1110

PROTECTING DOGS - FROM US!
By David Hancock

  The RSPB (The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds), formed about the same time as the RSPCA (the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), is a powerful organisation, well-funded, a strong influence in our countryside - now the third largest landowner in Britain - and earning a wide audience over its safeguarding and care for endangered species of birds. It could be argued that it should work more closely with bodies like gamekeepers and the Game Conservancy, but it has developed a powerful voice in bird-protection. Such a potentially admirable organisation can of course be 'entered' by misguided zealots pursuing a social agenda but it does have a faithful following amongst the general public. Our native birds are spoken-up for whenever this is necessary. The RSPCA in contrast has earned the fury of dog lovers over its ill-informed advice to the Home Office during the drafting of the infamous Dangerous Dogs Act, the fury of hound followers over its waste of millions of much-needed funds opposing hunting with dogs (a task not embraced by its charter) and the despair of many ordinary dog-owners whose pets have been destroyed under the RSPCA's self-assumed mandate under the discredited DDA. The RSPCA has never shown the slightest interest in the conservation of our native breeds of dog. Some of their field workers are respected and valued; their hierarchy is not!

   These are difficult days in dogdom. When I was young, Dangerous Dog Acts, docking and displaced hips were not the dilemmas of the day. Congenital and inheritable diseases were not common topics of conversation in most breeds. But, no breeder then seemed to want to produce dogs with roach backs, excessively heavy coats, ruggerball-shaped heads, questionable temperaments, exaggerated sickle hocks or string their dogs up on a choke-chain in the show ring. A different foreign breed wasn't introduced every few months with a hyperbolised ancestry and dodgy pedigree. I have enormous respect for the pedigree dog breeders I learned from in the 1950s. So many of the gundog fanciers then worked their dogs. Many of the judges also judged horses and knew about movement. There seemed to be closer links between the 'flags' and the field. When I worked as a kennel boy for my local vet, he acknowledged only too readily the knowledge and skill of the dog breeders he served.

 Now we have vets who refuse their clients a service, not because they think the nature of the service is clinically incorrect but because their professional body has decided that this service is morally incorrect. Moral vanity is the curse of our age; it is so often selectively applied to suit prejudices. We now have vets too, who, without any relevant experience whatsoever, can identify dogs as belonging to a breed which doesn't actually exist as such. Perfectly healthy harmless dogs are being destroyed as a direct result, condemned by a profession claiming to have a code of  ethics. Arrogance can be as deadly as ignorance; veterinary wisdom doesn't seem to be keeping pace with veterinary knowledge.

 We also now have a society, a charity founded to prevent cruelty to dogs, not cruelty between dogs, to spending a sizeable chunk of its resources, demanding too - with their sadly all too willing allies in a police force which seems at times to have lost its way - huge sums of public money in prosecuting otherwise blameless citizens for owning a dog of a breed which might one day commit an offence. This society was not formed to prevent cruelty to human beings or to decide, with twentieth century eyes, the length of dogs' tails, after centuries of established practice. Fortunately, history tells us that no institution lasts long with "grosse tete et peu de sens".

 What we really need is a club, a national club, set up by like-minded dog fanciers, to rival the RSPB and protect and promote dogs whether they are to demonstrate correctness of conformation in the show ring or functional prowess in the field. Such a club would need to be London-based, so that it would be well placed to influence events -- and politicians, when the need arose. This club would be a charity, in spirit as well as in status, selflessly using its good offices to bring together to a common purpose: shots and shepherds, vets and canine rescue charities, guide-dogs and gundogs, lurcher-men and working terrier fanciers, hound-show supporters and dog show devotees, agility and obedience groups, the sledders and the trackers. Above all else, this club would be able to speak with one voice - the voice which the dogs themselves cannot make heard.

 But what does human experience tell us to beware of in such an organisation? Firstly it must never become more of a club than a charity. Secondly the interests of the members must always come second to the needs of dogs. Thirdly it must never ever become a victim of its own bureaucracy, for example by setting up a Council of Representatives (a coordinating body), then allowing it to drift into a system of Liaison Councils (talking shops). But fourthly it must perpetually remind itself of its guardian role, its moral foundation. Such a club seems to exist in the United States and is called the American Kennel Club, originally modelled, I understand on a similarly-named club in a European country! One of its senior executives is reported to have said on more than one occasion: "You should not ask what the AKC is doing for you but ask what you can do for the sport of dogs". That sounds like moral leadership to me; can we have a club for dogs like that please? This unusual individual is also alleged to have said: "We (the AKC) stand squarely behind the fact that people should not breed dogs for profit; they should breed only to improve the breed". This particular club seems to have a moral dimension to their activities. But they don't just talk, they act too; in 1992 they struck off 240 breeders after conducting 3,400 inspections in the year. This illustrates very neatly the difference between executives and bureaucrats - the latter are only able to see the difficulties in taking action, to accept excuses, to avoid accountability, to ask for further reports and to arrange yet another committee meeting. It doesn't take many meetings to stifle moral indignation.

 An experienced bureaucrat can find endless reasons why carriers of inherited diseases should not be de-registered, why litters from puppy farms should not be refused registration and why it is inadvisable to admit how foolish you have been to sit at the same table as gormless legislators devising laws to destroy innocent dogs. A really professional bureaucrat can pass responsibility, almost imperceptibly, downwards -- to breed clubs, for example. What we really need is a club... But this is Britain not America, let's muddle on. Let a Bull Terrier judge argue in court with a veterinary surgeon about breeding probabilities; let's form another council - this time to accept responsibility for the length of dogs' tails debate; the 400 plus inheritable diseases? let's form a sub-committee to deal with that; let's lump together as one breed four shepherd dog breeds whilst dividing varieties of another breed into separate breeds by length of coat, texture of coat and size. But never at any time will even the canine bureaucrat lower his guard and accept responsibility.        

 I am concerned that dogs are being adversely affected by this chronic reluctance by any national canine organisation to be prepared to provide moral leadership in these testing times. Dogs are themselves being penalised because of the lack of mutual respect in the wide-ranging world of the domestic dog. Breeders are not listening to what geneticists are telling us about genetic defects. The inspired work of the ISDS in reducing the incidence of PRA in working sheepdogs has not been mirrored in the pedigree dog world. The considerable apathy of many breed societies over issues such as docking and dangerous dog legislation is not particularly admirable.

 Each canine organisation, wherever based and however small, assumes, immediately it is established and whether it wants to or not, a moral responsibility for dependant living creatures embraced by their span. A small club can make disproportionate impact by vigorous lobbying and linking with others. But how much more effective their action would be if there were a virile campaigning central organisation, with a strong sustained moral motivation, pulling all interests together so that one even more powerful voice could really be heard. Until then, it is left mainly to strong-minded individuals to exercise whatever influence they can as guardians and catalysts for change. But is that truly the best deal we can collectively obtain for our dogs ?   

   It is fair to state, I believe, that the fittest dogs in Britain are the hounds of the packs, trail hounds, racing Greyhounds and working terriers and sheepdogs. Coming close on their heels, and in my view, greatly misjudged by many, is the 'Irish Staffie' fraternity. Maligned in the popular press, misunderstood by some pedigree dog breeders and vilified by one animal charity in a malicious press release, they deserve praise and encouragement not condemnation. Of course, in any field of human activity, there will be those who will abuse a sport, a fancy, a hobby or a calling. Decent honourable people in any walk of life need to be vigilant in spotting human excess. Abuse of dogs is, sadly, not rare and I strongly support exposure and punishment of it. An Afghan Hound humiliated in a shell-suit at Crufts and a Beardie being groomed for over an hour whilst being made to lie on its back at a dog show is to me abuse - discomforting a dog for human needs.

 I sometimes attend gatherings of devotees of the so-called 'Irish Staffie' and am always struck by two aspects at them: very fit dogs and an outing for whole families who dote on their dogs. These dogs are trained on 'A' frames, treadmills and at weight-pulling; this is often demonstrated at these shows. Not surprisingly the dogs present are fit, muscular and full of vigour; they are much-loved, extremely healthy, live a long life and are admired as canine athletes. For the RSPCA however, 'A' frames, treadmills and weight-pulling 'apparatus' constitute the 'paraphernalia of dog-fighting', as their officers have described it in court. This is a calumny; it is akin to saying that all those possessing or making use of, say, kick-boxing apparatus are preparing for a violent illegal act and should be arrested. At these 'Irish Staffie' gatherings I have never once seen a dog carrying bite marks, old scars, signs of stitching or the tell-tale consequences of dog-fighting: torn ears. Yes, some of these dogs are a bit sharp with other dogs, but I have seen working sheepdogs show far greater aggression towards other dogs without being condemned as a type. The families attending these gatherings would be furious if anyone tried to link them with dog-fighting of any type.

 Why is it considered suspicious for someone to want to own a fit dog? Soon, obesity will cause more premature deaths in dogs than any other cause; is that not a form of cruelty demanding campaigns by animal charities? A survey a few years ago found that 52% of dogs in Britain were overweight and that 10% were more than 25% overweight. One Afghan Hound weighed as much as two normal Afghans. Veterinary surgeons warn us that the major threat to the long life and quality of life of dogs in this new century is posed by obesity, created partly by over or inappropriate feeding but mainly by lack of exercise. This is indirect cruelty on a grand scale. Where is the high-profile campaign against such cruelty? The only high-profile campaign that is being conducted by our leading animal charity is aimed at the fittest dogs in the country not the fattest. Why does the alleged selective cruelty to foxes not become dwarfed by a massive campaign to counter the widespread abuse of dogs through neglect - neglect of essential exercise? Surely you concentrate scarce funds on the biggest challenge not the most emotive one. The RSPCA is said to have spent over four million pounds in the drive against hunting in the last year; how much did the drive against obesity, which involves proven cruelty, cost? Why target fit dogs when fat dogs are suffering?

 The extremely fit 'Irish Staffies' are usually disparaged by show breeders, despite the fact that these dogs are more like the early bull terriers than theirs. Perhaps it's envy; I see fat dogs in far too many show rings--and they sometimes win prizes! In her Showing and Judging Dogs (Gifford, 1977), Hilary Harmer writes: "...unfortunately, very few show dogs are adequately exercised..." This is something surely for the organisation dedicated to the improvement of dogs, our Kennel Club, to confront head-on. I believe it is now more common than when the highly experienced Hilary Harmer produced her conclusion. Is it not time for any obese exhibit to be sent from the ring? Here is an example of an organisation, claiming to be  'for the improvement of dogs' condoning obesity in show ring dogs. WHY NOT INSTRUCT JUDGES TO BAN SUCH EXHIBITS FROM BEING JUDGED?

 In this connection the judges' critiques from Crufts each year are illuminating. Here is one from the 2002 event: Dandie Dinmont Terriers..."I was amazed how many were overweight and just not in show condition..." And three from the year before: German Shepherd Dogs..."quite a few weak pasterns. Feet are atrocious...moved so unsound at the back, they lacked firmness of muscle..." Deerhounds..."some were lacking muscle and I found some very poor feet..." Whippet..."Far too many overweight exhibits..." And the judges of the year before that reported: Labrador bitches..."I had two overall concerns which affected my decisions, excess weight and movement..." Labrador dogs (different judge)..."not being helped by excess weight that a number of exhibits carried on their fronts..." Samoyeds..."quite a few needed exercise..." and on Weimaraners..."there were still many with a lack of muscle tone..."

 For comments like this to be passed by top judges on top exhibits is alarming. The Kennel Club tell us that this canine showcase displays 'the best of the very best'. I found more to admire at the 'Irish Staffies' show. How can the flab be fought when our top show is for unfit dogs and our leading animal charity has it in for fit dogs? The Kennel Club could lead the way by advising judges to omit from their deliberations any exhibit not in show condition, with obesity a disqualifying fault. In his admirable The Practical Guide to Showing Dogs (Popular Dogs, 1956), Capt R Portman-Graham wrote: "I am convinced that in pre-war days any favourable comments passed on my dogs' fronts could be attributed to the systematic special exercises they were given in order to develop their muscles naturally..."

 The writer was clearly dedicated to the improvement of his dogs; his past work should now be overtly supported by the Kennel Club with a clear statement on overweight exhibits at shows licensed by them. It is not good enough to hide behind judges, the top body in the world of pure-bred dogs should set out its stall. Under-exercised overweight dogs should not even be considered by show ring judges. This would have an enormous effect on exhibitors and do an enormous amount of good for the healthier dog movement. I have never seen a fat dog at an 'Irish Staffie' show. But I have heard anxious owners express the worry that if their dogs were seen to be fit, muscular, well-exercised and in hard condition, this would arouse the interest of the so-called Special Operations section of the RSPCA, a charity whose sole mandate is the prevention of cruelty to dogs.

 What a bizarre situation! We now have a country in which those taking the greatest interest in the fitness of their dogs attract the greatest suspicion. If seized by this section, evidence of 'breed' would be given in court, on the RSPCA's behalf, by a veterinary surgeon, despite the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' firm and clear statement that a vet's training does not fit them for such a task. For how long are we going to tolerate such madness? It gets worse; in Dogs Monthly, the RSPCA's Chief Veterinary Surgeon wrote: "I do not understand quite why your correspondent should consider the RSPCA guilty of currently portraying some breeds as anti-social." Where was this scientist when the Dangerous Dogs Act was drafted, naming certain breeds of dog as anti-social, and the two bodies advising the Home Office on its provisions were the Kennel Club and the RSPCA?

 With fat dogs appearing at Crufts and other dog shows and our principal animal charity targeting fit dogs, how do we campaign against the most widespread threat to dogs - obesity? Appeal to the dog food manufacturers? I don't think so. Appeal to the owners? Unrewarding, in my experience. Killing by kindness is not an emotive issue; it is probably condoned by the morally vain. Involve the veterinary profession? Not if the food being sold in so many surgeries these days is anything to go by. Educate the future generations? They are struggling with obesity themselves if the high street is any indicator. The 'Irish Staffie' fanciers could be forgiven for allowing their dogs to get so fat that they are no longer suspected of training them for dog fighting.

 In the longer term, when any dog capable of hunting, pointing or retrieving has been put down, together with any breed or type resembling a fit Bull Terrier, and pastoral dogs are unemployed, how will anyone know what a fit dog actually looks like? At the moment few judges, and even fewer exhibitors, at shows, seem to know what hard condition, muscular development and sound movement really is. The link between the three escapes them. I once thought that shamelessness was the reason behind unfit dogs in the ring; now it is probably more due to ignorance. One day soon it will due to innocence; no one will know what a really fit dog looks like. This is very bad news for the domestic dog. One of my great joys in life is to see a working dog in action, coat gleaming, muscles rippling, eyes bright and feet tight. For me a beautiful dog is not one standing but one moving. A supremely fit, soundly constructed dog puts little stress on its joints, expends energy economically and performs highly efficiently in its locomotion. It makes less demand on its heart and lungs. It enjoys a higher quality of life and a longer life. A well-exercised dog usually means a well-exercised owner, an additional benefit. Over-use of the car may account for packed doctors' waiting rooms; it is becoming a cause of crowded vets' waiting rooms too.

 Ambrose Bierce, in his The Enlarged Devil's Dictionary, defined charity as an amiable quality of the heart which moves us to condone in others the sins and vices to which ourselves are addicted. But obesity in people, especially children, is causing alarm; why shouldn't obesity in dogs receive the attention it merits? Perhaps we need a special newly-created charity, dedicated to dogs, to head up a wholehearted campaign to combat obesity in dogs. Could the praiseworthy Dogs Trust be persuaded to, shall we say, take a lead? This charity had a record year in 2001, rehoming more dogs than ever before, with half its income spent on this and nothing spent on anti-dog campaigns.

 But we all have a part to play in any campaign against canine obesity. Writers can extol fitness and condemn fatness. Vets can advise on diet, whatever the loss in turnover. Food manufacturers can be lobbied by the dog press to promote healthier eating. The Kennel Club could give the highest priority to show condition and make obesity a disqualifying fault. Judges could throw overweight exhibits out of the ring. Any self-respecting hound-show judge would react strongly if a fat hound was offered for his inspection. Conformation dog shows sprang from hound-shows and should honour that heritage. A more affluent society should mean better cared for pets not under-exercised overfed shorter-lived ones. Just as the sporting dog is under unprecedented threat from the morally vain, so is the domestic pet from unenlightened owners who need waking up. A few years ago when I collected my young Bullmastiffs from a weekend in kennels, the proprietor told me that unusually he had another dog of this breed as a boarder. But when he pointed it out to me, I was appalled; the wretched dog was a good two stones overweight. When I expressed my disapproval the proprietor sighed and said that he had pointed this out to the dog's owner, who had replied, with discernible resentment: "I like him like that!"

Callous selfish thoughtless dog-owners like that don't deserve the loyalty and selfless companionship of a dog. It is that kind of unfeeling indirect cruelty which has to be countered. But if hard-muscled super-fit 'Irish Staffies' are not to be admired, if the entry at the showcase of Crufts happily displays obesity and the owners of fat pets are not condemned, we are undermining all the work of our predecessors in handing on superlative animals for our care. We should be eternally grateful, in this mean and nasty world, that we have the well-being of such admirable creatures as dogs, in our hands, if at our whim. It is a responsibility not to be under-rated. In times when the old expression 'as fat as a butcher's dog' has been craftily recast as 'as fit as a butcher's dog', we should ensure that we at least know the difference. Fit must never be replaced by fat! Who is protecting our dogs from those who do not respect their dogs?

   What is to stop a blind and deaf dog winning best in show at a Kennel Club-authorised dog show? With a skilled crafty handler and an obedient confident handsome dog, nothing, is the answer. Now, disabled dogs must always receive our heartfelt compassion, but a dog show is about assessing future breeding material, not just rewarding the best-looking dog on the day. Breeding material surely, in the hands of top breeders, must be good. Don't you believe it! The public are being misled. A blind and deaf dog, even if these afflictions are inheritable, can be registered with the KC, shown in the ring, and bred from, provided the owner doesn't confess. Is that good enough? Are breeders of pedigree dogs too honest to do such things?

  The KC has no procedures in place to record and take action in cases reported to them of dogs registered with them carrying lethal genes. The KC boasts of its health scheme which involves 30,000 dogs a year. Since an additional 270,000 dogs are registered each year, how effective could such a limited scheme ever become? Commendably the KC initiated a health survey; 23 different breeds produced returns from under 15% of its members. Over a hundred breeds could not muster more of a response than under a third of its breed club members. What value does such a survey have? Do the majority of breed club members have any interest at all in the health and well-being of their own breed? Who protects our pedigree dogs?

  A Bullmastiff has been banned from the show ring by the Kennel Club after being operated on for binary entropion. This dog can however still be bred from and its progeny registered, despite carrying a disabling gene. A respected Labrador breeder noticed that a KC accredited breeder had registered a litter from two dogs with different hereditary eye conditions and reported this to the KC. She was subsequently notified by the KC secretary that the Accredited Breeder Scheme only stipulates that breeding stock is tested and does not require a specific result in order to inform potential puppy purchasers. How low can a so-called governing body stoop? Not so low as to reduce income from registrations is the short answer!

  The court reports each year tell us how some show breeders behave: "A Boxer breeder's reputation was in tatters last week after a court ruled that he was guilty of fraud, having falsified the pedigree of a pup he had sold as 'show quality' to a trusting couple." And, "A prize-winning exhibitor was shamed by magistrates last week after being convicted of causing unnecessary suffering to his German Shepherd Dog." Not so long ago, a dog show judge was jailed for four months after being found guilty of appalling cruelty to her own dogs. A well-known judge and winning exhibitor at Kennel Club shows, admitted to Chelmsford magistrates to ten charges of causing unnecessary suffering to her dogs. There was also the case of the vet and dog breeder, who bred German Shepherd Dogs in great numbers and in great discomfort. Some of her dogs were deformed as a result of incest breeding. She was struck off and banned. This breeder has recently been back in court for similar offences. One of the country's leading breeders of West Highland White Terriers was found guilty of a catalogue of abuse against her dogs, in kennels with no running water or electricity and covered in filth and excrement.

  Writing in the canine press a few years ago, a veterinary surgeon and KC member stated: "For over thirty years I have acted as a veterinary expert in cases of alleged cruelty involving pet animals, both dogs and cats. In that time I have appeared both for the prosecution and the defence. Over the last few years I have grown increasingly uncomfortable with the number of high profile breeders...who have for whatever reason found themselves the subject of charges under the 1911 Cruelty to Animals Act." The American KC inspects kennels of dogs registered with them; our KC does not. Whenever man makes use of dogs, it is important to guard against misuse too. Recent years have produced yet more disgraceful incidents in the show fraternity. Yet another breeder was banned by the Kennel Club's disciplinary sub-committee from either registering or competing with any dog for five years. This breeder had falsified his Rottweiler dog's hip score, which was too poor to justify the dog's use for breeding, and then used him as a stud dog, knowingly passing on his dog's poor hips to countless pups. But because the hip scoring of breeding stock is not compulsory, thousands of pups are being registered with the KC from such unworthy parents and then sold to the unsuspecting public as 'KC-registered', which the man in the street mistakenly sees as a kite-mark.

  Half a dozen exhibitors again were disqualified for entering dogs for shows under the wrong name. Until a mandatory identification system such as tattooing or micro-chipping is introduced, only a tiny minority of such offenders will ever be caught; can you tell one Old English Sheepdog from another! Such deception means that the whole system of making dogs up as champions is highly suspect. These examples of cheating or misbehaving in the dog show world are hardly isolated. A Reading breeder who had made up a German shepherd dog champion some years before, was banned by the KC for ten years, after being found guilty of selling mongrels as German shepherds. The KC also banned: a Manchester man for breeding pit bull terriers deceitfully, a Colchester man for interfering with a badger sett, a Northumberland couple for causing unnecessary suffering to a bearded collie, a Berkshire woman for supplying false hip-score certificates and a Lincolnshire man for allowing his premises to be used for dog fights. Every year breeders are banned for falsifying registration documents. Behaviour at dog shows continues to disappoint --and to amaze!

  Incidents in the recent past, range across a bizarre spectrum: a Bearded Collie had his "beard" cut off, a Cavalier King Charles spaniel had his ear feathering cropped, a Maremma was drugged at Crufts, a Rottweiler was poisoned at the Three Counties show, acid was sprayed on the back of a Puli at the Midland Counties' show, another Puli died after being fed an "ecstasy-type" tablet at another show, a Deerhound exhibitor received death threats, a Pomeranian and a Newfoundland died after being poisoned at shows as did an Anatolian Shepherd Dog after Crufts, two Afghans had water thrown over their immaculate coats at the Driffield show and a couple showing Grand Bleu de Gascogne hounds arrived at their allocated bench to find a death threat to one of their dogs fastened to it. The culprits clearly love winning, not dogs.

  Exhibitors caught misbehaving at shows have been fined by the KC for: aggressive behaviour and foul language, assaulting a fellow competitor, verbally abusing a judge, using obscene language, threatening behaviour and fighting. One judge was called over to the car of a departing exhibitor and then with his head inside the car found the vehicle rapidly accelerating! Four exhibitors of Soft-coated Wheaten Terriers returned to the car park after a Midlands show to find their tyres had been slashed. Discord in breed clubs is rife, not so long ago in the Bouvier des Flandres Club of Great Britain (with the AGM described as "well-attended but acrimonious" with mention of rudeness, dislike and hostility) and the Bernese Mountain Dog fanciers, with the late Dr Malcolm Willis the distinguished geneticist commenting that: "The atmosphere at many shows leaves much to be desired".

  The lack of co-operation from breed clubs in schemes to combat inherited diseases is simply a disgrace and shames all dog lovers amongst their membership. But then the Rottweiler breeder who falsified his dog's hip score was secretary of his local breed club. It is the breed clubs which nominate judges, who then decide which dogs win and have value. It is a fair summary of this situation to say that dog show judges are nominated by their colleagues, are never formally tested or examined, with many being incompetent, some biased and a few open to bribery. There is widespread discontent amongst honourable dog show exhibitors over this unacceptable judging scene but the KC ignores the need for change, unlike the other leading national canine clubs overseas.

  A winning dog at Crufts, unfairly or incompetently placed, is widely used for breeding purposes. It then passes on its weak points to the detriment of its breed and could carry more than one inherited disease and go on to sire 500 pups which could pass on that defect. Half the international kennel clubs now no longer rely on the integrity of the breeder and require clearances. How can anyone reading of the misdeeds of show breeders in the above paragraphs expect integrity? Pedigree dogs are being bred with defects and registered with defects. And how we are breeding pedigree dogs! A study of the Breed Records Supplements issued periodically by the KC reveals the following: some West Highland White bitches having had nine or ten litters at only seven years old; a Pembrokeshire Welsh corgi having five litters before her fourth birthday; a four and a half year old Staffordshire Bull Terrier bitch having had seven litters and 55 bitches in this breed mated on successive heats; one Dalmatian bitch producing 33 pups before her fifth birthday. One Papillon breeder has 38 breeding bitches. One English Springer Spaniel dog has sired nearly 200 litters. What if these dogs carry hereditary diseases? Who knows that they do not!

  One breeder, on being informed that his dog had a defect, an inheritable cataract condition, snatched the report form from the desk, punched the eye specialist in the stomach and stormed from the room. So much for breeder co-operation! Breeders would have to co-operate if they couldn't register their stock without clearance certificates. Do you fancy paying £500 for a puppy of a breed you admired at Crufts, only to discover that it was deaf? No less than 37 different KC-recognised breeds are afflicted with hereditary deafness. Yet there is no mandatory KC scheme to assess, record and reduce the incidence of the disease. When you look around at KC dog show, you will be looking at many dog breeders who have defective stock and knowingly breed from such stock. You will also be visiting a show authorised by a body exercising power without responsibility. No, these are not just my strong views. In May 1988, there was a symposium on Heredity and Disease in dogs and cats at Lord's conference centre attended by the leading UK experts in this field. Their conclusions were crystal-clear: "The reduction of genetic defects depends upon motivation and concerted effort by breeders. For reasons of vested interest, ignorance and sheer intransigence some breeders, often allegedly quite prominent ones, will do absolutely nothing"; "If, for example, breeding stock in certain breeds had to be hip-scored before the Kennel Club would register stock, there would be a marked reduction in the incidence of the problem. The British Kennel Club refuses to do this..."; "...the obvious deficiencies of control (i.e. of eye diseases inherited by dogs) may not be properly addressed until knowledge of disease status becomes an essential part of any official registration procedure."

  There is nothing new in such advice. Twenty two years before this symposium, Burns and Fraser were writing in their authoritative "Genetics of the Dog": "...it must be stated that if there is a serious desire to reduce the suffering caused by hereditary defects in dogs then certain measures should be taken. It would not be impossible for the Kennel Clubs to insist on thorough veterinary examination of all breeding stock..." The authors went on to advise the tattooing of tested stock and a note in their registration papers. But there is no serious desire to reduce the suffering. Is this surprising when you recall the behaviour of breeders at shows and towards their own dogs listed earlier? Is it any sense at all for the Kennel Club to expect breed clubs to regulate their activities and act for the good of dogs when the members of such clubs quite clearly dislike each other? Far too many show breeders do not like dogs either; they only like winning. For them too breeds go in and out of fashion, leading to some being over-bred and others just not bred at all.

   Worryingly we have 25 of our native breeds on the Kennel Club's Vulnerable Breed List and another 7 on their 'at watch' register. In the past however the KC has never seen a role for itself in the conservation of our native breeds, whilst recognising, and setting up a register for, a hundred breeds from abroad. in the last century. In this way, a distinctive terrier breed like the English White was allowed to disappear, a native hound breed like the Harrier was removed from their lists whilst contrived breeds like the Cesky Terrier and the Eurasier added to the 'recognised breed' tally. Soon the Dandie Dinmont and Skye Terriers may be lost to us, along with the Field and Sussex Spaniels from the gundog group. In the end, of course, breeds rely on their clubs for survival but much more could be done to arouse public support for old breeds, so much part of our sporting heritage. Just as the Rare Breeds Survival Trust has worked tirelessly to save old breeds of farm animals, so too could the KC in the pedigree dog world. Where there's a will there's a way! Rare birds get protection, rare breeds of dog, seemingly, do not. We need a Royal Society for the Protection of Dogs!

  The dogs of England need protection - protection from us! We have used them cruelly at times; we have bred them to suit our needs not theirs; we have redesigned many of them to exercise our fondness for fads; we all too often insist their basic simple needs have to conform to our selfish requirements; we have declined to acknowledge their innate superiority over us on many issues - they give unconditional affection and lifelong loyalty, quite unlike humans. The above failings may be universal failings but it is our responsibility for English breeds and for dogs in England, to set an example to the rest of the world. We, as a nation, cannot rest on our laurels - we may have established  dog-shows and the pedigree dog - but now need to set the bar high over exercising the highest duty of care towards the dogs of England, purebred or just bred, so that the dog world at large see what can be achieved with native breeds and our domestic dogs. Our KC has advanced in many areas of canine activity in recent years; it now needs the Breed Clubs to be steered by a redirected moral compass and make our care of dogs, like our breeds, the envy of the world. The dogs of England really do merit the acclaim that the Kennel Club of England should have been energetically seeking for them ever since its earliest years in the middle of the 19th century. There is every reason to save the English breeds of dog and restore virility, health and type, where lost. The people of England have every reason to be proud of their native breeds of dog. But who is protecting them?