# Bateson report on pedigree dogs.



## Ben10 (May 1, 2009)

The Bateson report is out tomorrow. It looks like he'll recommend new rules to end inbreeding and an end to the Kennel Club´s 137-year oversight of the pedigree dog industry.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Ben10 said:


> The Bateson report is out tomorrow. It looks like he'll recommend new rules to end inbreeding and an end to the Kennel Club´s 137-year oversight of the pedigree dog industry.


What an odd statement to make, Ben10. Perhaps you didn't know that the Bateson report was commissioned by the Kennel Club, along with the Dogs Trust? And from their press releases, both the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust seem to be very much in favour of most that the report recommends. I've c&p'd the KC's response below, but here are links to their responses and to the report itself:

Kennel Club Response to the Independent Inquiry into Dog Breeding - The Kennel Club

Bateson Enquiry Joint Statement - The Kennel Club


[url=http://dogbreedinginquiry.com/publication-of-the-inquiry-report/]Publication of the Inquiry Report « The Independent Inquiry into Dog Breeding

Bateson Enquiry Joint Statement - The Kennel Club[/url]
_Kennel Club Response to the Independent Inquiry into Dog Breeding
14-Jan-10

The Kennel Club has broadly welcomed Professor Sir Patrick Batesons Independent Inquiry into Dog Breeding, which has recommended that steps be taken to tackle irresponsible breeders and to change the way the public think about buying dogs.

The Kennel Club, which commissioned and funded the report in conjunction with Dogs Trust, welcomes the reports focus on irresponsible breeders who farm puppies with little concern for their welfare and those who sell poorly socialised puppies on to owners to use as status dogs or as fighting weapons.

The Kennel Club agrees that additional training and support needs to be given to local authorities, which are responsible for issuing breeding licences to those people who breed five or more litters of puppies in a single year, as the current provisions are deemed to be ineffective. It agrees that compulsory microchipping of dogs and increased public education to stop people falling prey to puppy farmers and to help them find responsible breeders are necessary.

It is also glad that the report recognises the need for a robustly policed and well respected quality assurance scheme, consisting of breeders that buyers can trust to look after their puppies health and welfare, and that it suggests that the Kennel Clubs Accredited Breeder Scheme, with some modification could be used.

However, the Kennel Club is concerned that the report could have gone further and that its recommendations do not appear directly to cover those breeders who breed less than five litters per year and who are not part of the Kennel Club Accredited Breeder Scheme. The Kennel Club would have liked to have seen a recommendation for regulation to ensure that these breeders follow higher standards, such as compulsory health testing.

Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club spokesperson, said: Whilst the report recognises that the majority of breeders are responsible, there are those whose actions are bringing the rest of the dog breeding community into disrepute and this needs to be stopped.

We are glad that the report recognises that the Kennel Club has made a good start in its efforts to unite responsible breeders within its Accredited Breeder Scheme, for the benefit of puppies and puppy buyers, and we believe that this should be the basis for moving forward. We are currently working towards UKAS accreditation of the scheme as suggested by Professor Bateson.

We agree that responsible breeders should be rewarded and believe that the show ring is the best forum for this. The report recognises that dog showing and judging are a powerful lever for change and the Kennel Club is dedicated to ensuring that only the healthiest dogs are rewarded at shows.

Public education is vital and all dog welfare organisations must continue to work together to ensure that people know what to look for when buying a dog.

The report looks at genetic diversity in breeds and recognises that the Kennel Club has banned close matings. It advises that future decisions about matings that could affect genetic diversity should be breed specific and made upon evidence based scientific information and advice. To this end it is recommended that the veterinary profession should gather data to show the prevalence of certain diseases and that an advisory council should develop evidence based breeding strategies.

Mrs Kisko continued: The Kennel Club has long recognised that genetic diversity plays a crucial role in safeguarding the health of dogs and the report is absolutely right to suggest that there are no further blanket rules in place but that decisions are based upon scientific knowledge and are made on a breed by breed basis. This is why we are well on the way to creating a new database which will revolutionise the way that we record dog health data. The data will enable us to bring out our Mate Select programme, which will help breeders to find suitable mating pairs which are most likely to produce healthy offspring. The database will go further than the reports recommendation, as the data will be attributable to specific dogs, rather than being anonymous, and will give us a better picture of the health of pedigrees and crossbreeds. Such knowledge is critical and will enable us to provide information to breeders, vets, geneticists and ultimately the puppy buyer.

We are keen to harness as much knowledge as possible for the benefit of dogs so we welcome the principle of an advisory council whose members will work with the Kennel Club to advise on decisions about breeding and health. A structure already exists in the form of the Kennel Clubs Dog Health Group with its recently extended remit. Additional independent experts include canine and human geneticists, veterinary surgeons and an epidemiologist. Using this framework for establishing the advisory council under an independent chairman would save significant sums of money, which can instead be devoted entirely to the dog health research that the report identified as being in urgent need of more funding.

The Kennel Club and Dogs Trust will now arrange a meeting between all relevant parties in order to move forward with the recommendations from all three reports._


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

I've actually sat down and read the whole thing and it is overwhelmingly positive. It looks at every aspect of dog breeding and recommends tighter controls on puppy farms and better education for prospective owners.

I found it interesting that Professor Bateson comments on the lack of 'animal sense' in people nowadays, which is something I've always thought as well.

The KC did not get a bashing at all - in fact one of the most stark things to come out of the report was the fact that one breeding establishment (puppy farm) alone in Ireland produces 5,000 dogs a year and most of them are sold in Southern England. That is an _astonishing_ number of unregulated, potentially unhealthy, non-health tested, possibly badly socialised, non-traceable and non-KC reg dogs at large in the general population!

By comparison, KC reg'd dogs from show-breeders are a minority especially as the report recognises that most show breeders breed only one or two litters a year at most.


----------



## Indie (Nov 6, 2007)

There was summat on the news about this earlier, they interviewed someone from the KC and she said matings like mother/son had been banned. I can't go into detail for obvious reasons but they are still being registered.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Indie said:


> There was summat on the news about this earlier, they interviewed someone from the KC and she said matings like mother/son had been banned. I can't go into detail for obvious reasons but they are still being registered.


Your post is quite cryptic but the Kennel Club regulations about this are very specific:

_The Kennel Club:

Before thinking about breeding from your bitch, you should acquaint yourself with the Kennel Club Regulations on registering litters and the registration system in general. The rules and regulations can be found on the litter application form 1, but you will need to remember that the Kennel Club will not accept an application to register a litter when:

a) The bitch has already whelped six litters, or

b) The bitch was under a year old at the date of mating, or

c) The bitch has already reached the age of eight years at the date of whelping, or

d) Offspring of any mating between father and daughter, mother and son or brother and sister, save in exceptional circumstance, for scientifically proven welfare reasons.
N.B. Relief from the restriction C may be considered provided the dam has previously whelped at least one other registered litter, and a written application is made prior to mating and supported by veterinary evidence confirming the suitability of the bitch involved in the proposed whelping.

You will also need to ensure that your bitch's Kennel Club registration does not carry a breeding restriction (endorsement). If there are any, you will need to discuss this further with the person from whom you obtained the bitch, as any breeding endorsement will need to be removed before registration of a litter can take place. In most cases it will be the breeder who has placed the endorsement, and who will therefore be the person empowered to remove it._
An introduction to dog breeding - The Kennel Club

The only way I can think of a litter of a close mating being registered is if the breeder lies on the registration form. If you have positive proof that someone is trying to get around this regulation by not registering the litter properly - and it sounds as though you may have from your post - then you should report them to the Kennel Club.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MerlinsMum said:


> I've actually sat down and read the whole thing and it is overwhelmingly positive. It looks at every aspect of dog breeding and recommends tighter controls on puppy farms and better education for prospective owners.
> 
> I found it interesting that Professor Bateson comments on the lack of 'animal sense' in people nowadays, which is something I've always thought as well.
> 
> ...


Good post - I agree totally. I think the report was also very positive about the reforms needed in the Dangerous Dogs law.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Ben10 said:


> Spellweaver - I dont think you read the Bateson report or the comments on it. Its all well and good pasting the Kennel Club press release but you need to read between the lines, and note what was not said too.


Well, Ben, I assure you I have read the report - but not your comments on it because I'm not a member on your forum. Your phrase "reading between the lines" worries me somewhat because when someone starts reading things that are not there it means that they are putting their own spin onto what was actually written in order to make it fit in with their own preconceived ideas. I prefer to read what is actually there, rather than what someone with preconceived ideas would like me to think is there.

I would like to answer the comments you have made on here, however.



Ben10 said:


> 1. The Kennel Club fears that if the breed clubs were pushed too hard to change their ways, some of them would go their own way
> 2. It is difficult for the KC to be both judge and jury when introducing proposals for reforms to breeders who hold strong opinions about dog breeding and are often deeply intransigent.
> 4. He also recommended a non-statutory Advisory Council on Dog Breeding should be established.


The Kennel Club have said all along that without there being any law, they have no powers to enforce breed clubs to comply, and that the breed clubs would just leave the Kennel Club and set up on their own. Bateson's recommendation that a non-statutory Advisory Council on Dog Breeding should be established would, as he says in the report (and which I notice you failed to include) make the Kennel Club's job easier. So this was wanted by the Kennel Club and welcomed by the Kennel Club - and it will make a big difference but only in making their job easier, which is not what you inferred at all.



Ben10 said:


> 3. The Kennel Club might consider inviting both scientific and lay members to its General Committee, selected by open competition rather than from the membership, and with a specific remit to provide advice on those matters affecting the welfare of dogs. .


What you fail to add here Ben was that in the very next sentence in the report Bateson states that he appreciates that the KC's Scientific Advisory Committee already contains such members, but that they should expand this. Again, hardly the big difference you talk about.

I think this is a very positive report and would like to see most of its suggestions adopted, and think that if they are the future of all dogs - not just KC registered pedigrees - will be improved.


----------



## Indie (Nov 6, 2007)

Spellweaver said:


> Your post is quite cryptic but the Kennel Club regulations about this are very specific:
> 
> _The Kennel Club:
> 
> ...


I am being cryptic because i'm not going to name names but i no these matings are still being registered


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

just read the report too and I think it is far and away the more balanced and realistic of all the recent reports - it acknowledges the very many breeders who are doing a good job - highlights to impact that puppy farming has and also places a responsibility on the public to do their part - I particularly like the way it realises that you cannot simply have a one size fits all approachb ut calls for breed specific breeding protocols - the catch 22 of eliminating all the dogs who 'fail' their health tests and the resulting narrowing of breed gene pools is also understood as is the need for much more real data on the health of individual breeds

the old problems of financing research and ever increasing testing without pricing 'good' breeders out of the market and of course enforcement of all the recommendations are not ( to my mind ) fully addressed but I cannot imagine anyone who has the welfare of their breed at heart having any real problems with this report .


----------



## bassetsandbeyond (Jun 21, 2009)

was this the report on the BBC news?

If so, i missed most of it ...all i heard was something about microchipping???


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Bijou said:


> ...I cannot imagine anyone who has the welfare of their breed at heart having any real problems with this report .


Me neither, nor anyone with any 'animal sense' as he refers to it.... I understood that totally. It might be a minor part of the report but it's the first time I've ever seen it mentioned not to say published, and it makes so much difference.

Growing up with dogs, cats, farm livestock, chickens, whatever... develops a certain understanding and common sense, aka 'animal sense', as he described it. Seems I acquired it, and I wouldn't mind spending the rest of my life trying to instill it in others.

He needs to be applauded for defining that tiny thing alone, which has never before been addressed.

Well you know me from other forums anyway, Bijou: your own breed is at my heart and I hope you understand where I come from a bit better now


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Indie said:


> I am being cryptic because i'm not going to name names but i no these matings are still being registered


I understand your need for being cryptic hun - but please, please report whatever you know to the KC. If they don't know what is going on, how can they stop it?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Bijou said:


> just read the report too and I think it is far and away the more balanced and realistic of all the recent reports - it acknowledges the very many breeders who are doing a good job - highlights to impact that puppy farming has and also places a responsibility on the public to do their part - I particularly like the way it realises that you cannot simply have a one size fits all approachb ut calls for breed specific breeding protocols - the catch 22 of eliminating all the dogs who 'fail' their health tests and the resulting narrowing of breed gene pools is also understood as is the need for much more real data on the health of individual breeds
> 
> the old problems of financing research and ever increasing testing without pricing 'good' breeders out of the market and of course enforcement of all the recommendations are not ( to my mind ) fully addressed but I cannot imagine anyone who has the welfare of their breed at heart having any real problems with this report .


I agree Bijou - this is by far the most comprehensive, balanced and realistic of all recent reports. Bateson has done his research well and covered a lot of areas that need addressing, and is free from the bias and spin and hidden agendas of programs such as Pedigree Dogs Exposed. As I said earlier, if his suggestions are implemented, it will be a good thing for all dogs, breeders and owners.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Ben10 said:


> Hi Spellweaver - I can see you are very pro Kennel Club - which is not a bad thing and in fact I am very supportive of them too. Sadly the conflicts of interests I listed in my earlier post as recognised by Bateson has put them in a vulnerable position - as being judge and jury of the shows, having non-KC members on their committees and having a totally new Advisory Council on Dog Breeding will diminish their overall authority. Thats what I meant when I said reading between the lines - as they didnt seem to address those issues. But I know they have been through the wringer recently all thanks to the Pedigree Dogs film and I hope they can rise to the new challenges because at the end of the day its the dogs that are suffering.


Yes, I am pro-KC Ben. I think that they have been very unfairly treated both by the program Pedigree Dogs Exposed and by the BBC, and that this has been further exacerbated by some organisations and journalists who have exploited the untruths and half-truths in the PDE program to further their own ends. You only have to look at some of the posts on this forum, and other pet forums, to realise that a lot of people are believing the spin and are bad-mouthing the KC when in reality they have very little knowledge of what the KC has done, is doing, and plans to do in the future. I don't by any stretch of the imagination think that they are perfect. There are areas in which they need to improve and they need legislation in order to help them to do some of it. However, I do believe that not enough credit has been given to them for all the good work they have done and are continuing to do.

I actually think that the Bateson report is really positive about the KC, and I don't think that it will make their position any more vulnerable. Indeed, I think the opposite - if his suggestions are implemented, it will make the KC a stronger organisation. It will resolve the conflicts of interest identified in the report and allow them to actually get on with their job.


----------



## Indie (Nov 6, 2007)

Spellweaver said:


> I understand your need for being cryptic hun - but please, please report whatever you know to the KC. If they don't know what is going on, how can they stop it?


i don't need to it already has.


----------

