On Tuesday the BBC broadcast a highly controversial documentary, Pedigree Dogs Exposed. To put it simply, the documentary accused British dog breeders and the British Kennel Club of actively damaging the health of dogs with their approach to dog breeding.
As a basset hound breeder I watched this with interest and have talked to a lot of dog people about the situation. My own personal take on this is that in-breeding should be avoided. I’m a firm advocate of out-crossing, mating dogs that aren’t closely related to each other, and have brought dogs into Sweden form the UK and Norway to increase the gene pool here in my country. In short I breed first and foremost for health, vigor and not success in the show ring.
Dog-breeding issues aside, I’m interested in the way many dog breeders have been left unsure how to reply to such drastic allegations, and how clearly those involved in the show underestimated the power of the media. I’ve also been struck by how a lot of people involved in the show felt betrayed by the filmmakers and that a lot of dog breeders have claimed the show was one-sided, not doing enough to present how serious dog breeders are taking health issues seriously.
A morning’s hectic research has revealed that most breed clubs haven’t responded to the criticisms of the programme whatsoever. The Kennel Club, which can obviously afford to employ a publicist, was quick to put up a statement on its website clarifying it’s own position. But smaller breed clubs, run by volunteers, don’t have these kind of resources. I checked the Basset Hound Club of Britain’s website numerous times but haven’t found anything yet even though lots of people who own bassets in the UK will have turned to them for clarification about what’s going on. After all, the BBC just told the nation that all bassets develop arthritis when they’re older. Something that a basset hound breeder would know just isn’t the case at all.
The whole thing makes me realise that this is a glaring example of why a weblog is necessary, even if you’re involved in a small, non-profit organisation. In the language of PR and spin, we’d say that a weblog is an excellent channel for crisis management. But put simply, a blog is a very easy way of publishing what you think, quickly and efficiently. And that can be vital when you need to respond to something in public.
I’ve already written to the Basset Hound Club of the UK urging them to make some kind of public statement. They need to reassure pet owners that the club is committed to ensuring the health of the breed. By making transparent the kind of initiatives the club has in place to ensure good breeding practice, the club would go a long way to countering the misinformation of the BBC documentary.
As a specific example, if you watch the clip from YouTube you’ll see that the interviewer asks the woman judging the bassets: “Why do bassets have so much loose skin?” Having shown a picture of a basset from the 1940s to the camera the documentary is trying to show that bassets today have been reduced to caricatures of their forefathers.
The judge replies rather lamely (at about 2 minutes and 8 seconds): “Because it says so in the breed standard (literally the anatomical blue print that all dog breeders strive to follow, for those non-dog people out there!).”
Anyone in the breed would know that this answer was inadequate. She should have explained that bassets have lose skin to avoid snagging it on the undergrowth when they’re out in the field, hunting.
If they had a weblog, the Basset Hound Club of Britain could easily clarify this error. What’s more, they could also show different images of bassets from the past they show that the dogs of today aren’t as markedly different as the one used in the documentary suggests.
Ultimately, it’s all about being able to react in public. Again, it’s about being able to tell your side of the story. If people (or national broadcasting corporations!) choose to tell particular stories about you, you need to be able to quickly and readily respond.
Can you?
Related posts:
