Threats may do the trick
The Kennel Club has a monopoly of control over the organised world of dogs, but there is no need for this to be the case. They could not legally prevent anyone from setting up a rival organisation to licence and control dog shows.
At first sight, a big problem would seem to be databases, but if an organisation was set up consisting of Our Dogs plus the two main show printing companies, between them they would have most of the details they needed.
If breeders then started to register their litters with the new organisation, the KC's income would fall drastically.
A drawback would be the prestige of Crufts. Most people would still want to exhibit at the world's best show, but I expect the KC would threaten to refuse entry to dogs registered with a rival organisation. However, that would only apply for a couple of years - after that, their income from entry fees would be so low that they would either have to accept such entries or become a smaller, less prestigious show.
There would be a lot of work involved in the early stages, but this could be done if all parties were willing to take the bullies on head to head. If the threat of such a massive fall in income was there, their dictatorial attitude would have to change; maybe the threat is all it needs?
Name and address supplied
It would probably be sensible for the Kennel Club to re-evaluate is relationship with the independent dog press, i.e Our Dogs.
To quote Lydon B Johnson, "Better to have them inside the tent p***ing out than outside p***ing in"!
Ian King (Zawadi)
Thrill over Lucy's Law
Back in March you were kind enough to publish a letter I wrote about Lucy's Law.
You can't imagine the thrill I felt when I saw your headline which said that the Government were strongly hinting that this law is going to be introduced.
I am, as my husband would call it, an armchair supporter of this cause. He follows Charlton Athletic but has not been to a game for thirty years and only follows them from our living room.
Despite the fact that I have long supported a ban on third party sales, I am not one to put my money where my mouth is and have simply observed its success.
Marc Abraham and his team have done an amazing job. It looks like they have managed to change the law by sheer dint of hard work and persistence.
It is notable that this change in the law, if it does happen, has not been achieved by any of the large animal charities with their millions of pounds of funding and influence in the corridors of power.
When you have seen the misery that can by caused when a puppy-farmed puppy is bought from a pet shop then you know that something must be done.
There are people I know who have bought puppies from pet shops only for it to transpire that the the dog is ill. The children were devastated when they watched what they thought was their idyllic puppy die at such a young age.
In a related issue I am told the vet Daniel Doherty has escaped jail despite the fact that he signed health certificates for dogs he had not seen. This despicable man made money out of this scam and no doubt there is a child that has experienced the same heartbreak due to his dishonesty.
Mention should also be made of the desire and sacrifice that has been shown by the people who are campaigning against Linton Pet Store. I have followed this story in your news pages and the decision to give that store its licence to sell puppies is wrong in my opinion.
But it is nice that there appears to be good news on the way and that we will at some point in the near future be able to celebrate Lucy's Law appearing on the statute book.
When it does I shall have a glass of something fizzy, armchair supporter or not!
Click the buttons below to toggle between issues
Go to Index