Westminster/PETA and Crufts/BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complaints_stage1.shtml I have contacted my cable company and asked them to remove the BBC from my cable line up; I am contacting those who advertise on the BBC channel and making them aware that dog fanciers' have a great deal of disposable income and that their products will be boycotted as long as they support the BBC. Will any of it have much effect? No. But the advertisers are another matter. They tend to have swift reactions to consumer boycotts - especially in a down economy. My cable provider has local advertisers who will pull their ads in a heartbeat. Thankfully the USA Network has told PETA to go pound sand and that they will broadcast the Westminster show this year. But Westminster and the Eukanuba Nationals remains a continuing target for PETA. I certainly am the last person to want to see animals mistreated. In fact a friend of mine went to work for PeTA as a writer. What I learned was shocking. It taught me that PeTA is nothing more than hypocritical terrorists. Let your voice be heard. Call your cable/satellite provider. Contact your local businesses who advertise on the BBC Network. It is just as easy for them to put their money on other networks, like USA. Here is a link to the back story: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/01/peta-to-usa-net.html |
|
|
Wow! Somebody who actually takes a stand! 
I had to come to terms with the notion that if the USA network actually succumbed to the pressure I would have to kiss my House MD marathons goodbye    
I was rather relieved they apparently will not on many levels one might say 
Kristine |
| I don't write to companies, but I did to USA network. I may be just a single voice singing contrary to the PC madness. I'm tired of the PC crowd telling me how I must think, what I must wear, what I must watch on TV. |
| I just have one question. Where is PETA when there is real animal cruelity happening. It seems they only want to target things that has nothing to do with cruelity and only brings attention to themselves. Do you see them boycotting puppy mills? There's one by my house. I dont see them there. Do you see them near the oceans when people are catching sharks just for the fins, cut off the fins and throw the shark back in the ocean only to suffocate?? Do you see them do anything that brings awareness to spay and neuter programs for pets. Do you see them do anything but want to look like Diva's on camera??
To me if you want to stand for animal rights you would repeat Bob Barkers like saying "Protect your pets spay and neuter" To me the perfect example of animal rights is a woman that lives in town tries to catch the stray cats and has them spayed and neutered. There was a big article a few years back about her. Thats a real concerned person. concern is reporting animal abuse to the local authorities. It's breeding responsibly. Its having programs that teach people how to be responsible pet owners. OK sorry off my soap box. These people irritate the hell out of me. |
| PETA supports Mandatory spay neuter programs - what better way than to end the pet population. and in fact they help to spsread the propaganda that it is the only way to go. intelligent spay neuter options are another issue. |
| Oh, ack! I find myself in the most disturbing position of having to defend PETA to a limited extent. The one thing they DO do right in my book, and probably the only thing, is offer low-cost spay/neuter. Which is more than the HSUS does, last I checked. At least in terms of actual $$$s. Theirs, that is
PETA is important for the Animal Rights movement as a whole because their off the wall publicity stunts, while garnering them the label "crazies", nonetheless help the more "main stream" organizations by shifting mainstream opinion to that direction bit by bit. I.e. pick an issue you can get a lot of emotional milage out of - real or fabricated - shine a light on it, and even while we're recoiling in horror, disgust or ridicule at their method, the message starts to seep out there and more main stream AR groups pick up on it and run with it. I.e. groups like the HSUS actually benefits from their antics. So in reality you could say that the higher ups in PETA are anything but wackos, but very deliberate in their campaigns and I'm sure they understand where they fit in in the overall animal rights struggle to end all use of animals including wearing them, eating them, hunting them, research purposes and, of course, enslaving them as our pets. That said I think some of the bimbettes that participate in their "sexier" stunts may very well fall into the wacko category for standing outside naked in 30 degree weather or whatever the stunt calls for, but that's their perogative. As for PETA, they've been after Westminster for some time by protesting it, having alleged body bags of dead dogs which represent the dog you just killed by buying a dog from a reputable breeder (and lord knows given that they kill over 90% of the animals that end up in their wretched "shelter", they should have dog carcasses to spare  ), by running ads that equate the AKC with the KKK for promoting "purebred" dogs.
So you ask yourself why they target the part of the dog world that actually gives a damn about what they produce and where their puppies end up. Well, first and foremost because we're an easy target - visible and involved in clubs and health research and rescue and training and education and such. You're not going to get as much milage flinging body bags at the owners of a commercial breeding facility in the middle of nowhere, now are you? And, if you can completely discredit the very breeders who are still seen as trying to do right by dogs, all other breeders are by extension equally if not more evil and now we can institute a systematic legislative assault nationwide to end all breeding. Which PETA is very open about wanting to end. HSUS, being more mainstream, still pays lip service to the notion that some breeders may be "reputable", and then systematically throws their significant publicity machines and funds at attacking them legislatively. Basically they want the same thing, they just go at it differently. This time it looks like they may actually have miscalculated. Would I go into a deep depression if I couldn't see Westminster or Eukanuba on TV? Honestly, no. But a lot of people, as noted, are just tired of being told what they can and cannot watch or eat etc. For once PETA actually did the boring thing and a whole lot of us pretty much yawned and said "shut up already and go do something useful for a change". They can start by seriously reading Winograd's "Redemption" and cleaning up their own act vis a vis pets. Maybe then I'd start taking them seriously. If we're all supposed to do the morally correct thing and only adopt shelter dogs it would be really helpful if they'd let them live long enough to give us a chance to do so 
Kristine |
| well put - as usual.. PETA's mission could be seen as getting the AR movements' issues into the public agenda.
I have to say in reality though - aybe because NYC is strict with permits, or its really really cold whenever i have been at Westminster - they don't seem to have much of a precense there - no where near as much as Pedigree who has people everywhere handing out stuff  |
Mad Dog wrote: If we're all supposed to do the morally correct thing and only adopt shelter dogs it would be really helpful if they'd let them live long enough to give us a chance to do so
LOL, yup. I don't know if you have seen this site: http://www.petakillsanimals.com I haven't fact-checked it, but I certainly appreciate their effort. While it has a whiff of shaping the facts for sensationalism, at least it offers a response. |
| Well, they make no pretense of objectivity, no, but the numbers can all be documented via govt reporting sources.
Don't you love the blurb from their income taxes? Where they show the almost $10,000 they paid for the walk--in freezer to store the dead pet bodies. Anyway, if you look more closely you will see that in additon they spent almost $6000 on a sculpture and, it gets better, during the 2000-02 period, a total of $5,906.26 on costumes ranging from fish costumes (including Freeda the Fish, or should that be Freeda the Sea Kitten now  ), to Lettuce Lady Costumes and Kernel Corn costumes.
I have to ask: if they are spending that much money on costumes, why do their volunteers keep running around naked?????? 
It hardly seems fair. They get a lot of money in donations every year. They spend a fair amount of it on costumes, and yet here are these poor little girls running around with barely a lettuce leaf to cover themselves with? 
<Sorry. Long day. Couldn't help myself >
Kristine |
Mad Dog wrote: ...these poor little girls running around with barely a lettuce leaf to cover themselves with? 
lol, made my day! |
| In my line of work, frequently the very best thing can be to have the opposition have a huge ego and enjoy the melodic and incessant tones of their own voice. With that sentiment in mind, I salute PeTA for their "sea kitten" campaign and hope every kid at Spearfish High has something to say on their Facebook, Twitter and MySpace account about the new madness that is PeTA.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090110/ap_ ... itten_high |
SheepieBoss wrote: I may be just a single voice singing contrary to the PC madness. I'm tired of the PC crowd telling me how I must think, what I must wear, what I must watch on TV.
I *do* think the people who use this site are part of the majority. Congratulations for voicing your opinion to the USA Network. That is how change occurs. I don't think of PeTA as politically correct. They are terrorists and anarchists -just a small group of radical zealots. Though the situation with Crufts and the BBC has me concerned. I have watched the online portions of the documentary that sparked this situation and it is reprehensible. Yet, as we all know you can shape any story to portray whichever position one wishes. At least at National Geographic we had to document the data involved in the making of our films. What has me concerned is that the BBC canceled the airing of Crufts. It sets a precedent down a very slippery slope. |
QuailTrail wrote: Though the situation with Crufts and the BBC has me concerned. I have watched the online portions of the documentary that sparked this situation and it is reprehensible. Yet, as we all know you can shape any story to portray whichever position one wishes. At least at National Geographic we had to document the data involved in the making of our films.
What has me concerned is that the BBC canceled the airing of Crufts. It sets a precedent down a very slippery slope. The sad <?> part is the Kennel Club cooperated thinking the piece would be reasonably balanced and trying to show that yes, there are concerns, but these are some of the ways we're working on some of the issues. Even after the farce that was presented as a documentary was aired and the KC caved and basically REWROTE breed standards for the breeds, the BBC insisted that they would not air the program if a list of breeds were not excluded from competition. Well, just because you rewrite a breed standard effective January 1 does not mean the breed will change by, what is it, March? Or even in five years, significantly, for that matter, without doing more harm than good to the dogs and the breeds involved. Though the basic premise that we need to continue to take a long, hard look at breeding animals in a closed registry and above all place health first is a very valid one, the way this was handled was disgusting from start to finish. And as witnessed by some of the proposed changes to the OES standard, a little ludicrous. Change for the better, is good. Change just to illustrate change - makes no sense. A whole lot of good it did the KC given the BBC's response. And do we really want the BBC determining what's in the best interest of dogs?
The first sensible thing the KC did in this regard was tell the BBC to stuff it. You don't cave to tyrants and expect things to get better, you expect them to continue to try to force you to cave. You know, if I honestly thought it was in the best interest of dogs as a whole I would applaud it. But the way it was done was moronic and an opportunity lost. Ratings over rationality. Pity. I hope the AKC was taking notes. Kristine |
| The conversation about PETA/zealots making no sense and people not paying attention to them makes sense logically - but, what I think happens is that people hear this stuff and think its crazy, but a little part of their brain starts to accept the basic premises. its this conditioning that allows these people to get hold of the collective conscience and start to change overall opinion - even while saying the initial group is crazy.
I am beginning to think the only real way to stop them is to be as vocal and get an alternative, if not crazily oppositional message out there. then you negate their insidious shaping of the public. |
kerry wrote: I am beginning to think the only real way to stop them is to be as vocal and get an alternative, if not crazily oppositional message out there. then you negate their insidious shaping of the public.
Yup. You're absolutely right. Their message may (often) be nuts, but we can't just write them off as such and ignore them. Kristine |
| On a similar note, I just came across this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 512620.ece New breeding standards mean the end of the classic British bulldog... |
| OMIGD and they put him on a diet - "a sleeker body". the face needed some refinement from the interpretation of the standard, not necessarily the standard.
do you think someone could start a whisper campaign against OES fufu show coats  |
kerry wrote: OMIGD and they put him on a diet - "a sleeker body". the face needed some refinement from the interpretation of the standard, not necessarily the standard.
do you think someone could start a whisper campaign against OES fufu show coats LOL!! Fufu is not in the breed standard. At least not in that sense. They eliminated the word profuse, so I guess that means we can rip more coat out when we groom them
Apart from that, what you're referring to is grooming, not genetics. In order to change this there is no need to change canine genetics, but rather owner genetics -- i.e. we need to select for owners with no grooming skills. Oh, wait!!! I already conform to the new human standard of grooming incompentence .  
Kristine |
| Was the only change to the OES standard about the density of the coat? |
Mad Dog wrote: LOL!! Fufu is not in the breed standard. At least not in that sense. They eliminated the word profuse, so I guess that means we can rip more coat out when we groom them
Kristine-- This page says it was updated January 2009 and profuse is still in there. http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/143 Was this something very recently changed by the breed club? (I am not doubting you, just wondering if it's originating elsewhere until it hits the KC site.) |
| It also says it's under review until June 2009. |
| Jill, Betsy - here are the amendments for our breed:
( http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/cgi-bin ... &h=238&f=0 ) Hindquarters Loin very sturdy, broad and gently arched, quarters well covered round and muscular, the second thigh is long and well developed, the stifle well turned but not exaggerated, and the hocks set low. When viewed from behind, the rear pasterns should be parallel, [delete ‘From the rear the hocks should be quite straight’] with the feet turning neither in nor out. Feet delete reference to removal of dewclaws Coat [Delete ‘Profuse,’] Of good harsh texture, not straight, but shaggy and free from curl. Undercoat of waterproof pile. Head and skull well covered with hair, ears moderately coated, neck well coated, forelegs well coated all round, hindquarters more heavily coated than rest of body. Quality, texture, and profusion to be considered above mere length. And, yes, the breeders affected will have opportunity to comment on the changes over the next few months. Though it's rather a drastic step to unilaterally and without prior consultation with the breed clubs POST new "interim" standards, eh? What happens if it doesn't stick? Are you breeding to this standard, the old standard, what if they revise it again in June? And it's not just our breed, but lots and lots of breeds.
Some changes are trivial, some completely redesign the breed in question. Even in cases where I can definitely see room for improvement in a breed's standard from a health or soundness point of view, going about it in this manner is often completely disconnected with genetic reality. In other words, methinks the powers that be at the KC were smokin' something funny when they came up with some of these changes. I've taken a couple of other breeds' changes to breed judges and asked them to explain to me how a certain the change in any way contributes to making that breed "healthier" and they just scratch their head and wonder too. I guess we'll just have to see what happens. Kristine |
| Wait. Completely redesigning a breed in a couple of generations isn't a good idea? Surely you jest! |
| As I stay in Germany and did not see this programm however if you watch the footage in this link you might see they are not so far from the truth in what they are covering, we have to b e objective regarding breeding and if it is going to be to the disadvantage of the animal then we have to consider what we are doing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7569064.stm Oh and it seems the chairman of the kennel club has been spoon fed with wisdom. This is the attitude which is causing a lot of the problems in all of our breeds. Yes we need the show but only if they are going to help the breed and not to make egoistic breeders. This is worth watching it is the programm th BBC broadcast Pedigree Dogs Exposed http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea ... d=44215931 |
| I appreciate the sentiment. I truly do.
The fact of the matter is a filmmaker can shade information to look anyway they wish. Because it is a documentary, does not make the content factual or statistically accurate, it only means the on-camera talking heads/interviews are unscripted - though sometimes the content is discussed, rehearsed, etc. at length, before and as a part of the filming process. Add in the proverbial 'kids and puppies' and you have one of the most emotionally responsive messages made. So, we can begin with the presumption that *any* message can be packaged to appear as fact. And in the case of this doc it is heart wrenching indeed, but it is also a very heavy handed opinion. I can only imagine the content of the pre-production interviews and the outtakes. I know nothing about dog breeding, but I think Kristine's post regarding your dog's case of PCD (http://forum.oes.org/viewtopic.php?t=23558) spells out just how long it takes to shift detrimental issues out of a breed. So "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" is one point of view and the BBC's reaction is knee-jerk at best. The outcome of revised breed standards is one that will take decades to change, not the year the BBC has proposed. And I am willing to bet they honor their contract and broadcast Crufts in 2010. Now, are there issues within breeds? You betcha. Will we ever be successful in eliminating all abnormalities within a breed? No, never. Should that be our goal? Of course we should try. But this should be the business of those who know the breed better than anyone else - rather than a committee; hobbled together by a broadcaster; in response to an emotionally laden opinion, presented as fact. |
QuailTrail wrote: I appreciate the sentiment. I truly do. Oh I am not sentimental, just angry at the things that have happened to me over the years we have had Old English Sheepdogs QuailTrail wrote: The fact of the matter is a filmmaker can shade information to look anyway they wish. Because it is a documentary, does not make the content factual or statistically accurate, it only means the on-camera talking heads/interviews are unscripted - though sometimes the content is discussed, rehearsed, etc. at length, before and as a part of the filming process. Add in the proverbial 'kids and puppies' and you have one of the most emotionally responsive messages made. So, we can begin with the presumption that *any* message can be packaged to appear as fact. And in the case of this doc it is heart wrenching indeed, but it is also a very heavy handed opinion. I can only imagine the content of the pre-production interviews and the outtakes. If you have watched this film then will have seen the attitude of those King Charles Spaniel breeders, unfortunately they reflect through all the breeds. Breeding is a lottery but we certainly do not want to add the odd genetic diseases to make matters worse. If as you say this was a put up idea then why did the kennel club act and send out a letter about the ridge on the ridgebacks and why are they changing some standards QuailTrail wrote: I know nothing about dog breeding, but I think Kristine's post regarding your dog's case of PCD (http://forum.oes.org/viewtopic.php?t=23558) spells out just how long it takes to shift detrimental issues out of a breed. Kristine is very wise and I like our discussions in the various posts although I wish some breeders would also be so objective and so well informed and dedicated as this Lady. QuailTrail wrote: So "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" is one point of view and the BBC's reaction is knee-jerk at best. The outcome of revised breed standards is one that will take decades to change, not the year the BBC has proposed. And I am willing to bet they honor their contract and broadcast Crufts in 2010. I think if you enquire properly the kennel club through out the BBC in the first place, apart from that some very important organizations will not be present this year and I do not think the BBC will reverse its decision for next year. QuailTrail wrote: Now, are there issues within breeds? You betcha. Will we ever be successful in eliminating all abnormalities within a breed? No, never. Should that be our goal? Of course we should try. But this should be the business of those who know the breed better than anyone else - rather than a committee; hobbled together by a broadcaster; in response to an emotionally laden opinion, presented as fact.
The responsability of a breeder is to do his best to keep the breed as healthy and in good shape, breeding with dogs where known genetic diseases are in the lines is in my opinion unethical and downright dangerous, who knows better a breeder or a Professos who has studied the genetic origins. This something thst will be argued about for many years to come at the dis-advantage of every breed and breeders will continue business as usual, in the end the vet bills are paid for by YOU. |
Quote: Breeding is a lottery ... If as you say this was a put up idea then why did the kennel club act and send out a letter about the ridge on the ridgebacks and why are they changing some standards You are absolutely right, the matter of reproduction is a DNA gamble. But the information provided in this doc was one sided. As an example, if I were interviewed, I could discuss the many health issues with my mixed breed dogs versus the healthy condition of my OES. That anecdotal information could make the audience believe that haphazard breeding causes health defects and the purebred dog was healthy precisely because of the choices the breeder made: 1. The breeder chose a Sire and Dam and had their pedigree history researched prior to breeding. 2. The breeders had the Sire and Dam tested before breeding. 3. The breeder had BAER testing done on her puppies before any were placed. The mixed breeds just happen to mate. And my mixed breed dogs have ortho issues, gastro issues, and auditory issues. From that information, the audience would certainly conclude that purebred dogs are healthier. String sixty minutes of similar interviews together with owners, vets, scientists, etc. and you have the counterpoint to "Pedigree Dogs Exposed". As for the KC, I don't know the specifics of why they made changes. Perhaps the public relations fallout caused them to do sweeping updates that traditionally would have occurred on breed by breed basis. I am guessing changes in breed standards typically occur at glacial speed, rather than the recent accelerated pace. Kristine's previous post in this thread mentions that the KC thought the film would present a balanced viewpoint. And I have no doubt that is exactly what the filmmaker led them to believe. Quote: The responsability of a breeder is to do his best to keep the breed as healthy and in good shape, breeding with dogs where known genetic diseases are in the lines is in my opinion unethical and downright dangerous Absolutely and I agree wholeheartedly! But breeding is a DNA gamble under the best of circumstances. The fact of the matter is there are unethical, self-serving people in all aspects of life. Why does anyone believe the K9 Fanciers would be exempt from this unfortunate human condition? Breeders do not belong to an exalted class of humanity, but it is inaccurate to paint all "breeders" with the same dark, clumsy brush. Far more go through painstaking and expensive steps to do the right thing. Quote: in the end the vet bills are paid for by YOU.
As I mentioned, my mixed breed dogs have health issues, so I pay for their care. And I do so happily. It will take generations (in human years ) to change how companion animal reproduction is handled with regard to mixed breeds. The good news is that purebred breeding programs will be swifter.
Much luck with your pup. It is a tragic thing to have one of our furkids ill. You have my best wishes for smooth sailing. |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|