of the animals involved, but that a responsible, reliable agency has finally given PETA a huge public smackdown. I think most people who support PETA do so blindly; they have no idea what the organization *really* does. They simply think that PETA is about being "nice to animals". Yay for Pedigree Dogs Exposed!

Kara January 9th, 2009 10:33:35 AM

Dr. K, although I am not an unabashed fan of PETA and decry many of the things specified in the orgs statements, there are things that they do that are very good and admirable and are NOT being done by any other organization. They have done undercover video exposes of situations that other organizations deliberately turned a blind eye to. They have been relentless in getting the message out about fur and factory farming -- much more than any other org and frankly, I think they can take most of the credit for the decline in popularity of fur.

I think they are total hypocrites in many ways (the euthanasia stuff is outrageous). BUT BUT BUT . . . on the other hand, many of their campaigns NEED TO BE DONE by somebody, and htey are the only people doing it. They really have raised awareness on lots of things.

Frankly, I believe that someday there will be new leadership at PETA, and this schizophrenia will end. I'm an optimist on that score.

stefani January 9th, 2009 10:56:05 AM

Spectacular!

Posey January 9th, 2009 10:57:27 AM

Agree with Stefani. I have no personal use for PETA, and unfortunately their reputation for histrionics has put them solidly in the "wacko" category in many people's minds. However, I have to admit, I probably would not be as aware of some of the animal welfare issues such as factory and fur farming if they were not out front and center drawing attention to those travesties. But yes, it gives me a little shiver of glee to see them take a boot in the arse from the BBC. :)

Shasta January 9th, 2009 11:16:59 AM

The "trickle down" effect may now not be as prevelant in some breeds. And that may be bad news for the dogs bred specifically for the pet trade. Most responsible breeders, the ones who test test test and remove dogs from their breeding programs are also the most diligent about requiring spay neuter for pets, altering dogs that are older when they leave their homes and are the ones who require anyone interested in breeding into their lines to follow suit.

That was not the case just a decade ago, when stud dogs were often available to the public. Pet breeders, backyarders, even puppy mills could access dogs and buy puppies that are generally unavailable now.

It means that in many breeds, the pet-trade bred dogs and those coming from working and show lines are now on separate tracks and do not mix as often as they once did. And the pet-trade breeders breed for dogs with the traits that the public thinks define a breed, as well as extremes of conformation and size not to mention that any mutation, no matter whether or not it is harmful or benign, will be marketed as "rare" and therefore desirable and of course more expensive.

While it is my hearts desire that all show breeders embrace rigorous health testing and "cull" (via s/n) on the basis of it, there is a definite improvement in the attitude of many fanciers to use screening tests and openly discuss the results. (some of course, still just like to live in denial and attack others, but there are jerks in every aspect of our daily lives so the dog world is no different) If the BBC documentry get folks motivated to become "true believers" in health registries and take a hard look at their breeding programs then YAY!

But I don't see any back yard or commercial breeders calling for ANY screening at all. We need a campaign to convince the public to demand health registry participation from the breeders they purchase from. THAT would motivate all parties and put a lot of the worst offenders out of business.

JenniferJ January 9th, 2009 11:47:57 AM

dont breed or buy while shelter dogs die

jim January 9th, 2009 12:31:14 PM

I didn't think that documentary was good AT ALL. Showing footage of the Nazis whilst using that scare word 'eugenics'-in ANIMALS artificial selections AKA breeding AKA eugenics can be used for good as well as bad and the programme itself wanted the breed societies to USE artificial selection, genetic screening etc to prevent these breed-related diseases. Offensive and childish at that point. Then the geneticist saying "they're doing things to animals that would be ILLEGAL in humans!"-as all vets do (euthanasia for one), as all meat-eaters do... so what was his point?!

The programme had a valid point about the breeds it highlighted, but it chose to highlight that point in an ignorant, tabloid, excessive way. It fell far below the BBCs usual documentary standards. It chose not to show a single 'good' breeder who did take all the precautions and screenings to prevent negative genetic traits from being passed on and who didn't put conformation over health. And I personally would've included a short history of what happened to the AKC after they tried to get tough over these issues to give a reason why the UK Kennel Club might not want to follow the same path (I'm not saying they're right there but it makes more sense than the Nazi analogy).

I'm a UK vet student, not remotely involved in breeding or the Kennel Club. I have been to Crufts once though (part of my course) and as well as all the pedigree stuff there's also a large amount of animal charity presence, talks on rescue centre adoption, obedience and agility classes with a large number of mongrel participants. It's far more than about breeds which is why I didn't really think the BBC ought to stop showing it. I also thought it was bizarre that the RSPCA (the UKs premier animal welfare charity) only made a decision to stop attending Crufts after this programme was aired-they of all people are aware of these issues so they should've either stopped attending years ago, or continued to attend...

All of that said, I'm pleased that they chose to out PETA!

Sian January 9th, 2009 12:35:45 PM

jim,

instead of trolling and repeating cute little catch phrases, you might want to buy and read a copy of Redemption.

The folks on here may not always agree with each other, but Dr Khuly and her readers are educated, independent thinkers who are concerned with animal welfare, not severing the human animal bond as is PETA's stated agenda

JenniferJ January 9th, 2009 12:47:58 PM

Yay! About time! Pedigree breeders are slowly coming around and keeping better records and watching genetic input. In my search for a Rottweiler, I learned a lot about how a lot of breeders are using imports not only from other countries but from across the US. I also saw a difference between "show" breeders and non-show breeders. Some breeder websites were all "conformity" and "breed standards" while others talked about temperament and working ability.

As for PETA, I know of several people with disabilities who have suffered verbal abuse from PETA members due to their service dog. Dogs, like people, want something to do and being a working dog gives them a sense of purpose. I know my own SD, Joella, loves her job and loves to show off when she knows people are watching. sigh.

PaulaO January 9th, 2009 01:25:49 PM

PaulaO

Sounds like you have a fabulous partner in your girl, congratulations!

As for show vs working, for me the big question is are they taking the breeding of healthy dogs seriously? It's fine to talk about working ability or conformation or temperament etc... but show me proof. If you're breeding working dogs, show me the accomplishments. For show or agility or obedience dogs, show me the certifications or titles.

But most importantly, when I read a website, especially one that expounds upon the health and temperament of the dogs being produced, I want to see OFA or PennHIP, CHIC and CERF numbers, I want to see CGCs or ATTS certifications.

Not all breeds have working outlets. Not all dogs are eligible for the show ring. But any dog can take a temperament test (CGC requires some preparation, ATTS can be entered "cold" for a well socialized, mentally sound dog), gain an obedience or agility title and be screened for a variety of skeletal, eye, and genetic diseases. Whether a dog is bred for work, pet or show, they can and should be screened for issues common to their breed prior to breeding.

That also goes for imports and outcrosses. Some countries are incredibly stringent with regards to one disease but more lenient on another. And imported does not always mean superior.

JenniferJ January 9th, 2009 01:58:16 PM

The BBC should of known PETA and others would use their biased special to rocket their agendas. While I think the film brought forth issues that are important, it did so very one sided as earlier posters said. Pure Bred Show Kennel dogs are NOT in the shelters (for the most part I am sure a few end up there) but mostly it is uneducated, morons breeding because they think 1- there girl dog "wants" to have a litter, 2- they think they are gonna make a buck, 3- they didn't want a litter but oops . One way to help decrease the shelter dog problem is EVERY breeder or person who has a litter must microchip their puppies before they leave and the breeder is recorded, then when one of "their" pups ends up in a shelter they are responsible, now I know the morons won't do this anyway so in addition a nationwide public service announcement series needs to begin to educate Americans about the responsiblities of dog ownership and breeding. I think the same people who did the Anti-tobacco campagn should design it.. Look how 10 years ago smoking was cool, now its not. Maybe in 10 years from now people will think selling your puppies from the back of a pickup truck in the grocery store parking lot is NOT cool etc......It also p's me off that Show breeders are portrayed as money hungary don't care about the health of their dogs pieces of poop ! Many to most of us participate in more health testing and health research than any other group in the world. Example - Leishmaniasis begins popping up here in the US,researchers begin asking breeders for help to submit samples to help understand what could be the possible vector of this zoonotic disease..wow what do you know BREEDERS responded and provided the U of Iowa with over 3000 samples in under a year and continue to help in staggering numbers oh sorry I could go on an on but that is more than my two cents worth ;) I hate Peta and now I have lost oodles of respect for the BBC ;(

LC January 9th, 2009 04:45:14 PM

One more pence - OFA testing is not the answer it may be part of the equation but seriously OFA is not emperical it is an x-ray reviewed by 3 Vets who rate good, fair, excellent or poor then the 3 reviews are averaged for the rating and OFA has not decreased the incidence of HD nor is there even a proven correlation but that is another discussion....perhaps Dr. K will do a post on breeder testing ;)

LC January 9th, 2009 05:09:48 PM

Thank you for this post. The same could be said for HSUS. I am one of the multitude of people who donated, thinking the money was used to lobby for better animal welfare. I know better now.

I even stopped buying from a pet supply store online because their About page mentions that they support HSUS. And I emailed the company and told them why.

Julie in OH January 9th, 2009 06:29:41 PM

I agree OFA is not the be all end all for HD, but they maintain many other registries as well, with plenty of room for more as developed and need arises.

And for me, more info is always good. :-)

JenniferJ January 9th, 2009 07:16:08 PM

I thought the documentary was outstanding, but that line about PeTA being a bunch of crackpots? ABSOLUTELY PRICELESS. They sucker too many people in by touting all they do for animal rights. But when you actually look at their organization and their ideas you see what psychos they are.

Liz January 9th, 2009 09:00:11 PM

<A HREF= "http://www.stopanimaltests.com/f-auburn.asp ">Lothrop Expose </A>

Thank God for PETA, minus their vegan theory!

Fotini January 9th, 2009 10:42:39 PM

Sorry for "garbage"--don't know how it happened!

Fotini January 9th, 2009 10:44:57 PM

Well, I like what the producers said about/to PETA! Unfortunately, we now live in a world where one has to be extreme to get people to listen. I remember when there were only 13 TV channels and only 4 that had anything on them. So often what was on the networks was so awful that we'd be glued to the PBS documentary but that world is gone to a flood of incoming sound bites. If one isn't screaming and inflamatory (Nazis, really?), no one hears; if one is, one is criticized , flamed, and dismissed. I find myself railing just to be heard too. Some days (and several of late), I think we're de-evoling as a species rather rapidly.

I really, really, really want to believe there are breeders out there breeding for health FIRST and all else second. From what I see and hear, they must be an incredibly small minority though and the lifespan of pets seems to be declining accordingly; right along with increases in all kinds of health problems. Two of my first four cats lived past 20. A third got into the dog kennel (my grandfather's hunting dogs) and was killed before we could get to him and the fourth lived to 16, having survived pet food poisoning that left him with heart damage. They all got annual health care and vaccines; Cat Chow and Friskies. My last brood of cats was lost to FIP, five in a short expanse of time. I think I'll be thrilled these days when a pet makes it to 15 although they all get far more medical care these days, more vaccines, better food... The life span of Americans is going down now as well. Poor breeding is certainly contributing but something else, something far more is going on too.

Doc, all the pets in your Cancer blog seemed to be in the 10-12 year old range. Is this the young age when they all start developing major health problems these days?

PJBoosinger January 10th, 2009 07:26:25 AM

PJBoosinger: With mast cell tumors and lymphoma we see lots of young dogs overrepresented relative to other cancers (2 to 4 years is not unusual). In large breed dogs who 'age' more quickly, cancers occur more frequently at younger ages--5 to 7 is not uncomon for splenic hemangiosarcoma, for example.

LC: I'm also big on PennHIP. I'm all for more quantitative testing. Here's a past post on the difference between OFA and PennHIP (with pictures!). The popularity of OFA over PennHIP's database-driven model continues to astound me. Methinks Dr. Gail Smith needs some marketing advice.

Dr. Patty Khuly January 10th, 2009 07:56:17 AM

Well, I can tell you two main reasons not as many folks do PennHIP.

one, some veterinarians will do OFA without general anesthesia. Because PennHIP requires the dog to be completely out, I know breeders who opt out as they are concerned about the risk, however small.

two, PennHIP is much more expensive, especially if you have access to a vet who does OFA hip films with the dog awake.

Last time I had OFA HD films done it cost me 65.00 for the film (85.00 for hip and elbow done the same time), no office visit charge as they were having an OFA clinic and then the OFA fees.

Two weeks later I did a PennHIP on the above dogs younger half-brother. Almost 400.00 when all was said and done.

I think that the selling point that PennHIP can spare a breeder a year or more of wondering and worrying is the selling point I would use.

JenniferJ January 10th, 2009 03:18:11 PM

I believe the agenda of the BBC documentary is to IMPROVE the breeds, and it pointed out how our system of dog shows and the people who run it are counterproductive to that goal in many ways. That's a far cry from Peta's objection to dog shows - that they are an abuse of the dogs. Peta would start by eminimating dog shows and all breeds, not by improving them.

I hear a lot about responsible breeders doing health clearances, etc. Sorry, but that's not enough. The breeders who do health clearances are also responsible for the DESIGN and MANAGEMENT of their breed, through the actions of their breed clubs who write the standard and determine how dogs are judged and which research gets funded, and that's the area they are failing in.

As an insider, I can tell you that the clubs are failing badly in their responsibility to the pet-owning public.

Fred January 11th, 2009 12:59:20 AM

LC, Jennifer J and Fred: Check out today's post on PennHIP and tell me what you think. Thanks fror discussing this. I think it's an important topic.

Dr. Patty Khuly January 11th, 2009 10:39:17 AM

While I certainly understand her perspective I do not think the overall cause is advanced by using insults like 'crackpot' and implying an 'animal rights' aproach is innately lacking in value. I am not an abolitionist myself, but many perfectly reasonable and intelligent people are. The same points could have been made just as vehemently without that kind of verbiage. Because welfare and rights groups (if not necessarily these two groups) can work together on issues like this.

emily January 12th, 2009 10:54:37 AM

i have read some of PETAs stuff and dismiss most of it. i do feel that they are good at bringing animal cruelty to the public. a PETA video on how chickens are slaughtered for Tyson is what got me to stop eating meat and a recent PETA investigation of a pig farm in Iowa produced around 18 charges against the horrid treatment these pigs were given. i am totally appauled at the amount of animals PETA gets and their rate of putting these animals down plus in the past a few PETA employees who were not vets and therefore not allowed to administer the drug used to put animals to sleep were doing so and dumping these little souls in area dumpster. i dont trust PETA but i do like that they investigate the treatment of animals.

katy January 12th, 2009 11:41:14 AM

This post totally made my day. :)

Finally back to work on getting stuff more in working order around here. Weeee.

James Riley January 13th, 2009 01:23:17 AM

emily: Sure, it's somewhat counterproductive to reduce an important issue to the level of name calling ('crackpot,' 'lunatics', etc.). I also reject the notion of a broad line drawn between animal welfare and animal rights. She could have been more diplomatic--and so could I have.

Nonetheless, I believe the 'marginalization' issue the documentarian cites is a real threat to the integrity of her film. I do not fault her for choosing to verbally distance herself from PETA in any way possible. In fact, I'll argue that it would have been far more counterproductive to her film's goals to allow any sort of PETA taint to persist.

Sometimes outright name-calling is required in a world where shades of gray are likely to be misconstrued by the general populace. Sad, but true.

Dr. Patty Khuly January 13th, 2009 09:22:29 AM

Indeed, but we are her constituency and so like we she says. Peta earnings went up 11% this year and their constituency is presumably pretty large and possibly groweing--and this approach will alienate them rather than convince them (i.e. derogatory to the rights orientation). To get consensus we all need to learn how to speak convincing beyond the audience of people who already basically agree with us. This lesson is also apparent in the approximately 32 million dollars spent on chaging the minds of Californians about Prop 2--they where 63% in support prior to the campaigns and 63% in support afterwards. If you look at the tone fo the materials produced this isn't really a surprise.

emily January 13th, 2009 11:03:41 AM

emily: Point well taken. We should all be able to rise to a higher level of cooperation. Thanks for calling me out.

Dr. Patty Khuly January 14th, 2009 08:43:13 AM

Dr. Khuly, about Pennhip....I'm a purebred dog breeder who has used both OFA and Pennhip. Besides the anesthesia risk and expense, here's another aspect to Pennhip that makes it challenging for breeders: it can be difficult to find a vet who has the equipment and training to perform the procedure. That said, I would like to see the Pennhip procedure used more often because it gives you more complete information about your dog's hip status, something that is always useful to a serious dog breeder. At this point, the number of dogs screened in my breed is so small that the Pennhip statistics really aren't an accurate picture of the trend in hip status overall in my breed. I'd be thrilled to see more breeders start using Pennhip, as a larger sampling would give us much more valid statistical data. Thanks.

Joyce January 19th, 2009 12:14:40 PM

شات

amal_ May 21st, 2009 05:00:18 PM

توبيكات

hanoo May 21st, 2009 05:18:05 PM

قلبي

bnt aboha May 21st, 2009 05:21:49 PM

منتدى

malak May 21st, 2009 05:27:00 PM

دردشه

تسواهن May 21st, 2009 05:37:56 PM

شات كتابي , شات صوتي , دردشة

7p-e.com July 6th, 2009 06:31:56 PM

http://www.fantastic-replica.net

sare July 26th, 2009 10:49:59 PM

Thanks for sharing this information. Someone on Yahoo Answers referred me here and I love it. lingerie wholesale

DTC August 9th, 2009 07:36:27 AM

交友婚友相親婚友社聯誼借錢借贷救急汽車借款 UT UT視訊 UT聊天室成人 A片視訊聊天視訊聊天室視訊美女强迫症忧郁症抑郁症重庆标志设计重庆VI设计重庆设计公司重庆画册设计重庆企业形象设计鲜花速递 oil purifier oil purification golf clubs

GFDG August 16th, 2009 11:57:01 PM

I'm looking for 高収入アルバイト I'm looking for 高収入アルバイト I'm looking for 風俗 I'm looking for 風俗 I'm looking for 美少女ゲーム I'm looking for ソープランド I'm looking for 出会い I'm looking for 出会い I'm looking for デリヘル I'm looking for すすきのソープランド I'm looking for 新宿ソープランド I'm looking for 千葉ソープランド I'm looking for 埼玉ソープランド

I'm looking for 神奈川ソープランド I'm looking for 吉原ソープランド I'm looking for sod I'm looking for バイブ I'm looking for 都内キャバクラ全額日払い I'm looking for 風俗求人高収入 I'm looking for 無料動画

I'm looking forアダルトグッズ

I'm looking for 大阪風俗

I'm looking for 神戸風俗

I'm looking for 裏DVD

I'm looking for 風俗求人 I'm looking for 風俗求人

I'm looking for デリヘル新宿 I'm looking for デリヘル東京

dung August 20th, 2009 10:40:46 PM

風俗デリヘル風俗デリヘル風俗エロゲーソープランド吉原ソープランド出会い出会いデリヘルすすきのソープランド新宿ソープランド千葉ソープランド埼玉ソープランド神奈川ソープランド吉原ソープランド sod バイブ風俗求人高収入都内キャバクラ全額日払い無料動画大阪風俗大阪風俗神戸風俗裏DVD 裏DVD 風俗求人風俗求人デリヘル新宿デリヘル東京千代田区デリヘル台東区デリヘル墨田区デリヘル中央区デリヘル

binh September 7th, 2009 10:36:02 PM

Mohon Dukungan Sahabat Semua Untuk Kontes seo Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa dengan memberikan backlink pada post Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa dan Panti Asuhan

Mengembalikan jati diri bangsa November 15th, 2009 03:51:31 PM

Add Commment

Log In

E-Mail:
Password:
Register
Reset Password

E-Mail:

Daily Vet

Careerists

Did you always want to be a vet or vet technician? Thinking about it? Working on it? Need some Help?

"The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

- Mohandas Gandhi