 |
|
|
|
Changing Times - Time for Change This article is something I would normally send in for inclusion in the Club Newsletter but since there still isn't one, it is appearing here. And, as always, if you'd like to comment on anything written here, just get in touch. I know it is a subject which causes dismay for some but there really was a UK Club for the Tibetan Mastiff in existence before the Kennel Club recognised it and in those early days of the Club's existence, we were advised that one of the prerequisites, before the KC would consider recognising us, was to have a Code of Ethics and so I was asked to set to and produce something suitable and with Eileen Riches input, we succeeded. Our original effort was put to the membership and accepted along with a set of Rules. I thought, perhaps naiively, that because the KC demanded a Code of Ethics this meant that to a great extent, if not totally, the Code would be enforceable and if any breaches of it were notified to the KC they would be able to take appropriate action. This continued to be my assumption until an unfortunate incident regarding the breeding of a bitch on three successive years came to be an issue which required something to be said to the breeder. In the event the breeder did not receive even the slightest rebuke from the Committee let alone the KC. It was then that it became apparent to me, and actually stated as being such, that the Code of Ethics was really nothing more than an advisory document and, moreover, unenforceable. One of the, perhaps, most germane sections of the initial Code of Ethics, concerned the breeding of dogs with high hip scores and at that time 'high' was nothing like some of the scores which have been returned in recent years. At the time of the Club's formation one bitch had been imported and she was subsequently found to have a score in the high 30's. This was something not known to affect other dogs in the UK at the time but the original committee thought that it would be a good idea to try and find a way to reduce the incidence of high hip scores in the TM in the future, if at all possible. It was therefore proposed that a sub committee should be set up to offer advice to anyone who indicated they intended to breed a litter from dogs descended from that bitch. At about the same time, the committee had been able to benefit from the guidance of Malcolm Willis who gave a most enlightening talk to the club about HD and hip scoring. His advice was that no dog with a high hip score, ideally, should be bred from unless, for a special reason, it was thought that a mating of such a dog was going to benefit the breed in the long term: even then it should only be mated to a low scoring dog which was known not to have high hip scores in its lines. Thus it was felt by a few of us on the committee that advice should be available, if requested, about what stud dog or brood bitch could be used, or perhaps more to the point, which shouldn't. This did not come about, however, mainly because it was felt that it would be too harsh an imposition on would-be breeders. History seems to bear out the fact that the original idea was a sound one. Moving on now more than 20 years, I cannot help but smile wryly when I read in the dog press that following the repercussions of that BBC programme, the KC is hoping to obtain statutory powers to regulate breeding of dogs and that it is now compulsory for breed clubs to adopt the KC's own Code of Ethics. I don't know about anyone else who might be reading this, but I have always felt that whilst the health of our breed is paramount this can and must, go alongside type. I feel that this is particularly important as our breed is very small numerically and does not have many lines to fall back on should there be a problem with one of them from the health point of view or very importantly, lack of type. The TM, being a rare breed, does, in my opinion, merit special consideration and what's more, deserves that those who have taken on the mantle of securing its future, are all assisted, as far as possible, by a pro-active club and a strong Code of Ethics. This is a personal view, but I cannot help but think that what applies to very many well and long established breeds, where numbers are huge, and where criticism is directed at a few of those breeds where changes have been made to the dogs' structure over many years, somehow those criticisms are deserved, especially whenever those changes are health or even life threatening. No-one should then be surprised if the general public, which generally knows little of, and cares even less, about pedigree dogs or even Crufts, then begins to look askance at the whole concept of pedigree dogs. I believe that things are rather different with the TM since not only is it a rare breed but it is also remarkably rare in its country of origin and thus we all have a duty to secure a future for it, even if the general public, some vets and dog related companies etc become even more vociferous in their alleged dislike of everything related to pedigree dogs and dog showing. There are some interesting clauses in the KC's Code of Ethics i.e. to, Agree not to breed from a dog or bitch which could be in any way harmful to the dog or the breed; Only to sell dogs where there is a reasonable expectation of a happy and healthy life and help with the rehoming of a dog if the initial circumstances change, and, Not knowingly misrepresent the characteristics of the breed nor falsely advertise nor mislead any person regarding the health or quality of a dog. Generally it seems to me that the KC's own Code of Ethics was put into practice, albeit without teeth, by the Tibetan Mastiff Club long before the current requirements became obligatory. In fact our original Code of Ethics and the current one, is far more restrictive and guiding than the current KC Code but because of the lack of enforceability, its terms are frequently ignored. One other thing which occurs to me and should warrant further discussion, is the exhortation from the KC for breeders to join their Accredited Breeders Scheme. It seems to me that the terms of the Scheme are not very onerous and certainly nothing that a responsible breeder hasn't been doing hitherto. Such a Scheme is to be welcomed, but, it still will not solve the problem of people breeding dogs 'just because they can' and feel it would be nice to have a litter from their pet quality dog. In a small breed like ours this always has been a problem resulting in the continuing different 'types' seen in the show ring. Naturally anyone can become a first time breeder at some stage of their involvement with a breed and since, in my opinion, it is not justifiable to try and prevent novices from breeding litters, for everyone has to start somewhere, it does seem that a breed club, fully supported by the KC, would be a better bet to ensure that any breed is being bred with the best interests of that breed in mind and not a silly whim to breed a litter just for the sake of it. The KC, over the years, has not really shown itself to be a creditable protector of breeds, so the breed club would be a better arbiter of who should receive an Accredited Breeder accolade, provided of course that the ever present back biting and petty jealousies could be overcome. Fairmindedness and a degree of altruism would also help in this endeavour and the failing of kennel blindness should also be kept at bay when it comes to those chosen to help others: and perhaps there lies the rub. All those involved in such a far reaching exercise must be capable of putting aside their own desires for self promotion and have a proven and genuine interest in promoting a breed to ensure it has a future. And on another topic namely the subject of health, was I the only person to notice on one of the numerous sites for puppies and dogs in general, a reference to CIHN being a problem for the breed? I wrote to the owners of the site concerned to ask them to delete this reference because as long ago as the 1980's a test breeding programme was carried out and all likely carriers of the condition removed from breeding programmes. And in any event it was a very rare condition. Despite a rather wierd allegation of CIHN reappearing in Australia a few years ago, to my knowledge, no substantiated case has been found and thus to include it as a problem for the breed is unnecessary and simply wrong. Perhaps not surprisingly I did not receive an answer and as far as I know the reference is still there but it seems to me that if health is to be made an issue with all pedigree dogs, then we should be careful to be accurate about what problems do really affect the TM rather than scaremongering mentions of conditions which no longer affect the breed. I always have made a point of correcting mistakes about the breed, especially when they can lead to misunderstandings or worse. At this time of the year, i.e. the breeding season, this is particularly so since it is usual for phone calls or emails to be received from strangers, enquiring about puppies and it rarely fails to be the case that all sorts of wierd and wonderful misconceptions about the breed have been made by some people who have been contacted hitherto. I don't like to hear that manic behaviour is normal for the breed or that a certain amount of aggression is to be expected. Both of these assertions have been made and both are totally wrong and should never have been made. Shame on those who make this sort of harmful comment. 12th November 2008 |