# Dog poisoned at Crufts dies



## Freyja (Jun 28, 2008)

I have copied this off facebook I know it is too late now for anyone who is showing today but this is terrible and to think someone would do this. What a vile horrble person

*This is NOT what I Should be posting.

THENDARA SATISFACTION. JAGGER OWNED BY ALEKS & WIM LAUWERS & JEREMY & I IS DEAD.

AN AUTOPSY HAS REVEALED HE WAS POISONED
A LARGE AMOUNT OF BEEF CUBED, STUFFED WITH 2-3 DIFFERENT POISONS WAS STITCHED INTO THE MEAT.
THIS RESULTED IN A VERY PAINFUL DEATH FOR OUR BEAUTIFUL BOY.
THE TIMINGS FROM THE AUTOPSY MAKE IT CLEAR THE ONLY PLACE THIS COULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO JAGGER WAS WHILE ON HIS BENCH AT CRUFTS.
THE POLICE HAVE BEEN INFORMED.

I beg of you if anyone can remember seeing anything suspicious please LET ME KNOW.
Please do not contact Aleks she needs to grieve in peace.

In case this was not a personal attack on our kennel For those of you attending Crufts today, DO NOT LEAVE YOUR DOGS UNATTENDED.*

So sorry for his breeders and owners RIP JAGGER run free at the rainbow bridge


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*I have just read this on FB. So very sad. Some bloody evil people out there.*


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

Probably will turn out to be another jealous dog owner or someone with a personal connection than a random act. 

Very sad though.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

O ... M.... G! So tragic! Why do people have to be so wicked? 

RIP Jagger.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Such is the competitive nature of the human animal that it drives him to base and unspeakable acts of cruelty.

And all in the pursuit of vanity and victory.:sad:


----------



## Buzzard (Aug 10, 2012)

Jesus what is wrong with some people. This is such an evil thing to do. I hope whoever did this gets caught.


----------



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

There are no words for evil people like this Poor dog and poor breeders how can anyone do this to an animal for the sake of winning a dog show I just don't know Shocked and appalled at this


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

OMG - how evil can some poeple be?  Poor dog and poor owners. Nothing - I repeat, nothing - is worth winning so much that you will poison an animal in order to win. Sadly, this will be how the rest of the world now sees show people. Even though the overwhelmingly vast majority of us will be utterly appalled at this, we will all be tarred with the same brush by those with an axe to grind.

I hope they manage to find out who has done it and that they are brought to justice.


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2015)

Spellweaver said:


> OMG - how evil can some poeple be?  Nothing - I repeat, nothing - is worth winning so much that you will poison an animal in order to win. Sadly, this will be how the rest of the world now sees show people. Even though the overwhelmingly vast majority of us will be utterly appalled at this, we will all be tarred with the same brush.
> 
> I hope they manage to find out who has done it and that they are brought to justice.


Let's not forget that AR wackos have been known to poison dogs too. Just for this reason....

Poor dog, poor owners...


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

That is absolutely horrific .


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

Christ alive, what is wrong with people? This makes me so angry; it must be devastating for his owners.


----------



## Westie Mum (Feb 5, 2015)

OMG how awful ..... So so sad  

This sort of thing should never happen, obviously, but I do not understand why people are leaving their dogs unattended. I don't leave mine in the garden alone, so why leave them with thousands and thousands of strangers wandering around. I seen so many left/alone dogs yesterday.


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

going to get to the point where we will all have to be strip searched on entry


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2015)

Westie Mum said:


> OMG how awful ..... So so sad
> 
> This sort of thing should never happen, obviously, but *I do not understand why people are leaving their dogs unattended.* I don't leave mine in the garden alone, so why leave them with thousands and thousands of strangers wandering around. I seen so many left/alone dogs yesterday.


I don't ever leave my dogs unattended in public either, but poisoned bait could have easily been slipped to the dog with the owner right there, or casually tossed in to the crate when the owner wasn't looking.


----------



## 2Hounds (Jun 24, 2009)

Poor dog, don't really understand how anyone could do such a thing. Owners must be devastated


----------



## Britt (May 18, 2014)

What the hell is wrong with people? How can you poison an innocent dog? I hate humans, I prefer pets


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

Surely the Police and RSPCA are investigating? There must be CCTV footage? Such an evil act needs to be punished with the full force of the law!


----------



## Sarah H (Jan 18, 2014)

Just horrendous 

Hopefully they will be able to catch whoever did it, but with the number of people who attended that day it will be almost impossible without some video evidence. 

How someone can do that is just mind boggling. ...


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Absolutely terrible! Why would anyone get that caught up in winning and showing that they sink to such despicable levels. I also worry about their own dog/s as it's clear they're not true dog lovers! The evil people who do this are rarely caught as well which makes it worse. The poor Aussie that died in similar circumstances, I don't believe anyone was ever caught for that? 

What breed was Jagger?


----------



## kaz_f (Mar 8, 2009)

This is a disgrace  how could anyone do such a thing. I just can't believe the depths people will stoop to sometimes to inflict pain on others. Someone somewhere will have seen something I'm sure. I hope they catch whoever did this.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Let's not forget that AR wackos have been known to poison dogs too. Just for this reason....


Really? When? Claims like that should probably be backed up with evidence...

Rivalry can cause people to do crazy things, the owners must be devastated by their loss.


----------



## Freyja (Jun 28, 2008)

Westie Mum said:


> OMG how awful ..... So so sad
> 
> This sort of thing should never happen, obviously, but I do not understand why people are leaving their dogs unattended. I don't leave mine in the garden alone, so why leave them with thousands and thousands of strangers wandering around. I seen so many left/alone dogs yesterday.


Sometimes its not possible to not leave them at all they may have been on their own and in the ring with anotther dog or simply gone to the loo



MrRustyRead said:


> going to get to the point where we will all have to be strip searched on entry


Now that would be interesting god knows wwhat time you would have to be there.



Ang2 said:


> Surely the Police and RSPCA are investigating? There must be CCTV footage? Such an evil act needs to be punished with the full force of the law!


The police are investigating



Dogloverlou said:


> Absolutely terrible! Why would anyone get that caught up in winning and showing that they sink to such despicable levels. I also worry about their own dog/s as it's clear they're not true dog lovers! The evil people who do this are rarely caught as well which makes it worse. The poor Aussie that died in similar circumstances, I don't believe anyone was ever caught for that?
> 
> What breed was Jagger?


Jagger was an irish stter so it was gundog day thursday.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Poor dog and owners  they must be devastated. My money would be a competitor who's a sore loser, some people will go this far


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2015)

lennythecloud said:


> Really? When? Claims like that should probably be backed up with evidence...
> 
> Rivalry can cause people to do crazy things, the owners must be devastated by their loss.


Claims that this was a rival dog owner should be backed up with evidence too... 

I've dealt with first hand the result of AR terrorist work, and deliberately killing animals to prove a point is a pretty common MO for them.

BTW, I didn't say AR wackos did this, I just said rivalry isn't the only possible explanation.

And FWIW, this could have been just a horrible accident. Show dogs stay in hotels, and hotels sometimes use rat poison. Who knows.


----------



## Freyja (Jun 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Claims that this was a rival dog owner should be backed up with evidence too...
> 
> I've dealt with first hand the result of AR terrorist work, and deliberately killing animals to prove a point is a pretty common MO for them.
> 
> ...


It definitely happened while the dog was on its bench a large peice of beef was found in the dogs stomach containing poison. Not all the dogs attending Crufts stayed in hotels I travelled there in the morning same as loads of others.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Claims that this was a rival dog owner should be backed up with evidence too...
> 
> I've dealt with first hand the result of AR terrorist work, and deliberately killing animals to prove a point is a pretty common MO for them.
> 
> ...


You stated that dogs (plural) had been poisoned by animal rights activists. Surely there must be some evidence for this? No? Then I simply can't believe you.

A single, successful dog apparently poisoned on the bench, I never stated it was a rival dog owner but if it was a deliberate act then that is obviously high on the list of probabilities.

Going by the post from the owner then I'd assume the post mortem ruled out accidental ingestion of rat bait.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

I'm speechless  

I've often thought how exposed the benched dogs are but I don't suppose there is anything that could be done to protect them from this sort of thing.


----------



## branwen (Nov 27, 2013)

So sorry to read this.Poor dog :sad:What is wrong with people these days


----------



## Freyja (Jun 28, 2008)

If it was the owner of a rival dog then no there is not a lot you could do but if they made the benching areas unaccessable to the general public then that would help. If the public wanted to see the dogs they should be able to see them in the ring but not be allowed near to the dogs on benches unless they are invited and escoirted in by an owner.

My whippet Peter did get left unattended but just for a short period but he was in his trolley with the front flap of the cove shut so no one could see him in there and he would not touch food if it was offered to him at a show anyway he'll not take food of me while at a show let alone anyone else.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

You get this sort of thing happening in cat shows too. It's an absolute disgrace. These people profess to be animal lovers, but if that's an animal lover then I'm the Queen of Sheba. I suspect it's not just about winning but money too. The pups of the top dogs/bitches probably fetch more money and are more in demand. There should be a special place in hell for people who do this.


----------



## W+T (Sep 21, 2009)

MMmmmmm all i can think of a Death Penalty for the low life scum.

It is so sad to hear it can even be thought of this, so sorry for the owners loss.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Such is the world of showing be it dogs or cats. 

My neighbour used to show many years ago and she has told me some of the terrible things people would do to sabotage a competitors chances. I was told of cats being poisoned at cat shows when I first joined the forum and, sadly, this was the case for a PF member last year when it happened to one of her cats. Fortunately, the cat survived but to say it was close is an understatement.

I don't know how it works at dog shows but, for cats, there are several occasions where the owners are not permitted to stay with their pets, especially when judging is going on. At the cat show last, mentioned above ^^^, the show room was closed for lunch and no-one was permitted in. It is believed that someone snuck in then and did the deed. Unfortunately, it was a small show and no cctv was available.

I find it utterly appalling that anyone could hurt any animal in this manner and can't even begin to imagine the depths of jealousy that people must feel to go to these lengths and commit such acts against helpless animals in this manner. After all, it is not the animals choice to be shown so why take their psycho feelings out on it. 

My deepest sympathies go to the owners of Jagger - RIP lad. 

.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

One thing is for certain if and when I enter my first benched champ show I will not be leaving Cash alone for even a split second! Luckily I always have people with me, so my family could always watch him if I needed to leave him unattended for a while. But this kind of thing scares me witless!


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

I am so saddened and disgusted to think this is happening.

I think the problem is, at most other dog shows, this does not happen - dog thefts do not happen (maybe on the very, very rare occasion but i've been in it 3 years now and never heard of a dog stolen from a dog show) and I think exhibitors get into a bit of a comfort zone, thinking their dogs will be okay. At most champ shows, you can leave your dog and wander off knowing that it's extremely, extremely unlikely that anything will happen. You also have your fellow exhibitors who you can trust (or at least you think you can) to keep an eye on the dogs - there is nearly always _someone_ sat around the benches in your breed.

This has made big, big news in the dog world because it is such a rare occurance. I think it was another exhibitor with an axe to grind. What people on this thread probably don't know is that this dog was from the same kennel/breeder/owner as the dog who took Best of Breed. The dogs had been swapped around on their benches (the lady had 4 or 5 dogs entered, and all dogs get their own bench) due to a nearby bitch who was in season, so I think it was an exhibitor who poisoned the wrong dog, thinking it was the BOB dog. Her certificates for Best of Breed and Best Dog also went missing from her bench that day, and in the past, the same lady has had a dog (the one who took BOB at Crufts - what I think was the intended target of the poisoning) released from his bench at a different show. So to me, this screams of it being another exhibitor with a real grudge against this lady and her kennel. The dog also lives in Belgium, and did not show any effects of poisoning until the following day (Friday) when they returned home - the post mortem on the dog found that the poisons used were slow releasing ones... so the dog wouldn't become ill until returning home to Belgium. I absolutely think this was someone who knew precisely what they were doing and who they were doing it to, and either poisoned this dog as a 'threat' to the others, or it was mistaken identity for her BOB dog.

People do need to be more vigilant I think nowadays, but I also think it's time the public were disallowed from the benching areas to give the dogs some peace and quiet, and minimize the chances of such an attack by separate groups or individuals. The public can see the dogs on Discover Dogs and around the show ring, I don't see any need for them to be allowed access to the benches - you don't go to horse racing and expect to be allowed in the stables with the horses, so Crufts should not be any different.


----------



## Wilmer (Aug 31, 2012)

Sadly, despite the profusion of cameras at Crufts, with such huge crowds moving past the benches it will be a miracle if the evil culprit is detected. It always amazed me how the general public are allowed access to the benches, even if it was another participant who did it, at least it would make it easier to see if anyone was fiddling where they shouldn't be without so much crowding.

I just hope the degree of premeditation (THREE different toxins SEWN into the meat) makes it easier to identify the scumbag (not my first choice of description, but there are under 18's on here...).


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

But surely the benching arrangement at Crufts would need a major overhaul as you can't get to the breed rings without passing through hundreds of benches!


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

Here it *suggests* that the actual target* could *have been the eventual BOB winner, also owned by the same people
They swapped their places as, the eventual winner, was being over excited by a bitch in heat [why take a bitch in heat to a dog show, major tenseness for all concerned]
Also that the BOB and CC cards had been taken from the benches.

reading through,
Im afraid I have to agree with the owner, i too would be paranoid I was being deliberately targeted

http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.p...es_after_being_poisoned_at_crufts__owners_say


----------



## Wilmer (Aug 31, 2012)

> But surely the benching arrangement at Crufts would need a major overhaul as you can't get to the breed rings without passing through hundreds of benches!


It's just a question of design - there's not a single permanent fixture at Crufts other than the walls, really. Just put all the benches in each hall in a single block that can be fenced off with secure access. It wouldn't be in any way foolproof, but it would massively reduce the footfall past each dog.


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

Dogloverlou said:


> But surely the benching arrangement at Crufts would need a major overhaul as you can't get to the breed rings without passing through hundreds of benches!


Then so be it.

I think the benches could be split - you know how they are sort of back to back to one another? Maybe one side could be a 'quiet side' which the public cannot access, and the other side could be a 'public side' - exhibitors choose whether they are happy for the public to meet their dogs or not, and the dogs can be swapped around from public to non public to give them a rest. They would then just need some stewards to volunteer (I would, and anyone who supports private benching should as well, if they want it to happen) to check passes or ID for people passing through the benching areas or the quiet areas to ensure that they should be there. Other exhibitors will also know who should and shouldn't be in the benching areas so could help to be vigiliant. There would need to be some changes made, but why not, if it is for the safety and welfare of the dogs (and the public - one day someone is going to be bitten for oining a tired dog who is trying to rest on his bench).


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Wilmer said:


> It's just a question of design - there's not a single permanent fixture at Crufts other than the walls, really. Just put all the benches in each hall in a single block that can be fenced off with secure access. It wouldn't be in any way foolproof, but it would massively reduce the footfall past each dog.





Tigerneko said:


> Then so be it.
> 
> I think the benches could be split - you know how they are sort of back to back to one another? Maybe one side could be a 'quiet side' which the public cannot access, and the other side could be a 'public side' - exhibitors choose whether they are happy for the public to meet their dogs or not, and the dogs can be swapped around from public to non public to give them a rest. They would then just need some stewards to volunteer (I would, and anyone who supports private benching should as well, if they want it to happen) to check passes or ID for people passing through the benching areas or the quiet areas to ensure that they should be there. Other exhibitors will also know who should and shouldn't be in the benching areas so could help to be vigiliant. There would need to be some changes made, but why not, if it is for the safety and welfare of the dogs (and the public - one day someone is going to be bitten for oining a tired dog who is trying to rest on his bench).


I think it's a good idea. I was passing through hundreds of benches on Friday, looking at the dogs ( some who did seem unattended ) and it always amazes me they do act so calm and not particularly put out with hundreds of people passing them every second. But the way in which the benches are set up currently, it's hard to see how they'd fit in any other set up although I'm sure they could arrange something more safe. Perhaps like you said Tigerneko, public having passes to grant them access.


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

Dogloverlou said:


> I think it's a good idea. I was passing through hundreds of benches on Friday, looking at the dogs ( some who did seem unattended ) and it always amazes me they do act so calm and not particularly put out with hundreds of people passing them every second. But the way in which the benches are set up currently, it's hard to see how they'd fit in any other set up although I'm sure they could arrange something more safe. Perhaps like you said Tigerneko, public having passes to grant them access.


Yeah the current setup makes it impossible but the NEC is huge and perhaps they could use some of the smaller halls as specific benching halls, so that they are totally separate? Then they either announce (as they do) 10 or 15 minutes before each breed is due in to give exhibitors time to get to the ring with their dog, plus most people know what time their judging starts so will know when they need to be at the ringside. Then you just need stewards at the doorway to the benching hall, you take your removal pass or ID in your pocket so that you can get your dog out of the benching hall and present it again on your return. Then you do that each time you take your dog in and out of the benching hall, they could use a hall that has outside access with another steward on the door checking people in and out for toilet breaks. I don't think it'd be difficult to set up at all - benching/prep areas are usually separate at the US shows so we could just look at how they do it and adopt a similar process 

Also then without the benching, they could either narrow the rings down to one hall, or have more space for more trade stands, so that the KC can recoup the cost of hiring out another hall - or perhaps they could squeeze everything into one hall & do away with either hall 1 or hall 5 completely (or use the now empty hall for the benching and allow exhibitors to cut through the piazza from hall 1 to hall 5).

I probably explained that really badly but I know what I mean :lol:


----------



## rose (Apr 29, 2009)

I fail to understand how anyone that goes to crufts and to all intents and purposes is either interested in dogs, breeds and / shows , or is thinking of buying a dog would purposely hurt one? How could you cause pain to another owner and worse still, a living creature when you yourself must be involved with dogs somehow? Bad enough when an animal hater causes harm, but this person must be connected to dogs for breeding/ showing! I am gob smacked!! RIP x:mad2:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Wilmer said:


> It's just a question of design - there's not a single permanent fixture at Crufts other than the walls, really. Just put all the benches in each hall in a single block that can be fenced off with secure access. It wouldn't be in any way foolproof, but it would massively reduce the footfall past each dog.





Tigerneko said:


> Yeah the current setup makes it impossible but the NEC is huge and perhaps they could use some of the smaller halls as specific benching halls, so that they are totally separate? Then they either announce (as they do) 10 or 15 minutes before each breed is due in to give exhibitors time to get to the ring with their dog, plus most people know what time their judging starts so will know when they need to be at the ringside. Then you just need stewards at the doorway to the benching hall, you take your removal pass or ID in your pocket so that you can get your dog out of the benching hall and present it again on your return. Then you do that each time you take your dog in and out of the benching hall, they could use a hall that has outside access with another steward on the door checking people in and out for toilet breaks. I don't think it'd be difficult to set up at all - benching/prep areas are usually separate at the US shows so we could just look at how they do it and adopt a similar process
> 
> Also then without the benching, they could either narrow the rings down to one hall, or have more space for more trade stands, so that the KC can recoup the cost of hiring out another hall - or perhaps they could squeeze everything into one hall & do away with either hall 1 or hall 5 completely (or use the now empty hall for the benching and allow exhibitors to cut through the piazza from hall 1 to hall 5).
> 
> I probably explained that really badly but I know what I mean :lol:


Don't forget that the dogs on the benches are the dogs going into the ring, so the benches need to be near the ring, not at the other end of the hall or in another hall. Most exhibitors show multiple dogs in different classes; it would be impossible to get to the other end of the hall, or to a different hall, and make it back to your class, if you had dogs in adjacent classes. The main puprose of Crufts is, after all, a championship dog show. Perhaps it's time that this was recognised, and more focus given to the dogs being shown and their owners rather than the members of the public. My suggestions are:

Have the trade stands in different halls to the show rings
In the halls where dogs are being shown, allow members of the public around the show rings only
Have each benching area clearly marked as off limits to members of the public - fenced or taped around if necessary
Have each benching area patrolled by either paid staff or volunteers
Have security cameras on the benching areas

However, having said all that, most cases of damage and poisoning that I've heard of over the years have been from other exhibitors in the same breed; so restricting access to members of the public would not stop this happening. It might make it easier to see something happenng if less people are around though.


----------



## Bluetone (Feb 28, 2015)

A cruel terrible act. The poor dog must have suffered and the traumatised owners. Why? For the sake of a trophy? Is a vile act like this worth it for that? I hope Crufts has CC cameras to help and they hold an inquiry too.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

I'd be much happier if the public didn't have access to the benches. Also get rid of the 4pm rule, too.


----------



## Argent (Oct 18, 2009)

I thought it was kind of weird that we could just walk around/through the benches. Lovely to see the dogs but I think in such a busy and tense environment already, the dogs and exhibitors should have the right to prep their dogs and wait their turn somewhere more private and quiet. 

I like the idea of stewards/security to keep an eye on the dogs on the benches - I'd happily volunteer/take the job for something like that. It's sad that in a place full of dog lovers there is need for such precautions... poor Jagger


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

Horrible way to die. Poor dog! People are hideous creatures!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

& yes, the villain are rarely caught. :nonod:

On one occasion, *a man attempting to poison a top-placing dog gave a bit of hot-dog to a child,
telling her to "give it to the doggie..." - the owner intercepted her, & the man was caught before leaving
the grounds.* But that was a rare one-off; most of the time, the dog dies, & no guilty party is ever ID'd.

I do hope they snag the low-life who killed the Setter - no ribbon, no cup, no sire-fees are worth the life
of an innocent animal, who died suffering. I'm so sorry for the owner, who must be distraught beyond words.

E-T-A:
this was a recent 'suspected' poisoning, but there was no blood-draw to test for warfarin / rat-poison:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...isoned-westminster-dog-show-article-1.1277518

A mucky-muck at WKC stated that _'No dog was ever poisoned at Westminster dog show!'_ -
the champs-only invitational hosted in NYC, NY every February. He's wrong:
SHOW DOGS POISONED: BORZOI, AKITA, YORKIES, CHARLIES, CHINS, TheDogPress
.
.


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

It would be good if the dogs could have their own private space with the benches, somewhere practical, close to the ring but away from the public would be good. I try not to walk through the benches but sometimes it's the only way to get by. Some CCTV perhaps to also track down people coming and going, poor dog. 

Sadly not everyone at Crufts is a dog lover, but an ego lover.


----------



## toffee44 (Oct 21, 2011)

Saw an unattended dog snap at a member of public stupid enough to put her face upto said dog. 

Why Can't there be a rule of no unattended dogs. If that dog did bite and cause injury who would be to blame the idiot who put her face upto said dog or the owner/ handler or wasn't there? 

RIP doggie such a sad world we live in sometimes


----------



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

Many years ago when I used to show Ben my PMD there were two dogs on a bench too far away from where I was to notice though some idiot had given tablets to make the dogs sleepy something like a heavy relaxant and the poor dogs were so sleepy they could not stand up
I never left my dog alone my OH would stay with him if I needed to loo
All this for what I cup a trophy beggers belief at times


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

This world makes me so ashamed at times that I share the shame oxygen as wicked evil barstewards as this!!!!! I really hope they are found out and I hope the same goes for them! Our justice system isnt strong enough im afraid!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

The poor dog, I can only imagine the pain his owners are going through now I just hope they catch the piece of filth responsible!


----------



## delca1 (Oct 29, 2011)

Poor Jagger. Poor owners. Some people are so hell bent on their own gain that pain and distress doesn't even seem to register in their brain.

I completely understand that to stop the public entering the benched areas makes sense, it would make things like this less easy to do. I haven't been to Crufts for many years but it was so lovely when I| did go to be able to approach owners and their dogs and chat about the breed etc. I don't expect the owners would mind if this was stopped (they probably get well fed up with the public) but to me it was a great help in deciding on a breed for me.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I'm surprised the public can get into the benching. Surely with discover dogs there, there's no need for them to be able to get in to meet the different breeds? And wouldn't most showers have enough to do without answering questions


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

You have to really wonder what goes on in the person's head when they decide to do something as terrible as poisoning someone's dog:sad: how much anger and how desperate the individual must be to do such a thing!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Lest anyone get the wrong idea, i'd like to point out that this is not a recent 'new' sign of the degradation
of the human species - it's been around for a long time.

Dogs were poisoned virtually as soon as the 'dog show' began; what's changed is the POISONS used,
not the practice. Strychnine was an early choice; now, that's hard to get - so the substances are different,
but the act is not. It's been a constant - altho not common! - since the early days of competition.
.
.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Yes some people are so competetive they'll do anything to win no matter the cost to humans or animals.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Nicky10 said:


> I'm surprised the public can get into the benching. Surely with discover dogs there, there's no need for them to be able to get in to meet the different breeds? And wouldn't most showers have enough to do without answering questions


It can be hours before your turn in the ring & when you've been in you're not allowed to leave until 4pm. So there tends to plenty of time to speak to people - or go shopping.


----------



## Snowdog (Mar 3, 2015)

I went to crufts once. I was surprised at the time I saw these areas with loads of dogs sitting round looking a bit bored and hot and some stressed but not much site of people of people around I could see. I remember thinking I wouldn't have done that myself


----------



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

BBC News - Crufts dog death: Poisoning probe after Irish Setter dies

that's the latest news I think


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> I'm surprised the public can get into the benching. Surely with discover dogs there, there's no need for them to be able to get in to meet the different breeds? And wouldn't most showers have enough to do without answering questions


With the way in which the rings are set up, you have to pass in most cases, many benched breeds before you even reach the ring of your chosen breed etc. For example the Hovawarts were smack bang in the middle of Hall 5 more or less and surrounded on all sides by benched dogs! But I should imagine it does get tiring for the handlers/owners as the amount of times they had to move from the gangway when people kept bombarding through must get frustrating somewhat. I even got knocked around at one point by passing people!


----------



## Freyja (Jun 28, 2008)

toffee44 said:


> Saw an unattended dog snap at a member of public stupid enough to put her face upto said dog.
> 
> Why Can't there be a rule of no unattended dogs. If that dog did bite and cause injury who would be to blame the idiot who put her face upto said dog or the owner/ handler or wasn't there?
> 
> RIP doggie such a sad world we live in sometimes


They do state dogs should not be left unattended on their benches but if you aree on your own as I sometimes are how are you supposed to go to the loo if you can't leave the dog. Also most people have multiple dogs we saw people going in with several dogs but were on their own. If you can't trust your fellow competitors and you are in he ring with 1 dog who stays with the others.

Sometimes leaving the dog unattended is unavoidable.


----------



## toffee44 (Oct 21, 2011)

Freyja said:


> They do state dogs should not be left unattended on their benches but if you aree on your own as I sometimes are how are you supposed to go to the loo if you can't leave the dog. Also most people have multiple dogs we saw people going in with several dogs but were on their own. If you can't trust your fellow competitors and you are in he ring with 1 dog who stays with the others.
> 
> Sometimes leaving the dog unattended is unavoidable.


Shows like this take a handler. Sorry. Most big horse shows are never attended alone and take grooms for help and safety.

Crufts is once a year get organised for your dogs safety and wellbeing.


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2015)

toffee44 said:


> Shows like this take a handler. Sorry. Most big horse shows are never attended alone and take grooms for help and safety.
> 
> Crufts is once a year get organised for your dogs safety and wellbeing.


I wholeheartedly agree with you about not leaving a dog unattended (I would never do so at a dog show, and don't ever go to dog shows alone for this very reason), but just to reiterate, the dog could have been slipped the tainted meat with the handler standing right there. All it takes is one moment of diverted attention and a determined saboteur could slip the dog a tainted treat without anyone being the wiser.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

ouesi said:


> I wholeheartedly agree with you about not leaving a dog unattended (I would never do so at a dog show, and don't ever go to dog shows alone for this very reason), but just to reiterate, the dog could have been slipped the tainted meat with the handler standing right there. All it takes is one moment of diverted attention and a determined saboteur could slip the dog a tainted treat without anyone being the wiser.


I agree, and if it's someone within your breed who comes over smiling and congratulating you on your win while 'rewarding' your dog....you're none the wiser really.


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

Just seen this story on BBC News. The police are involved!


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> I agree, and if it's someone within your breed who comes over smiling and congratulating you on your win while 'rewarding' your dog....you're none the wiser really.


And I'm bad about letting people feed my dogs anyway. At shows especially people will walk up, ask if they can pet, "oh, can I give him a treat?" And I just blindly say yes because mine have iron guts. What I *should* say is "sure, just give him one of my treats" like my friend who has a dog with major allergies does.


----------



## Linden_Tree (Jan 6, 2011)

Beef cubes found over 24 hours after the alleged poisoning, undigested and still 'stuffed with poison'?

Something in this doesn't ring true, and i withhold judgement until actual facts are known, and an official vet report is publicly released.

They also managed to get a PM done rather quickly.

There is much, MUCH more to this story than meets the eye.


----------



## ruwise (Aug 6, 2014)

My heart breaks for the poor dog. No competition is worth this. Whatever has gone on it can't be by people who love the breed as they should. He looked like such a beautiful dog and share his name with Nuala's older brother who is a show dog as well.


----------



## Westie Mum (Feb 5, 2015)

Just seen on FB apparently a Westie is on a drip since the show yesterday - angell petco status update


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Linden_Tree said:


> Beef cubes found over 24 hours after the alleged poisoning, undigested and still 'stuffed with poison'?


The more I think about this, the more this is confusing me. How on earth can undigested beef cubes be hanging around in the digestive tract of a dog over a day after the apparent incident? How did they identify '3 different poisons' without toxicology? How did they even identify the meat as beef?


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

ouesi said:


> And I'm bad about letting people feed my dogs anyway. At shows especially people will walk up, ask if they can pet, "oh, can I give him a treat?" And I just blindly say yes because mine have iron guts. What I *should* say is "sure, just give him one of my treats" like my friend who has a dog with major allergies does.


Same here. To be honest at a dog show with supposedly fellow dog lovers you wouldn't dream of something like this happening. It's definitely made me think though and I'm inclined to do exactly as your friend does if someone offers him a treat in the future. At least that way you can monitor what he's having to a large extent.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

There is no actual evidence as yet as to what the poison was, what the carrier was or if indeed it occurred at Crufts.

But hey, lets not let the facts get in the way of rumour, speculation and scaremongering......................


----------



## pickle (Mar 24, 2008)

A friend of mine who has Salukis had one of her dogs poisoned at a Champ show (LKA) about 10 years ago. He became unwell at home after the show and despite treatment she lost him. There was actually a televised documentary made about this, and other such incidents, in which my friend took part. 

She never leaves her dogs now, and only ever takes one so she can keep it with her. She believes they targeted the wrong dog as she had her other lad off the bench at the time and he was a dog that was doing well.

If it is just "random" you can think it is maybe someone with mental health problems perhaps. However to think it may be a fellow exhibitor, maybe someone you have been in the ring with and spoken to  that is hard to get your head round. How do these people live with themselves and call themselves animal lovers? I don't understand what the perpetrators of these horrific acts hope to gain from it.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

More information. Apparently other things had been happening.

Crufts dog death mystery as Irish Setter dies amid claims of poisoning by jealous rival - Telegraph


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

Freyja said:


> Now that would be interesting god knows wwhat time you would have to be there.


I think it would take all day if they got those men in uniform to strip search the women as they would be queueing up for another turn ha


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> Same here. To be honest at a dog show with supposedly fellow dog lovers you wouldn't dream of something like this happening. It's definitely made me think though and I'm inclined to do exactly as your friend does if someone offers him a treat in the future. At least that way you can monitor what he's having to a large extent.


Then there is my great dane who won't take food from anyone she doesn't know, and won't even take it from me if my hands smell of some other dog's spit.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

ouesi said:


> Then there is my great dane who won't take food from anyone she doesn't know, and won't even take it from me if my hands smell of some other dog's spit.


Very clever dog you have there! My Molly would take food even if it was covered in another dogs poo!  She is so food orientated!!


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2015)

Doggiedelight said:


> More information. Apparently other things had been happening.
> 
> Crufts dog death mystery as Irish Setter dies amid claims of poisoning by jealous rival - Telegraph


Sorry, but I'm still not understanding how this article (and the dog owners) can conclude from a dog being poisoned, that is *must* have been done by a rival competitor.

Reading this, the dog could easily have picked up something on the train on the way home.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

ouesi said:


> Sorry, but I'm still not understanding how this article (and the dog owners) can conclude from a dog being poisoned, that is *must* have been done by a rival competitor.
> 
> Reading this, the dog could easily have picked up something on the train on the way home.


I guess we just have to wait for the vet report. All the other things she has put are strange aren't they. Just have to see. Very sad however this pooch passed away


----------



## Freyja (Jun 28, 2008)

toffee44 said:


> Shows like this take a handler. Sorry. Most big horse shows are never attended alone and take grooms for help and safety.
> 
> Crufts is once a year get organised for your dogs safety and wellbeing.


Not always so easy my husband told his boss months ago in fact not long after Peter qualified back in July that he would need yesterday off to go to Crufts. Her reply was well that'll depend on whether you are down to work that day or not. The other alternative was to book it of as a holiday but as he only has an 8 hour contract would have lost a weeks holiday. My son and hs fiance were going to come but are busy moving house so couldn't make it. If it hadn't have happened that my husband was off that day I would have been going on my own.


----------



## Freyja (Jun 28, 2008)

MrRustyRead said:


> I think it would take all day if they got those men in uniform to strip search the women as they would be queueing up for another turn ha


I don't know about that Jamie some of the women I saw and I include myself in this the security men would be running away from them.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Then we have *intellectual poison* -
like this bizarre stew of fact & cr*p:

There are no winners at Crufts. Dogs deserve better than to die for a 'beauty' pageant - Comment - Voices - The Independent

It isn't the _"genes for SPOTS"_ that make Dals retain uric acid; it's an inability to handle purines.
Some of the stuff in the article is true - some is utter balderdash.

If we want purebred dogs to continue as a species, we need to improve our husbandry, & LIMIT the power
of individual breeders, the number of progeny a matador sire can produce, etc. Breed clubs need to get
their collective brains busy, & at the same time, get their a$$es in gear; admiring ribbons or envying
someone else's loving-cup won't do a thing to help our beloved breeds - or individual dogs.

The status quo will see the not-so-gradual destruction of purebred dogs, over time. The need to act is urgent.
.
.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Dogs get poisoned every day of the Year, accidentally or otherwise, and many times, the source of the poison is never known.

Because this particular dog had been to Crufts that day doesn't necessarily mean he was poisoned in the venue.

He could have picked something up in the street on the way to the train station or on the train itself.

Hopefully, time will tell.


----------



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

This is the latest

BBC News - Crufts dog death: Poisoning probe after Irish Setter dies


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

shirleystarr said:


> BBC News - Crufts dog death: Poisoning probe after Irish Setter dies
> 
> that's the latest news, I think.


Thanks, Shirl -



> _
> 
> A dog has died after competing at Crufts, amid claims he was poisoned.
> 3-YO Thendara Satisfaction, known as Jagger, is understood to have collapsed & died after returning home
> ...


I think we need a lot more data.
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Westie Mum said:


> Just seen on FB *apparently a Westie is on a drip since Cruft's yesterday* -
> 
> angell petco status update


Do U have a non-FB source for this, W-M?
I tried google, but no dice.
.
.


----------



## Westie Mum (Feb 5, 2015)

leashedForLife said:


> Do U have a non-FB source for this, W-M?
> I tried google, but no dice.
> .
> .


Twitter ....


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

A vet writing in the first link has said there is no chance that any meat eaten that day by the dog would be left in the dogs stomach, so is dismissing the story as sensationalism, and there could be another reason why the dog died,he said toxicology repots take weeks to come back, 
So sorry for the dog and owners RIP Jagger
Isee another dog a Westie is ill now, hope he/she recovers


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

This is the comment from a vet on the dog world article, really echoing the concerns I expressed about the whole thing.

"Beware! This is very sad if true, and my thoughts and sympathy are with the owners of this dog, but... 
This is sensationalist journalism. This article is 100% speculation. If this did occur when the 'post mortem' said it did, there is absolutely no chance there would be any remains of 'cubes of meat' left in the stomach for the pathologist to find. It only takes the stomach about 4 hours to digest a meal. Also, in one sentence, they say they know there were 2 or 3 different poisons used, but in the very next sentence they say they are still waiting for the toxicology report. The chances of it being a poisoning is tiny compared to the hundreds of other possible causes of death, especially in a dog in a heightened stress situation - travel, mixing with hundreds of other dogs, being in an environment with a higher than normal risk of disease etc. 
The comments on this article are all knee jerk reactions to a sensationalist headline with absolutely no proof at this time. Even if it was poisoning, it is extremely difficult to prove. As a veterinary surgeon myself, I know the toxicology / post mortem results will take days to weeks to come back with any answers."

To get a definitive diagnosis from a gross post mortem isn't as common as you'd think in the absence of further tests. To not only identify the piece of food given to the dog but also the time it was given, the number of 'poisons' it contained and even the type of meat it was over a day after it was alleged to have been given is so incredible that it's probably impossible. I don't know what's going on with this story but I'm absolutely certain it's more complicated than it seems.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> ... there is *absolutely no chance there would be any remains of 'cubes of meat'* left in the stomach
> for the pathologist to find. *It only takes the stomach about 4 hours to digest a meal.*
> ...


OK.
Please explain how my Akita, as an approx 6-MO pup, brought up *perfectly formed kibble, whole - 
about 1/2 cup - over 12-hours after her previous meal.*

She'd last eaten at 9-PM the night before; the weather was still warm, & she wasn't hungry till after sundown.
The next morning, I had an appt to get to, & didn't get to feed her - she toileted twice, i bathed,
dressed, & we caught the bus at 10:30-AM - I packed her meal along.

And when we debarked downtown 20-mins later, she vomited 16 or 20 pieces of kibble. Other than being
a bit paler in color, & perhaps 25% larger in volume, they were *unchanged*.

I phoned my vet, very confused, & asked him was it possible she had megaesophagus?... he shrugged it off,
& irritably told me that was impossible. Since i was LOOKING at the evidence, that wasn't a very good answer.


If dogs digest their food into unrecognizable mush in 4-hours, how the H*** did that happen?

[This is the same dog who had an emergency overnight GDV about 3-mos later.]
.
.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

lennythecloud said:


> This is the comment from a vet on the dog world article, really echoing the concerns I expressed about the whole thing.
> 
> "Beware! This is very sad if true, and my thoughts and sympathy are with the owners of this dog, but...
> This is sensationalist journalism. This article is 100% speculation. If this did occur when the 'post mortem' said it did, there is absolutely no chance there would be any remains of 'cubes of meat' left in the stomach for the pathologist to find. It only takes the stomach about 4 hours to digest a meal. Also, in one sentence, they say they know there were 2 or 3 different poisons used, but in the very next sentence they say they are still waiting for the toxicology report. The chances of it being a poisoning is tiny compared to the hundreds of other possible causes of death, especially in a dog in a heightened stress situation - travel, mixing with hundreds of other dogs, being in an environment with a higher than normal risk of disease etc.
> ...


Thanks for this, i am no good at poting links, i was hoping someone would post the whole thing , but what about the Westie now at the vets vomiting blood,?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Let's not forget that AR wackos have been known to poison dogs too. Just for this reason....
> 
> Poor dog, poor owners...


And given that PETA staged a protest during Best in Show, it makes you wonder ... especially as a dog from another breed (a Westie) seems to also have been poisioned. I remember one Crufts when we were warned to padlock the bench cages because some animal rights organisation had threatened to go around letting dogs out of cages.

http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-shows-and-events/30563-crufts-warning.html


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I wouldn't put it past some of the very fanatical AR people. I suppose we'll have to wait and see what the full tests and cctv bring up


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

I suspect there may be many dogs who are not very well post Crufts.

21k were entered and it would be a miracle if none of those 21 thousands were not taken ill at some point over the period.

does not necessarily mean any nefarious activity took place at Crufts or elsewhere.

Correlation does not equal causation.............

Is there NOBODY capable of critical thought?


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Critical thinking doesn't make good headlines, SmokeyBear. As the Daily Mail knows.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Like my dad said though why would PETA or any AR organisation choose that one dog out of thousands? If it was their goal to somehow disrupt the show surely they could have come up with something on a grander scale that resulted in the show to come to a delay or whatever. That scenario seems unlikely to me.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

jaycee05 said:


> Thanks for this, i am no good at poting links, i was hoping someone would post the whole thing , but what about the Westie now at the vets vomiting blood,?


Dogs get ill for a number of reasons and the stress of the show and environmental insults increase the risks. There is absolutely no evidence that the westie was poisoned. As for the evidence for the setter, as I said above, I find it very hard to believe at this stage.

PETA have held a protest at best in show for a number of years. I'm certain that particular organisation would not poison dogs, for a start they are a public relations machine - they er on the side of edgy/inappropriate but not evil.


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

We all know PETA think animals are better off dead than 'enslaved' - even so I don't suspect them in this. They prefer to keep their killing under the radar as much as possible.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Whatever the causes of these dogs being taken ill, it is very sad, and the setter might not have been in top form to brgin with,and its a long way for a dog to travel in such a short time i would think,poor dogs,poor owners, i expect the results will come eventually, i really hope there were no poisonings


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Just watched a video of an activist running out and disrupting the show with a placard,about breeders and animals in rescue, he was soon escorted out, but it doesnt say if this was this years show or when it was,im assuming today or yesterday


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

It was best in show tonight


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

What a horrible thing to do. Sheer envy and spite.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Just sums the human race up doesn't it, try to win at all cost.

poor dog, poor owners :sad:

RIP Jagger, Beautiful Boy.


----------



## Barcode (Mar 7, 2011)

Unbelievable.

As we were walking around, I said to OH:

I wouldn't leave my dog alone. What if someone sabotaged it ?!

And then, on the drive home, we heard this. A win that can only be gotten by taking out the competition is no win at all. But much more importantly, this was someone's family member that has been murdered. For what? So-called prestige. Nothing is worth that. Took the edge off a great trip.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

So new evidence has emerged that a murder has definitely taken place?

that it definitely occurred at Crufts?

And not only that the motives have definitely been established?

Thank goodness the majority of posters in this thread are not policemen, accident investigators, loss adjusters, barristers and will hopefully never sit on a jury................


----------



## icarepet (Dec 5, 2014)

Just read this today on the paper and its very sad, knowing the dog is from Belgium where I was this weekend playing with dogs.

Insecure/Jealous people do wicked things like this >.< hope karma gets back to whoever did this.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

smokeybear said:


> So new evidence has emerged that a murder has definitely taken place?
> 
> that it definitely occurred at Crufts?
> 
> ...


I was showing my IS at Crufts so this has hit me hard. The details from the OWNER is that the autopsy has shown that three different types of poisons were contained in cubes of beef, and that the timing meant they had to be administered at Crufts. Police informed.

I think the owner is a fairly reliable source SB!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

BessieDog said:


> I was showing my IS at Crufts so this has hit me hard. The details from the OWNER is that the autopsy has shown that three different types of poisons were contained in cubes of beef, and that the timing meant they had to be administered at Crufts. Police informed.
> 
> I think the owner is a fairly reliable source SB!


No actually the owner is not a fairly reliable source as they are not emotionally detached and have done exactly what many people on this thread have done, jumped to conclusions without ANY underlying evidence of the poison (reports cannot be done this early and are, in any case, not always reliable), carrier (unless of course they have conducted dna tests of the "meat" it was in) or the exact time it occurred (unless they have witness evidence, CCTV etc)

It is ALL speculation at the moment.

But hey, people LOVE gossip and rumour montering and sensationalism don't they?


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2015)

BessieDog said:


> I was showing my IS at Crufts so this has hit me hard. The details from the OWNER is that the autopsy has shown that three different types of poisons were contained in cubes of beef, and that the timing meant they had to be administered at Crufts. Police informed.
> 
> I think the owner is a fairly reliable source SB!


But even if all of the above turns out to be completely true, none of it proves it was a rival competitor who poisoned the dog.

There are other possibilities.
- Some sadistic wacko who just picked the first unattended dog they found.
- Accidental poisoning.
- Not poisoned at all (toxicology wil reveal more).
- An elaborate plot to collect insurance $ on the dog (it has happened before).
- An elaborate attempt to cover up a health issue (has also happened before).
- AR extremist work (Better dead than pet campaigns say it all really).
- None of the above, just a freak occurence.

And just to be annoyingly specific, you can't perform an autopsy on a dog. It's a necropsy or post-mortem.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

ouesi said:


> But even if all of the above turns out to be completely true, none of it proves it was a rival competitor who poisoned the dog.
> 
> There are other possibilities.
> - Some sadistic wacko who just picked the first unattended dog they found.
> ...


I agree! Jagger wasn't a Champion, he came second in a large class, but that didn't mean he was going to be BOB or anything. Unless it was someone with a grudge against the kennel.

Whilst I was sitting with Bess on her bench there were loads of the public coming around oohing and ahhing at the dogs, and two pairs actually came and stroked the unattended dog next to us. Although I didn't say anything (I should have!), if they'd gone to feed him anything I'd definitely have stopped them. It's easy to say stay with your dog the whole time, but that's impossible, particularly if you're on your own and need to go to the loo, or if you've got multiple dogs and need to be in the ring with one. Normally there are lots of people in the breed on the benches and we do look out for each other, so someone must have really picked their time.

I do suspect it was a member of the public with a grudge against dogs, and just picked one unattended when there weren't many people around. That anyone in the breed could poison a competitor's dog is too far beyond belief.

Of course, it could have been totally random, and they could just have dropped the cubes on the ground for any dog to pick up. There were loads of treats lying on the floor, and Bess spent half her time trying to hoover them up!

Gave my girl an extra hug when I heard the news.


----------



## Tigermoon (Apr 2, 2013)

A truly despicable act no matter who did it, but I wouldn't be in the least surprised if it was a rival competitor.

Having shown cats, dogs and horses I have seen and heard about the activities that one exhibitor will go to to destroy anothers chances. Those range from 'mild' attacks like cutting chunks out of the fur, rubbing bubblegum or an oily product such as mayonnaise into the fur or rubbing in loads of talc so the animal gets disqualified to the serious things such as dripping antifreeze into water bowls and feeding poisoned treats. I even heard about a cat that had glitter hairspray blasted into its face at a show :frown2:

It is awful to consider that an exhibitor would be so jealous of another that they attack their animals but it can and does happen.


----------



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

BBC News - 'No doubt' Crufts dog Jagger was poisoned, says owner

Poor dog was a therapy dog too how very sad


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

shirleystarr said:


> BBC News - 'No doubt' Crufts dog Jagger was poisoned, says owner
> 
> Poor dog was a therapy dog too how very sad


So we are still no further forward in terms of identifying if the dog was poisoned, what the meat was and where it was consumed.


----------



## dawn13 (Mar 9, 2015)

hi I saw this on facebook its distgusting that someone cud do this to an animal , people who show and go to crufts are meant to be animal lovers , this is something you expect to read in the paper about waring neighbours or kids but not at the best do show in the world its very very sad x


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Out of the thousands of dogs there at least a couple are going to get sick, maliciously or not. We'll have to wait for the results of the tests to come through. Poor owners whatever happened


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> No actually the owner is not a fairly reliable source as they are not emotionally detached and have done exactly what many people on this thread have done, jumped to conclusions without ANY underlying evidence of the poison (reports cannot be done this early and are, in any case, not always reliable), carrier (unless of course they have conducted dna tests of the "meat" it was in) or the exact time it occurred (unless they have witness evidence, CCTV etc)
> 
> It is ALL speculation at the moment.
> 
> But hey, people LOVE gossip and rumour montering and sensationalism don't they?


Whilst I appreciate your determination not to jump to conclusions and to wait for the evidence I do have to wonder if you would be quite so calm and detached if this were one of your dogs.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Whilst I appreciate your determination not to jump to conclusions and to wait for the evidence I do have to wonder if you would be quite so calm and detached if this were one of your dogs.


I work in the world of health and safety and accident investigations and claims.

It is normal human behaviour to blame something or someone else for one's own misfotunes or those of our loved ones.

Of course I would not be calm and detached if it was my own dog.

I wold be distraught with grief as would anyone.

However that does not change the facts.

The ONLY facts that currently exist are that a dog has died.

How, why, where, when, which, who, what are still unknown.

Whatever happened to "innocent until proved guilty" ?


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> OK.
> Please explain how my Akita, as an approx 6-MO pup, brought up *perfectly formed kibble, whole -
> about 1/2 cup - over 12-hours after her previous meal.*
> 
> ...


Similar thing happened to me just this week, though the dog had only been fed about 6 hours before. Fly had chewed through her leather lead and threw up the piece she'd eaten, along with her barely digested breakfast, over her sister in the crate.


----------



## Westie Mum (Feb 5, 2015)

* Telegraph online *

Latest:

• Two other dogs feared to have been poisoned

Crufts dog death: two more competitors taken ill - Telegraph

_
Fears about dog safety at Crufts deepened on Sunday night as one judge said that two ladies told her they believed their dogs had been poisoned.

The judge, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said: "I saw one of the prize-winning dogs being sick in the ring on Friday.

"The lady who owned the dog was very upset, he is a top winning dog. His eyes were rolling and she had to take him to the vet. She thought someone had poisoned him, although she had no proof.

"Then there was another lady with a champion bitch who was sick in the morning, then she was ok when she was shown, and when she got home she was passing blood. Both ladies thought their dogs had been poisoned." _


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> I work in the world of health and safety and accident investigations and claims.
> 
> It is normal human behaviour to blame something or someone else for one's own misfotunes or those of our loved ones.
> 
> ...


I believe the owner has stated that when the vet opened the dogs stomach they found cubes of meat sewn up with poison inside. One suspected of being slug killer and the other possibly rat poison with a possible 3rd type yet to be identified. I don't think any non malicious person would go around sewing up poison inside cubes of meat. Of course whether it proves to have been administered at Crufts or not remains to be seen as does whether it was a jealous rival or some random a--e wipe. Innocent until proven guilty still applies as I'm not aware anyone has actually been accused as yet.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I believe the owner has stated that when the vet opened the dogs stomach they found cubes of meat sewn up with poison inside. One suspected of being slug killer and the other possibly rat poison with a possible 3rd type yet to be identified. I don't think any non malicious person would go around sewing up poison inside cubes of meat. Of course whether it proves to have been administered at Crufts or not remains to be seen as does whether it was a jealous rival or some random a--e wipe. Innocent until proven guilty still applies as I'm not aware anyone has actually been accused as yet.


Poison - unknown
Meat source - unknown
Place of administration - unknown
Identify of administrator - unknown
Motive - unknown

Yet the owner is accusing someone of administering poison in beef at Crufts.

Ergo my view "innocent until proved guilty"

We do not know even if the owner did it or not

(Remember the parents who appear on tv pleading for the killers of their children to be caught who have killed them themselves)?

Hence my stance remains.

We have no actual facts other than a dog is dead.

Who, what, where, when, why, how, which etc are still UNKNOWN.

Speculate all you like,


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Westie Mum said:


> * Telegraph online *
> 
> Latest:
> 
> ...


21 thousand dogs = some degree of vomiting, diarrhoeah, heat stress, fits etc are to be expected.

The words jump, bandwagon and publicity come to mind.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Give it a few days and I'm almost sure they'll have whipped this up into a poisoning epidemic, mass corruption in the show world etc . 21k dogs why wouldn't a few be sick?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

smokeybear said:


> Poison - unknown
> *Meat source - unknown*
> Place of administration - unknown
> Identify of administrator - unknown
> ...


So are you doubting the post-mortem results that cubed beef was found in the dog's stomach with poison sewn into it? Are you saying that the owner is making this up as I'm sure the vet who carried out the post-mortem would have something to say if they are spreading lies. I would have thought post-mortem results were facts. Of course they are not the whole story but I find suggestions that the owner may have poisoned their own dog totally insensitive and unnecessary.


----------



## Wiz201 (Jun 13, 2012)

I'm sure a similar poisoning happened last year too. Sadly this may mean that benching may have to be closed to the public, but then the perpretrator could have well been a fellow handler entered at the show anyway so I don't know what the solution to preventing this kind of thing really.


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So are you doubting *the post-mortem results that cubed beef was found in the dog's stomach with poison sewn into it?* Are you saying that the owner is making this up as I'm sure the vet who carried out the post-mortem would have something to say if they are spreading lies. I would have thought post-mortem results were facts. Of course they are not the whole story but I find suggestions that the owner may have poisoned their own dog totally insensitive and unnecessary.


That's not what the necropsy states.
That's not what ANY professional necropsy would state.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> That's not what the necropsy states.
> That's not what ANY professional necropsy would state.


But how do we know what it states? we only know what the owner has released to the press and I'm suggesting that if the owner were making that up (meat with poison sewn into it) then I think the vet would contradict them. Plus I would assume the makers to the TV programme shown on Channel 4 last night would not have had a segment at the start of the show about it showing Caroline Kisko of the Kennel Club discussing it and with Clare Balding the presenter asking for anyone who was at Crufts on Thursday who saw anything suspicious to come forward.

I feel so sorry for these owners, they sound like a loving family with a young child and the dog was a PAT dog too. It if were me and I read strangers suggesting that I was lying or might have done this to my dog myself I would be mortified.


----------



## Freyja (Jun 28, 2008)

BessieDog said:


> I agree! Jagger wasn't a Champion, he came second in a large class, but that didn't mean he was going to be BOB or anything. Unless it was someone with a grudge against the kennel.
> 
> Whilst I was sitting with Bess on her bench there were loads of the public coming around oohing and ahhing at the dogs, and two pairs actually came and stroked the unattended dog next to us. Although I didn't say anything (I should have!), if they'd gone to feed him anything I'd definitely have stopped them. It's easy to say stay with your dog the whole time, but that's impossible, particularly if you're on your own and need to go to the loo, or if you've got multiple dogs and need to be in the ring with one. Normally there are lots of people in the breed on the benches and we do look out for each other, so someone must have really picked their time.
> 
> ...


It has beenn said they thought tthe actual target was the breeders other dog Noodle who won the CC and best of breed. They had swapped the dogs benches round as Noodle was gettingg upset about a nearby bitch in season .


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

This sort of thing disgusts me frankly. There is something very wrong with people who are so obsessed with competing that they resort to poisoning peoples dogs. 

Its also about time proper security was in place at these shows since it is clear that some very disturbed and evil individuals currently have access to peoples dogs and it simply should not happen.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

smokeybear said:


> So we are still no further forward in terms of identifying if the dog was poisoned, what the meat was and where it was consumed.


I have to agree with you. And to have meat that is identifiable as not only beef but steak and with the poison still inside sewn up bits of meat - well , either the vet is a super vet to identify it without it being sent away to a specialist for analasys or the owner has hold of the wrong end of the stick. Plus if this really was what was found it could not possibly have been fed to the dog at Crufts and also the dog would not be dead as the poison would be sitting harmlessly inside the lumps of meat and would not have been absorbed and killed the dog.

I know someone who was convinced that both their horse and dog had been poisoned. After several months they were still no further forward with results. They still told everyone not only that their animals had been poisoned but who had done it.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

cbcdesign said:


> This sort of thing disgusts me frankly. There is something very wrong with people who are so obsessed with competing that they resort to poisoning peoples dogs.
> 
> Its also about time proper security was in place at these shows since it is clear that some very disturbed and evil individuals currently have access to peoples dogs and it simply should not happen.


But if it was a rival competitor how would that help? The breeds are benched together aren't they so they would have to have access to the area


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I have just listened to an interview about it on Radio Scotland. They had a breeder of Skye terriers and some sort of activist. Very pertinent to the subject! The activist just slagged off all breeders and the breeder tried to defend herself.


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> But how do we know what it states? we only know what the owner has released to the press and I'm suggesting that if the owner were making that up (meat with poison sewn into it) then I think the vet would contradict them. Plus I would assume the makers to the TV programme shown on Channel 4 last night would not have had a segment at the start of the show about it showing Caroline Kisko of the Kennel Club discussing it and with Clare Balding the presenter asking for anyone who was at Crufts on Thursday who saw anything suspicious to come forward.


I don't know what the necropsy states, but I can make a very educated guess at what it does *not* state, and I highly doubt it states that there was "beef" with "poison" sewn in to it found in the dog's gut. It might state that there was evidence consistent with poisoning, but there is no way they could tell on visual examination what kind of meat it was (even if it was meat) and what else was in there.
My dogs have upchucked some pretty interesting stuff over the years, and a lot of things don't look anything like what they originally were after spending a few hours in a dog's gut, let alone as long as this was supposed to have been there.

Blitz explains it better than me:


Blitz said:


> I have to agree with you. And to have meat that is identifiable as not only beef but steak and with the poison still inside sewn up bits of meat - well , either the vet is a super vet to identify it without it being sent away to a specialist for analasys or the owner has hold of the wrong end of the stick. Plus if this really was what was found it could not possibly have been fed to the dog at Crufts and also the dog would not be dead as the poison would be sitting harmlessly inside the lumps of meat and would not have been absorbed and killed the dog.
> 
> I know someone who was convinced that both their horse and dog had been poisoned. After several months they were still no further forward with results. They still told everyone not only that their animals had been poisoned but who had done it.


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2015)

Can I just point out again...

Even if it turns out the dog was poisoned, that it was intentional, and that it did happen at the dog show, it still doesn't prove it was a rival competitor who did it.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> I don't know what the necropsy states, but I can make a very educated guess at what it does *not* state, and I highly doubt it states that there was "beef" with "poison" sewn in to it found in the dog's gut. It might state that there was evidence consistent with poisoning, but there is no way they could tell on visual examination what kind of meat it was (even if it was meat) and what else was in there.
> *My dogs have upchucked some pretty interesting stuff over the years, and a lot of things don't look anything like what they originally were after spending a few hours in a dog's gut, let alone as long as this was supposed to have been there.*
> 
> Blitz explains it better than me:


My dogs have thrown stuff up they ate 12 hrs or more later so it can happen. The joint owner of the dog who lives in the UK says the dog seemed lethargic and off colour later on the Thursday and he was of course dead on the Friday. Assuming they had to follow the 4 O'clock rule its possible the baited meat was not fed until around that time so is it really totally infeasible that it could still have been in its stomach the next morning?

The owners are saying they do not think it is a rival competitor.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> My dogs have thrown stuff up they ate 12 hrs or more later so it can happen. The joint owner of the dog who lives in the UK says the dog seemed lethargic and off colour later on the Thursday and he was of course dead on the Friday. Assuming they had to follow the 4 O'clock rule its possible the baited meat was not fed until around that time so is it really totally infeasible that it could still have been in its stomach the next morning?
> 
> The owners are saying they do not think it is a rival competitor.


I think it was 26 hours later - which really is not feasible.


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> My dogs have thrown stuff up they ate 12 hrs or more later so it can happen. The joint owner of the dog who lives in the UK says the dog seemed lethargic and off colour later on the Thursday and he was of course dead on the Friday. Assuming they had to follow the 4 O'clock rule its possible the baited meat was not fed until around that time so is it really totally infeasible that it could still have been in its stomach the next morning?
> 
> The owners are saying they do not think it is a rival competitor.


I never said anything about it not being possible for contents to still be in the dog's stomach. What I said was that the vet would have no way of knowing without toxicology reports *what* those contents were. The vet could make a guess, but would not put anything specific on the post mortem.


----------



## Firedog (Oct 19, 2011)

I just think it is pretty sad all round. Poor dog, poor owners.


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2015)

Blitz said:


> I think it was 26 hours later - which really is not feasible.


Unless the dog had a major blockage, or intestinal anomaly of some sort. Which would put a whole 'nother spin on things.

For all we know the reddish meat looking stuff was a sponge or someting the dog had eaten weeks ago that managed to mix with something else and cause a blockage. Stranger things have happened.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Burrowzig said:


> ...
> [Fly] had... been fed about 6 hours before. She'd chewed through her leather lead & threw up
> the piece she'd eaten, *along with her barely digested breakfast*, over her sister in the crate.


Wow! - Thanks, Ziggy.
I'm sure there are other folks, too, who can recall something similar.

Yes, that is odd. :huh:
The only difference i see is that she'd eaten something, at best, difficult to digest [leather] & possibly irritating
to the stomach-lining, as the chemicals used in tanning aren't 'nice', even if it's veg-tanned - tannic acid is very sharp.
*Possibly* - & i'm not an internist - the chemicals or the leather itself irritated the stomach & stopped digestion?...
& then she vomited it up, felt better [tho empty], & the stomach recovered its aplomb.

My dog hadn't eaten anything other than her food, spent a quiet night at home, did nothing out of the usual,
behaved normally, slept, woke, voided, all as normal as any other day or night, & puked kibble that looked like...
wet, slightly-faded kibble. :blink:

No bile brought up, no pink trace of bleeding, nada; clear fluid, slightly mucoid, & kibble.

I'm not expecting anyone to solve it; it's just darned weird, & obviously, she DIDN'T "digest her meal to mush"
in a 12-hour period. I doubt very much that she's a unique dog; something happened. It might be something
that happens, not frequently but often-enuf, in dogs all over the world - the interior of stomachs isn't visible.
We can only suppose what goes on, & when it occurs, in retrospect via sacrificing experimental animals -
which there's been plenty of, over the centuries! - or by timing meals / subsequent BMs, & testing blood
chemistry, to see when nutrients appear from a recent meal.

I don't think U can say *absolutely* that a specific food will be at thus-&-so stage of digestion at X time
subsequent to consuming it at Y time. It's not that 'set'. Certainly, not in my personal experience.

Dr Metzger gave me a hard time, & attributed my call to excessive worry on my part - but it wasn't my WORRY
that made my dog toss up unchanged kibble at 11-AM, when she'd last eaten a meal at 9-PM the night before.
That was a total surprise - & very strange.
.
.


----------



## Dingle (Aug 29, 2008)

Very Sad indeed


----------



## Yorkiemorkiemum (Jun 14, 2012)

From what I read today and saw on the news a lot of people were not very pleased that international breeders were being allowed to enter! How ridiculous is that? I would be really chuffed if my dog wasn't just the best dog in Britain but the world! That would be amazing but then I wouldn't want to show my boys, even though they are so stunningly beautiful they'd win hands down! Scruffs for Denzi and Crufts for super Sammy haha! But I would want my boys tugged and pulled and examined. I often wondered about some of the stories I'm told by the lady who used to groom my boys, she's a breeder and shows her beautiful dogs, but she's told some stories of the level some people will go to to win. As she says its money that's the issue. That poor dog that died was worth £50,000 can you imagine what the puppies would've been worth. Truly abhorrant the person that did it had no love for dogs but what I cant understand is how long it took for the poison to work? It must have been slow release poison my Sammy was poisoned by a nasty neighbour, we couldn't proove who did it but Sammy nearly died. They'd thrown bread over the fence with rat poison on it only for me keeping him hydrated he would have died.
Seeing the photos of that beautiful dog I felt like crying and I hope whoever did it gets a big shot of Karma.


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

I have just watched a vet on Sky News, list a few household items that would kill a dog or cat in about an hour. Some of those items can be found under most peoples kitchen sink or in the shed. Why give people such information?


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

Ang2 said:


> I have just watched a vet on Sky News, list a few household items that would kill a dog or cat in about an hour. Some of those items can be found under most peoples kitchen sink or in the shed. Why give people such information?


Helpful for us to protect but in the sick twisted mind ....


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Ang2 said:


> I have just watched a vet on Sky News, list a few household items that would kill a dog or cat in about an hour. Some of those items can be found under most peoples kitchen sink or in the shed. Why give people such information?


To warn people to keep them out of their pets' reach, you know so they don't have to go through this horrible tragedy 

Ah sorry not alarmist enough ZOMG people had no idea bleach was deadly. Next thing you know there will be a spree of bleach poisonings by malicious people.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Nicky10 said:


> To warn people to keep them out of their pets' reach, you know so they don't have to go through this horrible tragedy
> 
> Ah sorry not alarmist enough ZOMG people had no idea bleach was deadly. Next thing you know there will be a spree of bleach poisonings by malicious people.


Actually I think she has a point. There are lots of horrid people about who think dogs should not be allowed to walk past their house or use the park and that information could well lead to a few of them deciding to put down poison to get rid of the offending dog they don't want in the neighbourhood.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Actually I think she has a point. There are lots of horrid people about who think dogs should not be allowed to walk past their house or use the park and that information could well lead to a few of them deciding to put down poison to get rid of the offending dog they don't want in the neighbourhood.


If they really wanted to do it they'd just google it. I don't think a quick news article designed to warn pet owners of dangers they might not have thought of, aren't a lot of common houseplants on the list? is going to turn people into animal murdering psychopaths. The mass poisonings make the news because they're so rare.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I would imagine that most people would think that bleach is poisonous, its common sense to keep any cleaning stuff out of an animals way, but doesnt help when its broadcast


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Yes god forbid people are warned about common poisons around the house they might not have thought of. Clearly they should think of the deranged section of the community who are just one mention of daffodils away from killing all creatures in sight.

Daffodils- highly toxic to dogs and cats, also kill other kinds of plants put near them


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

Actually, this was stuff that your pet would not touch, unless concealed within something like meat!


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

OMG how tragic...rip poor pooch and my heart goes out to the owners. I thank god that mine don't touch anything that isn't in their bowls or fed by me...well, one of them maybe would as she is a bit of a bugger but I know this so make damn sure I watch her religiously....how evil people can be


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Ang2 said:


> Actually, this was stuff that your pet would not touch, unless concealed within something like meat!


Well, Leah, our Staffy would have eaten literally anything.

She didn't used to sniff first, her method was "Grab it, swallow it and wonder what it was later".


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Ang2 said:


> Actually, this was stuff that your pet would not touch, unless concealed within something like meat!


I don't think that person has met many labs then  a lot of dogs will eat just about anything


----------



## Britt (May 18, 2014)

I just saw the owner on TV. She lives in Belgium (Tongeren). What happened to her dog is awful


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

From Crufts fb...
"_The facts surrounding Jaggers sad death are still being established and we must stress that any other unsubstantiated rumours about dogs being poisoned are just that at this point. There are any number of reasons why a dog may display symptoms such as sickness and should a dog fall sick there are vets at the show who will examine the dog in question and file a report. We can confirm that no vets have raised concerns about poisoning and there have been no official complaints from any owners at Crufts 2015.

We are aware that there are reports in the press regarding a number of breeds. If you have any information we urge you to come forward to report the matter as soon as possible by emailing [email protected]_"


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Nicky10 said:


> Yes god forbid people are warned about common poisons around the house they might not have thought of. Clearly they should think of the deranged section of the community who are just one mention of daffodils away from killing all creatures in sight.
> 
> *Daffodils- highly toxic to dogs and cats,* also kill other kinds of plants put near them


I never knew that!

Now watch me kill every animal within a mile radius with my new master plan. Antifreeze just isnt good enouugh


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Ang2 said:


> Actually, this was stuff that your pet would not touch, unless concealed within something like meat!


Like the bottle of disinfectant I took off Targ? Who I then found trying to eat a can of petrol....

:lol:


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

Nicky10 said:


> I don't think that person has met many labs then  a lot of dogs will eat just about anything


My dogs wont touch anything with a chemical compound ie I have to conceal their worming tablets in something tasty. Same with my cats.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> I never knew that!
> 
> Now watch me kill every animal within a mile radius with my new master plan. Antifreeze just isnt good enouugh


Humans too especially as the bulbs are easily mistaken for leeks :001_unsure: daffodils pretty but oh so deadly


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Nicky10 said:


> Humans too especially as the bulbs are easily mistaken for leeks :001_unsure: daffodils pretty but oh so deadly


Watch out dog owners. Mothers day is coming up and we all know what that means...


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Ang2 said:


> My dogs wont touch anything with a chemical compound ie I have to conceal their worming tablets in something tasty. Same with my cats.


Erm everything and I do mean everything is made of chemical compounds. Saying that is like saying label every food product that contains dna. Sadly a real study and overwhelming yes :frown2:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

While i lived in Va Beach, Va, a woman was arrested for planting antifreeze-laced cans of tuna around her
neighborhood - she killed feral cats, owned cats who roamed at large, as well; it was estimated she'd killed
well over 100; possibly 200 or more, as she'd done it for *years* before being charged & arrested.

Some cats also were SEEN to act drunk, went to the vet, were treated, & recovered. But not many.
The window for symptoms is brief - it passes; the animal then SEEMS normal.

so yes - ppl do poison pets at random; ppl also poison pets when opportunity offers, as dogs in yards / gardens
who aren't being watched, are alone, whose owners don't police the yard before releasing the dog to toilet, & so on.

A man in Philthy was arrested after poisoning over 300 dogs, over about 10-years, with antifreeze-soaked
kibble flung over fences. Often he never saw the dog; only heard barking. He didn't live near many victims -
just drove around, pitched the stuff, drove away. He just hated dogs - any dog.

Owners with fenced yards get into sloppy habits - they let the dog into the dark yard, & NEVER *LOOK* for a rat,
a raccoon, a 'possum, or the poisoned kibble under the shrubbery. The dog gets into a fight with the wildlife or
the neighbor's cat, or eats the kibble, & sometimes the owner DOESN'T EVEN REALIZE there was a fight - or that
their dog *ate something*, unobserved. Days later, the wounds are infected, or the dog is symptomatic,
& the owner can't fathom how or when this happened.

It happened when they weren't looking. :001_huh: It's one of the reasons i was glad i walked out WITH
my dog, when i shared my elder sister's house in Norfolk - their yard was enormous & had overgrown shrubs,
but my dog was on leash & i went along. No opps for snacks - no dead birds, no airmailed goodies from persons
unknown, no herbicide, no nothin'.

It's not always malicious - accidents happen, too. WALKING on treated grass or sprayed soil is bad, too.
.
.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

According to this evenings news there are now 6 dogs allegedly poisoned,


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

jaycee05 said:


> According to this evenings news there are now 6 dogs allegedly poisoned,


We don't even know the setter was poisoned. 21k dogs and 6 are sick? Surely that's pretty good going statistics wise


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Ang2 said:


> *My dogs won't touch anything with a chemical compound [in it] -*
> i-e, I must conceal worming tablets in something tasty.
> 
> *Same with my cats.*


Then all i can say is, U are exceedingly lucky, & Ur pets are exceedingly rare in their cautions.

Dogs have swallowed wads of aluminum-foil smelling of greasy meat, plastic bags that once held food,
steak knives, screws, & other inedible & indeed unbelievably-uncomfortable items.

try Google Images - search for 'x-rays of strange things swallowed by dogs' or 'weird things in dog stomachs'.
There are LOADS of them.

Cats aren't much better - many poisons are bitter agents, & many cats LIKE 'bitter' as a taste; they can't taste
sweet, so sugar is not a temptation - but bitter can be.
Cats' livers are nowhere near as good at detox as dogs' or humans' are; IF they consume or touch toxins,
cats are much-more likely to die - quickly. Part of that's body-size / dose, but mostly it's liver incompetence.

my friend Michelle, who founded PACC in VA, had a personal dog who was a failed foster; a big leggy Lab-X.
He had 'food issues' & ate ANYTHING that smelled - even remotely! - of food.
Among the things that sent him to the vets & damn-near bankrupted them was consuming 6 bars of soap
scented with coconut, that were under the bathrooom sink in the cupboard, still in the wrapper & wrapped
round with cardboard - he stripped all the paper & pasteboard off, & consumed only the soap  - 
& chewing into a squirt-bottle of lemon-scented dishwashing liquid beside the sink, on the counter, to lap up
the leaking detergent.
He was tall - so every cupboard below 6-ft was potential foraging; they put child-proof latches on every door,
drawer, & bin. They even baby-gated the bathroom & kitchen. [They *crated him* if they left the house
or went to bed; baby-gates were for when they were AT HOME, but not in the room.]

The coconut soap was the 1st event - they didn't understand what it meant, at the time. They had to figure out
what was going on in his head - he didn't arrive with a known 'food issue', he arrived as a dog-aggro dog with RG.

He'd rummage in her purse - medication, lip-balm, hand-wipes, snacks, anything. U couldn't put down
ANYTHING in the house, if he was out of his crate. Groceries, packages, cleaning items, --- nothing.
He was a nightmare to live with. But he was only an extreme version of a normal dog.

Cats are less liable to eat objects - but are more likely to deliberately consume poisons than dogs;
dogs do it by accident.
.
.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Something has just occurred to me:

If the poison was still in its stomach, in lumps of beef, then it hadn't been digested.

If it hadn't been digested, then it couldn't have been absorbed into the system.

If it hadn't been absorbed into the system, then it couldn't have killed the dog.


Curiouser and curiouser.
.


----------



## bunny-lover2 (Mar 17, 2009)

not wanting to play devils advocate here but as saddened as i am that a dog has died at crufts, there were a couple of things that didn't make much sense to me in reports i have read,

1. The dog was there on Thursday and home on Friday when it became ill, and people are guessing/speculating on whether it was rat poison and slug poison. 
You cant really say its poison until a proper toxicology report is back from the lab.

2. The cubes of meat stitched together with poison in it, that found in his stomach on the post mortem should not have been there still as it would have moved through and been eaten away by gastric acids usually with 4-6 hours of ingestion. (Unless the dog suffered from gastric emptying issues.)

I'm not saying it wasn't poisoned but i'm not jumping on the bandwagon yet.

I don't show dogs at all, never have, but id never leave them unattended or let anyone offer 'treats' as such a busy crowded competitive dog show. I really do feel for the owners who have lost jagger. x

Owners in 'no doubt' Crufts dog was poisoned


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

Could it not be that some of the poison started working and as it's effects were kicking off organs started shutting down? If the dog started getting lethargic etc. it could be because of his digestion getting disrupted which would explain why there was still some meat left in the stomach? Just thinking out loud really.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Ang2 said:


> My dogs wont touch anything with a chemical compound ie I have to conceal their worming tablets in something tasty. Same with my cats.


How do you feed them then?

EVERYTHING is made up of chemicals including animals and food and plants etc etc etc


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Yorkiemorkiemum said:


> From what I read today and saw on the news a lot of people were not very pleased that international breeders were being allowed to enter! How ridiculous is that? I would be really chuffed if my dog wasn't just the best dog in Britain but the world! That would be amazing but then I wouldn't want to show my boys, even though they are so stunningly beautiful they'd win hands down! Scruffs for Denzi and Crufts for super Sammy haha! But I would want my boys tugged and pulled and examined. I often wondered about some of the stories I'm told by the lady who used to groom my boys, she's a breeder and shows her beautiful dogs, but she's told some stories of the level some people will go to to win. As she says its money that's the issue. *That poor dog that died was worth £50,000 can you imagine what the puppies would've been worth*. Truly abhorrant the person that did it had no love for dogs but what I cant understand is how long it took for the poison to work? It must have been slow release poison my Sammy was poisoned by a nasty neighbour, we couldn't proove who did it but Sammy nearly died. They'd thrown bread over the fence with rat poison on it only for me keeping him hydrated he would have died.
> Seeing the photos of that beautiful dog I felt like crying and I hope whoever did it gets a big shot of Karma.


The dog was allegedly worth £50,000 IF it had been wanted as a sire, IF it had been paid a decent stud fee and IF it produced good quality puppies.

That is a lot of "IFs" 

Just because somebody says it is so, does not make it so.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So are you doubting the post-mortem results that cubed beef was found in the dog's stomach with poison sewn into it? Are you saying that the owner is making this up as I'm sure the vet who carried out the post-mortem would have something to say if they are spreading lies. I would have thought post-mortem results were facts. Of course they are not the whole story but I find suggestions that the owner may have poisoned their own dog totally insensitive and unnecessary.


The results of the post mortem are not yet finalised, ergo neither the vet nor the owner can categorically state what the dog died of.

I find the suggestion that anyone deliberately poisoned this dog totally insensitive and unnecessary and of course I did not suggest they did it, I merely made an observation that plenty of people have accused others of crimes they themselves have committed.

I did not accuse the owners of doing such a thing.

There is a subtle but important difference.


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

smokeybear said:


> How do you feed them then?
> 
> EVERYTHING is made up of chemicals including animals and food and plants etc etc etc


Aint that funny? My dogs know the difference between a bowl of nosh and Drontal Worming Tablet! Maybe they are just smarter than your dogs? Must be their upbringing!


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

£50,000?!!

Who on Earth put that price tag on him?

This whole situation is tragic, but however good the pups from any litter, there is always a limit on their value.

I owned the top Stud Dog in PRTs for two years running and he certainly wasn't worth a fraction of that.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Ang2 said:


> Aint that funny? My dogs know the difference between a bowl of nosh and Drontal Worming Tablet! Maybe they are just smarter than your dogs? Must be their upbringing!


ROFLMAO

I am sure your dogs are smarter than mine.

Mine are so dumb they just swallow any tablets like sweets.

Must be their training.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Mine eats them in meat    I shall have to watch out for poisoners. Although I'm sure I'll smell them a mile off anyway he'll only eat them buried in tripe

Everything is chemical compounds rocks, plants, your dogs you. All just the same atoms held together in different positions.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Can we try and remember that some poor dog has died, whether it turns out to be foul play or not, poison or not, it has died and its owners are distraught. Its not something to joke about


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Can we try and remember that some poor dog has died, whether it turns out to be foul play or not, poison or not, it has died and its owners are distraught. Its not something to joke about


I'm not joking about a dead dog, whatever the circumstances the owners must be distraught.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

I see nothing funny in the fact that any dog has died, particularly in such tragic circumstances.

What, to me, is incredible is the hysteria some people involve themselves in when something like this happens, making outlandish claims and accusations.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Sweety said:


> I see nothing funny in the fact that any dog has died, particularly in such tragic circumstances.
> 
> What, to me, is incredible is the hysteria some people involve themselves in when something like this happens, making outlandish claims and accusations.


Could not agree more, people need to take a chill pill and start to think rationally..................


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

smokeybear said:


> How do you feed them, then?
> *EVERYTHING is made up of chemicals* - including animals, food, plants, etc, etc, etc.


If U get down to molecules & elements, yes - but the average person isn't thinking that way.
They class things as living [plant, animal, bacteria], non-living [rock, gas, other inert materials], & so on.

Proteins are 'chemicals', but in a living animal, they're body parts or biological functions - not chemicals only.
Chlorophyll is a chemical, but in a living plant, it's also a critical processing unit & an energy converter.

SYNTHETIC chemicals are quite different from biological ones - *unless* they are structural
& chemical mimics of an originally-natural chemical [i-e, DAP a-k-a Dog Appeasing Pheromone].
The insulin produced by GMO-algae is the same as insulin produced by humans - or dogs, or cats.

Phenols are naturally-occuring chemicals, but they are liver toxins & very potent; frankly, i don't know why
they are still allowed to be sold as 'safe' cleaning compounds.

DDT & its many chemical relatives is NOT a 'natural' compound, & is very persistent, hard to remove once
released in the environs, & accumulates in food-webs - from algae or arthropods or plants, into herbivores;
from herbivores into carnivores, & continuously accumulating exponentially at each stage.

Of course there are dangerous natural chemicals - arsenic, venoms, chemical irritants, neurological toxins
in mushrooms or fish spines, & many more. But i think what most ppl think of as 'chemicals' are petroleum
derivatives, or synthetics with no naturally-occurring originals.
Just guessing - i could be wrong.
.
.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

10 O Clock news said that only one dog has been confirmed as being poisoned, 6 other dogs are rumoured to have been poisoned


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> If U get down to molecules & elements, yes - but the average person isn't thinking that way.
> They class things as living [plant, animal, bacteria], non-living [rock, gas, other inert materials], & so on.
> 
> Proteins are 'chemicals', but in a living animal, they're body parts or biological functions - not chemicals only.
> ...


I am not sure why you feel the need to give me some sort of chemistry lesson, I do not actually need one.

But thanks anyway 

What most people "think" is unfortunately a bit of an oxymoron.

Most people do not as witnessed by the contents of this thread


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

jaycee05 said:


> 10 O Clock news said that only one dog has been confirmed as being poisoned, 6 other dogs are rumoured to have been poisoned


So. The toxicology reports are back? Already? What did they say the cause was?

Speculation.
Speculation.
Speculation.

And trashy journalism.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

smokeybear said:


> I am not sure why you feel the need to give me some sort of chemistry lesson;
> I do not actually need one.


I didn't think U did. :001_smile: Only one sentence was really intended for U.
The rest was a general readership message.


smokeybear said:


> But thanks anyway.


U're welcome.  [I know it was superfluous - but others do need it.]


smokeybear said:


> What most people "think" is, unfortunately, a bit of an oxymoron.
> Most people do not --- as witnessed by the contents of this thread.


Sorry, that's true of a minority, but most on PF-uk aren't simply twitching mindlessly, like so many frog's legs
touched by an electrical lead. All of us are united, i think, in *feeling -* if it were our dog, we would be
heartbroken - any one of us.

yes, there are details that won't be public knowledge for some time - but the dog's death is a fact.
And there we have no differences - that's a blow; we can all empathize, i hope.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

jaycee05 said:


> 10 O Clock news said that *only one dog was confirmed as poisoned*;
> 6 other dogs are rumoured to have been poisoned.


thanks, hun -
any chance of a link? ... Or which station [TV channel letters]?
.
.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Would the toxicology and full necropsy have had time to come back yet? Or is it one of the other dogs?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

But this is all, 'It's rumoured' or 'We believe'.

Some people do love a drama, pronounce upon what they think has happened, and then spread rumour and a whole lot of people end up overreacting.

Surely it's better to wait until the facts are known.


----------



## Katherna (Feb 20, 2008)

BBC News - 'No tolerance' vow after Crufts dog Jagger dies
Crufts organisers deny more dog poisoning cases - ITV News


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Katherna said:


> BBC News - 'No tolerance' vow after Crufts dog Jagger dies
> Crufts organisers deny more dog poisoning cases - ITV News


You have to laugh.

In this story only KC members are targeted for action,(according to the newspaper) not visitors or exhibitors....................................

Yet another demonstration why one should never necessarily believe what is in black and white......................


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Hasn't this sort of thing happened before at Crufts (and probably other big shows)?

I'm too lazy to trawl the internet to check, but I'm sure I can recall warnings from way back when that some dogs had been poisoned/drugged and not to leave your dog unattended (which I would have thought would be common sense away).

It will be interesting to see what the toxicology reports come back with. 

Of course, if your dog was beaten in its class, it would be nice to blame some sort of interference with his/her performance rather than admit that another dog was better on the day.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

smokeybear said:


> You have to laugh.
> 
> In this story only KC members are targeted for action,(according to the newspaper) not visitors or exhibitors....................................
> 
> Yet another demonstration why one should never necessarily believe what is in black and white......................


Isn't this always the way though?

It's always the other exhibitors who are targetted by the media and the hysteria they whip up - you only have to look at comments on this thread about people being desperate enough to win that they will poison a rival dog, or people preferring to poison their own dog rather than admit he was beaten fairly in the ring.

And then the KC tries to appeae the public by tightening up measures on exhibitors and not the general public/visitors - so we exhibitors get it from both sides.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

lostbear said:


> Hasn't this sort of thing happened before at Crufts (and probably other big shows)?
> 
> I'm too lazy to trawl the internet to check, but I'm sure I can recall warnings from way back when that some dogs had been poisoned/drugged and not to leave your dog unattended (which I would have thought would be common sense away).
> 
> ...


Yes but it happens in any competition some people are so desperate to win they'll do anything no matter the cost. I've seen a lot of reports about cat shows over the last few days as well


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

leashedForLife said:


> thanks, hun -
> any chance of a link? ... Or which station [TV channel letters]?
> .
> .


ITV news at 6pm


----------



## Muttly (Oct 1, 2014)

So sad  wtf is wrong with people. 
tbh I can't believe these dogs are left unattended though..


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

latest I have seen on facebook is the dog was not poisoned therefor it must have been retarded and inbred or it would not have died


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

I don't know if this has been posted, but just in case it hasn't...

News Dog World Dog World Home


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Ang2 said:


> Actually, this was *stuff that your pet would not touch*, unless it was concealed within something -
> like meat!


That's a nice, soothing belief - but it's wrong, i'm sorry. 
Dogs & cats both have willingly & enthusiastically eaten or drunk REALLY bad things, many, many times.

- antifreeze WITHOUT bittering will be drunk by dogs; dogs have BITTEN sealed bottles to lap-up the liquid
as it dribbles out, in fact my elder sister's 9-MO male GSD did just that, & dam* near died; she loaded him into
the car, was driving toward the vet's, & he was convulsing in the back seat.

- antifreeze WITH bittering can be attractive or indifferent to cats -
another reason NOT to let cats roam at large, as puddles on streets or in car-parks / parking lots can be
contaminated by antifreeze, & altho dilute, it's still deadly.

- toxic bulbs, roots, plants, shoots, etc, are eagerly eaten by many animals.

- "One man's meat is another's poison."
MUSHROOMS are a classic instance - an itty-bitty squirrel less than 1% of a human's body-wt can eat a 'shroom
that would KILL that 200# human in hours. Box-turtles can also eat fungi that are lethal to humans.
There are many other examples of things lethal to one species, & fine for another. Cats can't take dog-meds,
dogs can't take horse-meds, humans may or may not be able to take any of the above - depending.
.
.


----------



## katie200 (May 11, 2009)

I just saw this thread... How sad RIP Over rainbow bridge...


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

News Dog World Dog World Home
.
.
.


> _
> 
> ANOTHER exhibitor has told DOG WORLD she believes her dog was fed a toxic substance at Crufts.
> 
> ...


So if IRC, that's
1 Irish Setter, M - deceased
1 Westie, gender unknown; last in critical care
1 Sheltie, M, apparently recovered
1 Sheltie, F, ditto

That's 4 - what or who are the other allegedly poisoned dogs?
There were statements by the press that the total was 6 [suspected].

Also, i'm confused about the toxicology tests; unless i'm mistaken, there are many IMMEDIATE tests which can
be done by vets, among them antifreeze in a blood-sample [but that's a slow-acting killer].

tests for Warfarin / Coumadin are also available - if not directly, by checking the clotting function / cells,
platelets, etc -
E-T-A:
Anticoagulant Poisoning in Dogs | petMD

...& looking for petechiae in the tongue, gums, & eyes [sclerae] - small blood-vessels leak blood,
& leave a characteristic pattern of pinpoint bruises.

Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia








.
.
.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

A shih tzu has reportedly died.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> A Shih-Tzu has reportedly died.


I'll googled it, thanks - hopefully natural causes. 

Crufts Poison âMurder': Second Shih Tzu Dog Reported Dead

if there's a link for news of dog #6, please post it?
.
.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

I saw this earlier, what on earth is happening to these dogs poor things


----------



## Yorkiemorkiemum (Jun 14, 2012)

If what I read is correct, although the toxicology is only available on Thursday, the poison is believed to be 'snail killer' and rat killer. Surely there is cctv in the arena? Another thing I'm struggling with is that the police have said that no complaint has been made to them by anyone!!! Surely if all these dogs have been poisoned why on gods earth has no one involved the police? Are they frightened of being penalised by the breeding fraternity if they make it legal? Isn't it a bit daft to tell the press then?
Another incident has really got me annoyed is the Crufts champions owner lifting her dog up by its tail!! Then saying oh I didn't mean to do it it was habit!!!


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Yorkiemorkiemum said:


> If what I read is correct, although the toxicology is only available on Thursday, the poison is believed to be 'snail killer' and rat killer. Surely there is cctv in the arena? Another thing I'm struggling with is that the police have said that no complaint has been made to them by anyone!!! *Surely if all these dogs have been poisoned why on gods earth has no one involved the police? *Are they frightened of being penalised by the breeding fraternity if they make it legal? Isn't it a bit daft to tell the press then?
> Another incident has really got me annoyed is the Crufts champions owner lifting her dog up by its tail!! Then saying oh I didn't mean to do it it was habit!!!


The police are waiting for the toxicology results.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Yorkiemorkiemum said:


> ...
> Another incident that really annoyed me - the Cruft's champion owner lifted up her dog by the tail!! ---
> Then she said, *'Oh, I didn't mean to do that - it was habit.'* ....!!!


well, that was not only rude to the dog, & very-bad handling, IMO, but very bad P-R, to boot.

that's SUPPOSED to be only "in an emergency" when the dog - a small dog, mind! - is trapped in a tight space,
such as a drain, rabbit burrow, etc.
Lift one's dog by the tail as if it's a handle?!... Ar$ewipe. :thumbdown: And a Scotty isn't a SMALL dog.
Bunny-hole terriers are the 'tail hold' emergency size, & they're 10 to 12#. A Scotty's twice that.

Reminds me -
_'Never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.'_
She was - at least at that moment - witless, altho hopefully by now she's recovered. 
I'm *sure* she's very sorry - if only that she was caught on camera. :nono: Oops. :nonod:
.
.


----------



## Yorkiemorkiemum (Jun 14, 2012)

I known Scotties are stocky dogs and I have two small dogs, not tiny, and they would be mortified if I did that to them! 
What made me angry was when she said she didn't do it on purpose it was 'habit'! Like you say the cameras were on her too!
Definitely Ar&e****!


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> A shih tzu has reportedly died.


Oh, that's terrible news.

The results of these toxicology tests will prove very interesting either way.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Another irish setter became ill on thursday apparently after sitting close to Jagger, SKY NEWS, but that means the other dog was ill first,if Jagger was ill on Friday


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

So according to the mail the vet who organised the post mortem on Jagger, Dr Patrick Jans, has stated the dog probably ate poison shortly before he died and it was *NOT* likely that he was poisoned at Crufts. He's expressed surprise at the stories claiming that to be the case. He's also said that there was only a single suspected poison wrapped in meat, not injected of stitched in. The suspect poison is believed to be a pesticide so my guess would be that it's some sort of bait left out for a pest species and accidently picked up by Jagger on the walk he took just before he died.

Crufts dog Jagger probably ate toxins on way back from show says vet | Daily Mail Online

If this is true (which I strongly suspect it might be) then the dogs owners have some real questions to answer, they have made some very serious allegations with some very specific details. I'm no fan of the kennel club but their reputation has taken a battering because of this and fingers have been pointing at numerous suspects, the vets reputation has also been put on the line.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Surely all these people on this thread cannot be wrong?

All the outrage and "disgusted from Tonbridge Wells" from indignant posters who believe everything they hear and read might be misplaced?

Suirely not?

Quelle surprise!!!!!!!!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Loving this from GH on FB

Feeling Unwell...

Gossip Hound is unsure if the Crufts attendance figures are out yet. If previous years are anything to go by it will be around 150,000 to 160,000. 

A percentage of those people must, by the "law of averages", be feeling somewhat unwell today. 

...Perhaps they were unused to travelling, unused to crowds and unused to the hustle and bustle of the big event. Perhaps they slightly overexerted themselves, ate or drank something that upset them or caught a minor virus. Perhaps they had a pre-existing condition... or perhaps it was poison!

If you attended Crufts and are feeling unwell call a doctor.

Better still call a newspaper.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> ...
> The suspect poison is believed to be a *pesticide* so my guess would be that it's some sort of bait
> left out for a pest species, & accidentally picked up by Jagger on the walk he took, just before he died.
> 
> ...


Excuse me, but what the H*** sort of *pesticide* gets "wrapped in meat" for any 'pest' species?

Strychnine was the 'pesticide' of choice for wolves, cougar, & coyote - the rancher or Federal hired killer
inserted it into a cattle carcass or a dead deer, slitting the meat & sliding the powder into the slits. That was in
the 1880s & into 1920 - nowadays, 1080 coyote-gitters explode under pressure, & blast the strychnine into the
face & down the throat of the animal.

Only *predators* are targeted by 'pesticide' wrapped in *meat*.
What predator would they be trying to kill?

U don't wrap rat-poison in meat - nor insecticide. So what's the target species?
And who placed the bait - WHERE, exactly? --- Along a street? --- Beside the hotel?
The dog was leashed at all times when outside. :skep: This doesn't add up to any logical conclusion.

Let's just continue waiting for that pending toxicology report, shall we?... :huh:
.
.


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

I urge anyone to be vigilant whilst walking their dogs, even if this did happen to the poor boy on a walk DO NOT RULE OUT FOUL PLAY.....It could cost a dogs life. Cleethorpes was an area for attack on dogs in the last few weeks and I've been keeping my dogs right near me on walks as a result,,,never take my eyes off them at all. Some total ****** has been concealing poison in meat lumps and dropping it on all the local dog walking areas....if it's anything like the last time it happened it's because the idiot got peed off with dog mess and decided he was going to try and get rid of a few dogs.....hoping whoever it is gets caught before he kills or harms any more animals....The punishment for the culprit is never ever bad enough though....slap on the wrist half the time.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> So according to the mail the vet who organised the post mortem on Jagger, Dr Patrick Jans, has stated the dog probably ate poison shortly before he died and it was *NOT* likely that he was poisoned at Crufts. He's expressed surprise at the stories claiming that to be the case. He's also said that there was only a single suspected poison wrapped in meat, not injected of stitched in. The suspect poison is believed to be a pesticide so my guess would be that it's some sort of bait left out for a pest species and accidently picked up by Jagger on the walk he took just before he died.
> 
> Crufts dog Jagger probably ate toxins on way back from show says vet | Daily Mail Online
> 
> If this is true (which I strongly suspect it might be) then the dogs owners have some real questions to answer, they have made some very serious allegations with some very specific details. I'm no fan of the kennel club but their reputation has taken a battering because of this and fingers have been pointing at numerous suspects, the vets reputation has also been put on the line.


The ovewhelming majority of posts, both on here and on fb, have been from the armchair critics who don't show, have never been to Crufts, or have other axes to grind about Crufts, dog showing etc etc. THEY are the ones with questions to answer. Allegations about exhibitors being so intent on winning they poison rivals. Allegations about people poisoning their own dogs because it's easier than admitting they were beaten. Allegations about people leaving dogs unattended on benches. Allegations about exhibitors not looking out for each other's dogs, Calls for dog shows to be banned altogether ... the list goes on.

If this is true, will they learn from this? Will they hell. Every year at this time we have a spate of Crufts bashing. There'll be something else for them to exploit at the next Crufts, and if there isn't they'll make something up again. They'll whip themselves up into hysteria about something and then convince themselves that their opinions are valid because they're basing it on what they've read from the other hysterical posters.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

The internet, and particularly socical media has a lot to answer for.


----------



## dorrit (Sep 13, 2011)

I must be one of the armchair critics. Ive never shown a dog in anything other than a local cub scout show for pets..

In general I think the time of beauty pagents of young women, babies, muscle bound men, and dogs is passe.

Why does any dog or person need the approval and judgement of others to justify themselves?

In human pagents I see the mothers collecting money and cars on behalf of children who have a decade to wait before they could drive the car so who are the prizes and acolade really for..

Similarly...
Does a dog need a rosette?
Does a dog need to be on a tv commercial to prove it is the best it can be?
Does a dog need to be paraded in front of thousands to prove it is beautiful?

Simply asking dogs need v owners desire.....


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

dorrit said:


> I must be one of the armchair critics. Ive never shown a dog in anything other than a local cub scout show for pets..
> 
> In general I think the time of beauty pagents of young women, babies, muscle bound men, and dogs is passe.
> 
> ...


If dog showing were indeed a beauty pageant then your comparisons would be valid.

And if you were someone who showed dogs (rather than a self-confessed armchair critic) then you would understand that dog shows are *not* beauty pageants 

But thank you for giving an excellent example of how the opinions of armchair critics are not always based on fact :thumbsup:


----------



## dorrit (Sep 13, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> If dog showing were indeed a beauty pageant then your comparisons would be valid.
> 
> And if you were someone who showed dogs (rather than a self-confessed armchair critic) then you would understand that dog shows are *not* beauty pageants
> 
> But thank you for giving an excellent example of how the opinions of armchair critics are not always based on fact :thumbsup:


Thankyou but you still havent gone to any effort to answer the questions I put out there...

So .,.... The need of the dog V the desire of the owner... Where does the whole show thing come into it?

(it might help not to be too condescending)


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

dorrit said:


> I must be one of the armchair critics. Ive never shown a dog in anything other than a local cub scout show for pets..
> 
> In general I think the time of beauty pagents of young women, babies, muscle bound men, and dogs is passe.
> 
> ...


erm, does a dog ask to be a pet and be left at home all day and in many homes get no physical or mental stimulation.

Does a dog need to do obedience or agility or work sheep (and often be shut up or chained up the rest of the time) or be a gun dog.

Maybe dogs would rather run around in the wild and do their own thing but we have developed them for our own uses whether that is to have a loving dog to greet us after work or as a constant companion if we are at home or to share our hobbies or work. Showing is not my thing but it is just as valid a use of a dog as any other.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Blitz said:


> erm, does a dog ask to be a pet and be left at home all day and in many homes get no physical or mental stimulation.
> 
> Does a dog need to do obedience or agility or work sheep (and often be shut up or chained up the rest of the time) or be a gun dog.
> 
> Maybe dogs would rather run around in the wild and do their own thing but we have developed them for our own uses whether that is to have a loving dog to greet us after work or as a constant companion if we are at home or to share our hobbies or work. Showing is not my thing but it is just as valid a use of a dog as any other.


I think you've missed the point


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

dorrit said:


> Thankyou but you still havent gone to any effort to answer the questions I put out there...
> 
> So .,.... The need of the dog V the desire of the owner... Where does the whole show thing come into it?
> 
> (it might help not to be too condescending)


I wasn't being condescending so sorry if it came acoss that way - I did try to show humour with the use of emoticons but that obviously failed

I didn't answer your questions because your questions were based on the premise that dog shows are beauty pageants. Questions such as:

"Why does any dog or person need the approval and judgement of others to justify themselves?
Does a dog need a rosette?
Does a dog need to be on a tv commercial to prove it is the best it can be?
Does a dog need to be paraded in front of thousands to prove it is beautiful?"

have no validity if dog shows are not beauty pageants because that is not what is happening at dog shows.

If you move away from that beauty pageant idea, the answers to "the need of the dog v the need of the owner" will be obvious:

Dog shows are a means to:
Ensure dogs are bred to standards so that they are fit for the function their breed was originally intended
Provide a comparison of breeding stock against the written breed standards and against each other
Have a fun day out with your dog


----------



## dorrit (Sep 13, 2011)

So no answers then?

As regards the crime of being an armchair critic ..I suppose that means if you have no actual expeirence of war or FGM or bull fighting or fox hunting then you should shut up sit down and not have an opinion...

Oh dear the forums will be silent... and if people do not receive decent honest informed answers to simple and polite questions they will make up thier own minds.. (thank god we are still allowed to do that)

I will draw the answer to my questions from the ballet like side stepping they provoked...


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

I find some of the attitudes in this thread quite off putting to be honest. Such a shame that people are jumped on for daring to voice their concerns and opinions and posts referring to the majority of genuine upset for Jagger that people had in this thread are just taken the piss out of with sarcastic responses.


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

Not sure if this has been posted but it sure shows how quick people jump on the bandwagon...

Crufts dog Jagger probably ate toxins on way back from show says vet | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

dorrit said:


> So no answers then?
> 
> As regards the crime of being an armchair critic ..I suppose that means if you have no actual expeirence of war or FGM or bull fighting or fox hunting then you should shut up sit down and not have an opinion...
> 
> ...


  

I answered your questions. I'll repeat the answers here for you.

If you move away from that beauty pageant idea, the answers to "the need of the dog v the need of the owner" will be obvious:

Dog shows are a means to:
Ensure dogs are bred to standards so that they are fit for the function their breed was originally intended
Provide a comparison of breeding stock against the written breed standards and against each other
Have a fun day out with your dog

Perhaps if you read the facts that people post instead of ignoring them so you can continue to hold your erroneous beliefs, then your opinions might hold more sway.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Dogloverlou said:


> I find some of the attitudes in this thread quite off putting to be honest. Such a shame that people are jumped on for daring to voice their concerns and opinions and posts referring to the majority of genuine upset for Jagger that people had in this thread are just taken the piss out of with sarcastic responses.


No-one is jumping on anyone for voicing concerns. It's the extension of those concerns into blaming exhibitors, the owners, and dog showing in general - all based on unfounded hysteria - that people are angry about.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Dogloverlou said:


> I find some of the attitudes in this thread quite off putting to be honest. Such a shame that people are jumped on for daring to voice their concerns and opinions and posts referring to the majority of genuine upset for Jagger that people had in this thread are just taken the piss out of with sarcastic responses.


*I have kept out of this apart from my first post. But now i know we do not know the facts about this case.
Is it worth all the speculation? I think not. I find it quite sad really that people are trying to make something out of nothing they no nothing about... as yet.
Surely a better debate would be when ALL the FACTS are known.*


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> I answered your questions. I'll repeat them here for you.
> 
> If you move away from that beauty pageant idea, the answers to "the need of the dog v the need of the owner" will be obvious:
> 
> ...


Just jumped in on the last page of this thread here, but in regards to the comments above, I would say a lot of people would challenge the idea that dog shows fulfil these requirements.
The KC are consistently criticised for turning a blind eye to inappropriate breeding (sire with daughter etc), and it is often suggested that a lot of current breeds suffer from genetic problems which could be weaned out if dog shows did not tolerate the showing & breeding of dogs which are not 100% sound and healthy. There are plenty of breeds which are known to suffer from all sorts of complaints as a result of breeding to comply with fashion rather than health or practicality.
If they fulfilled these functions then a lot of critics probably wouldn't have a problem with them......


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2015)

dorrit said:


> So .,.... The need of the dog V the desire of the owner... Where does the whole show thing come into it?


We should always be evaluating the needs of the dogs along with the needs of the owner. But let's face it, even pet dogs who do nothing but provide companionship are made to fulfill the needs of the human.

I don't show in the breed ring but I do show in the obedience and rally ring. I also do school and hospital visits, demos and presentations with my dogs. And drag them to seminars, and explore new sports and activities.

Nope, my dog doesn't need titles in obedience, or a certificate in barn hunt, or a certification in therapy dogs. And yes, that is totally my human ego being stroked when we get a new title in the mail. However, he does very much enjoy traveling, new sights, new sounds, new experiences, new people to meet, new things to look at, smell, check out... He loves it all. Just as some people always love to be out and about, some dogs are like that too.

And since *I* enjoy a good dog show for very similar reasons, it just happens to work out that he gets to come with me. 
I enjoy hiking too, happily most of my dogs have also. One of my dogs hated being off our property and after enough failed attempts to get him to enjoy it, I stopped trying to make him. That was what whas needed to meet that individual dog's needs. 
Ironically, had that been the show environment he hated, I know I would have stopped trying sooner than I did with the hiking.

The show dogs I know personally have that type of personality where they truly enjoy the excitement of the show environment. There is stress too, they may not like parts of it, but the overall experience for them is very enjoyable and thus they do well as show dogs.

Just because someone shows their dogs doesn't mean they completely ignore their dog's needs, and just because someone's dog is a pet only doesn't mean that dog is getting his needs fulfilled.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

The standards were designed to describe a dog that could do the job it was used for. Lean, long legged sighthounds, low to earth sturdy terriers etc. The show ring should in theory be a test of those characteristics. Some breeds are far away from that of course but even those are getting better.


----------



## dorrit (Sep 13, 2011)

ouesi said:


> We should always be evaluating the needs of the dogs along with the needs of the owner. But let's face it, even pet dogs who do nothing but provide companionship are made to fulfill the needs of the human.
> 
> I don't show in the breed ring but I do show in the obedience and rally ring. I also do school and hospital visits, demos and presentations with my dogs. And drag them to seminars, and explore new sports and activities.
> 
> ...


Thank you.. for a more balanced answer...


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Delilahdog said:


> Just jumped in on the last page of this thread here, but in regards to the comments above, I would say a lot of people would challenge the idea that dog shows fulfil these requirements.
> The KC are consistently criticised for turning a blind eye to inappropriate breeding (sire with daughter etc),


Breeding from sire with daughter is not allowed and won't be registered by the KC:

_*The Kennel Club rules for registration*
Before thinking about breeding from your bitch, you
should acquaint yourself with the Kennel Club Rules
and Regulations on registering litters and the registration
system in general. You will need to remember that the
Kennel Club will not accept an application to register a
litter when:

4. The offspring are the result of any mating between
father and daughter, mother and son or brother
and sister, save in exceptional circumstances or for
scientifically proven welfare reasons and permission
has been received,_
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media/8261/breeding.pdf

Of course, if you have specific information that you can quote to support your allegations - then please do so. And I don't mean unsupported claims in the media - I mean actual instances where this happened and to which you can provide refrences.



Delilahdog said:


> and it is often suggested that a lot of current breeds suffer from genetic problems which could be weaned out if dog shows did not tolerate the showing & breeding of dogs which are not 100% sound and healthy.


Suggested by whom? Have you been to a dog show? Have you not seen all the marvellously healthy and fit for function dogs there?



Delilahdog said:


> There are plenty of breeds which are known to suffer from all sorts of complaints as a result of breeding to comply with fashion rather than health or practicality.


Actually there are 12 breeds out of over 200 registered breeds where there are health concerns. These are being closely monitored by the Kennel Club under their breed watch scheme. This includes health checks on best of breed winners of these breeds by independent vets at ALL championship shows (not just Crufts). I didn't hear of any dog out of the 21,000 plus being shown at Crufts being disqualified by the vet for not being healthy - did yoiu?
Category Three Breeds â¢ The Kennel Club



Delilahdog said:


> If they fulfilled these functions then a lot of critics probably wouldn't have a problem with them......


And if critics got their facts right, instead of believing sensationalist media-led nonsense, then those whom they try to castigate wouldn't have a problem with them ...


----------



## dorrit (Sep 13, 2011)

I look at my own 14 year old beagle each morning and think OMG you are beautiful , you are strong , eager , alert, slim and downright wonderful. The best beagle ever born.

I look at my old crossbreed and think , you got the short straw boyo,,, a small head and broad shoulders, chicken stick thin legs and a constant sad look. 
You wont win any beauty shows unless the judges can look inside and see the kind loving shy little dog who sticks to me like velcro, who laid in front of his housemate after he was attacked and sheltered him from any other foe who might dare try it on.

A little dog who is scared of his own shadow but who always tries to keep his old blind companion from getting in harms way..

I dont need anyone else to tell me my dogs are wonderful I know they are. 
I dont need a rosette to tell me they are winners they won my heart years ago.

But I also know that everyone who truely loves their pet thinks exactly the same and I accept that without malice or jelousy.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> Breeding from sire with daughter is not allowed and won't be registered by the KC:
> 
> _*The Kennel Club rules for registration*
> Before thinking about breeding from your bitch, you
> ...


It is very easy to blame the media but looking at the current breed standards compared to their ancestors (who were bred fit for purpose) you can't refute that fashion has taken its toll surely?


----------



## Katherna (Feb 20, 2008)

I know it's from the daily mail but 
Crufts dog Jagger probably ate toxins on way back from show says vet | Daily Mail Online


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

It was the owners of Jagger who started all the speculaton on him being poisoned at Crufts, but in 1992, there was an Anatolian shepherd bitch who was fatally poisoned allgedly at Crufts ,and another in 2004 whose owner said her Doberman was poisoned at Crufts with spiked meat
I saw the programme on how some of these breeds have been altered so much that they are not healthy and suffering, especially the King Charles Spaniels, one of which was having constant fits and brain damaged because the skull was too small for its brain, i was thinking at one time of gewtting one of these little dogs,but that put me off, and its a shame that some of these dogs are now suffering for the sake of winning a dog show
Sorry if this offends anyone, not saying all breeders are guilty of course


----------



## Amelia66 (Feb 15, 2011)

jaycee05 said:


> It was the owners of Jagger who started all the speculaton on him being poisoned at Crufts, but in 1992, there was an Anatolian shepherd bitch who was fatally poisoned allgedly at Crufts ,and another in 2004 whose owner said her Doberman was poisoned at Crufts with spiked meat
> I saw the programme on how some of these breeds have been altered so much that they are not healthy and suffering, especially the King Charles Spaniels, one of which was having constant fits and brain damaged because the skull was too small for its brain, i was thinking at one time of getting one of these little dogs,but that put me off, and its a shame that some of these dogs are now suffering for the sake of winning a dog show
> Sorry if this offends anyone, not saying all breeders are guilty of course


i do agree. Breed standard does not always = healthy dogs. It is sad that lots of people do various crazy things with their dogs just to win a show. However, this is the same with many high profile competitions people go crazy just to win.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

jaycee05 said:


> It was the owners of Jagger who started all the speculaton on him being poisoned at Crufts, but in 1992, there was an Anatolian shepherd bitch who was fatally poisoned allgedly at Crufts ,and another in 2004 whose owner said her Doberman was poisoned at Crufts with spiked meat
> I saw the programme on how some of these breeds have been altered so much that they are not healthy and suffering, especially the King Charles Spaniels, one of which was having constant fits and brain damaged because the skull was too small for its brain, i was thinking at one time of gewtting one of these little dogs,but that put me off, and its a shame that some of these dogs are now suffering for the sake of winning a dog show
> Sorry if this offends anyone, not saying all breeders are guilty of course


I may have seen the same programme and having seen dogs afflicted like this is heart breaking.
I don't have a problem with dog shows per se, I love agility comps and don't see a problem with beauty comps in principle. but I do challenge the idea that the prizes are being awarded for practical attributes rather than fashion. And it is the status/ money to be made out of breeding these prizewinners that causes all the jealousy and nastiness. I wouldn't risk a dog of mine.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Delilahdog said:


> It is very easy to blame the media but looking at the current breed standards compared to their ancestors (who were bred fit for purpose) you can't refute that fashion has taken its toll surely?


And it's vey easy to read something in the media and then present it on a forum as fact. Pehaps if you backed up your statements with links to actual facts, it would prove that the media were not to blame.

It is also very easy to ignore the facts and make sweeping statements. How many of the 213 breeds recognised by the Kennel Club do you think this applies to?

It does apply to some breeds, but many breeds are still the same as their ancestors. For example, my own two breeds - border collie and bergamasco - are virtually unchanged from their original ancestors. Indeed, the bergamasco breed has been that way for almost 3000 years.

And of those which it does apply to - because of course you are right, there are some - have you seen the way breeders are working to improve the breeds? Breed standards have been reviewed and improved and breeds have improved and are continuing to improve.

Fashion has indeed taken it's toll - but is it only fashion in the show ring or is fashion out of the show ring also to blame?

Some statistics for you to mull over - less than half of pedigree dogs bred are registered with the Kennel Club. Of the pedigree dogs who _are_ registered with the Kennel Club, less than 2% are shown and bred for showing. That is a very tiny percentage of pedigree dogs being bred to breed standards. Given that, do you really think it is logical that such a minute percentage can influence or be blamed for the state of the rest of the pedigree dogs?

Exaggerations in pedigree dogs have indeed happened because of fashion, but with an overwhelming percentage of pedigree dogs not being bred to breed standards, not being bred by show breeders, then the fashions from the general public has to be a leading factor. Look at the current fashion for "designer dogs" - _that_ is resulting in some horrendous matings. (I head of a mal and a dachsund the other day and I hope to goodness it was just it was just gossip and not true). The desire for these crosses is fuelling the breeding of them. This is just one example of fashion in dogs and dog breeding that has nothing at all to do with the show ring.


----------



## pickle (Mar 24, 2008)

jaycee05 said:


> It was the owners of Jagger who started all the speculaton on him being poisoned at Crufts, but in 1992, there was an Anatolian shepherd bitch who was fatally poisoned allgedly at Crufts ,and another in 2004 whose owner said her Doberman was poisoned at Crufts with spiked meat
> I saw the programme on how some of these breeds have been altered so much that they are not healthy and suffering, especially the *King Charles Spaniels, *one of which was having constant fits and brain damaged because the skull was too small for its brain, i was thinking at one time of gewtting one of these little dogs,but that put me off, and its a shame that some of these dogs are now suffering for the sake of winning a dog show
> Sorry if this offends anyone, not saying all breeders are guilty of course


For the record it was* Cavalier* King Charles Spaniels, and we know exactly what tv programme to which you refer.

Cavalier breeders are working hard to eliminate the problems so potential buyers should ensure they go to reputable breeders (you will find that it is the show breeders who are working hardest towards this end).

I am not a Cavalier owner by the way, so I have no axe to grind.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Does anyone have anything more up to date than the daily mail on any results from the PM


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

jaycee05 said:


> It was the owners of Jagger who started all the speculaton on him being poisoned at Crufts, but in 1992, there was an Anatolian shepherd bitch who was fatally poisoned allgedly at Crufts ,and another in 2004 whose owner said her Doberman was poisoned at Crufts with spiked meat
> I saw the programme on how some of these breeds have been altered so much that they are not healthy and suffering, especially the King Charles Spaniels, one of which was having constant fits and brain damaged because the skull was too small for its brain, i was thinking at one time of gewtting one of these little dogs,but that put me off, and its a shame that some of these dogs are now suffering for the sake of winning a dog show
> Sorry if this offends anyone, not saying all breeders are guilty of course


There was also an Australian Shepherd allegedly poisoned at a Champ show last year ( maybe Richmond? ). It does happen and it's appalling that anyone would think to do so.


----------



## Katherna (Feb 20, 2008)

Old Shep said:


> Does anyone have anything more up to date than the daily mail on any results from the PM


That seems to be the most up to date info - daily fail I know, haven't come across anything else that hasn't been mentioned.
This - BBC News - Vet 'no idea' of timing over Crufts dog poisoning but seems to be the same info.


> The vet, Patrick Jans, told the BBC he had "no idea" when the dog was poisoned and would not be making any comment until the toxicology report was published next week.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Some breeds are a mess, you only had to look at the bob peke to see that. But the breeders are working hard to improve them. The problem with Cavaliers is that the issues are so widespread in the breed, never look at the memorial sections on the breed forums , that it will take a long time to see improvements. Look at the clumber spaniel they were too heavy, hip dysplasia was rife and then the breeders really started working on health. They're still heavy, the breed was always supposed to be but they're much lighter and the hip scores have come right down


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> And it's vey easy to read something in the media and then present it on a forum as fact. Pehaps if you backed up your statements with links to actual facts, it would prove that the media were not to blame.


Why when the facts are well known and stated but swept under the carpet rather than being acknowledged openly.

Let's look at something not in PDE... how about the Scottish Terrier as it's obviously a brilliant dog and an example just won Crufts.

www.tartanscottie.com/gsm/pdfs/Deconstructing-Diehard-1column.pdf

So facts..


Nearly half of all Scotties die from cancer
Scottie health issues are very clearly genetic.
As of 2008 Scottie health was not improving; it was getting worse. Comparisons between the 1995 and 2005 Great Scots Magazine health survey suggest the breed had lost a tenth of its lifespan in the past decade.
Scottish Terrier health risks and issues are breed wide: dogs bred by "good" breeders are not healthier than those bred by backyard breeders or puppy mills. 
The facts contradict the received wisdom that a Scottie from a show breeder assured better health and fewer medical bills. 
The facts show the health problems cannot be attributed to puppy farms.

Last 2 I find frightening personally.



> The problem is deeper and more difficult because our problem is inculturated shallow thinking about standards for our breed. So long as our Scotties are officially measured by glamor-quotient rather than fitness, so long as official recordkeeping is myopically fixed on championship records instead of health records, our 'well-bred' Scotties will continue to devolve into beautiful 'Barbie Dogs' for whom no amount of edical research will cure their inbreeding depression


That's not someone with an axe to grind, it's not someone who want to be in the media. It's someone who cares for dogs and their breed.

Let's also look at a blog post from someone who did go to crufts:
Pet Chronicles: Five things that made me sad about Crufts


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

pickle said:


> For the record it was* Cavalier* King Charles Spaniels, and we know exactly what tv programme to which you refer.
> 
> Cavalier breeders are working hard to eliminate the problems so potential buyers should ensure they go to reputable breeders (you will find that it is the show breeders who are working hardest towards this end).
> 
> I am not a Cavalier owner by the way, so I have no axe to grind.


Sorry, meant to say Cavalier king charles spaniels


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> Some breeds are a mess, you only had to look at the bob peke to see that.* But the breeders are working hard to improve them.* The problem with Cavaliers is that the issues are so widespread in the breed, never look at the memorial sections on the breed forums , that it will take a long time to see improvements. Look at the clumber spaniel they were too heavy, hip dysplasia was rife and then the breeders really started working on health. They're still heavy, the breed was always supposed to be but they're much lighter and the hip scores have come right down


What makes you think that?

Many of these breeders are the ones that have ruined the breeds and are now in positions of great influence in these breeds.

I've been hearing since the 1970s how much these people care about their dogs and the "improvements" made through their care in breeding................... good job they've done haven't they?

They will only change when the KC makes them


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Dogloverlou said:


> I find some of the attitudes in this thread quite off putting to be honest. Such a shame that people are jumped on for daring to voice their concerns and opinions and posts referring to the majority of genuine upset for Jagger that people had in this thread are just taken the piss out of with sarcastic responses.


Completely agree. I wasn't even going to bother commenting on this thread at all until I read some very insensitive comments early on. I find the superiority complex of some posters quite distasteful.

Yours sincerely 
outraged and disgusted from Dorset


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> And it's vey easy to read something in the media and then present it on a forum as fact. Pehaps if you backed up your statements with links to actual facts, it would prove that the media were not to blame.
> 
> It is also very easy to ignore the facts and make sweeping statements. How many of the 213 breeds recognised by the Kennel Club do you think this applies to?
> 
> ...


The post I originally referred to stated:
Dog shows are a means to:
Ensure dogs are bred to standards so that they are fit for the function their breed was originally intended
Provide a comparison of breeding stock against the written breed standards and against each other

I was merely pointing out that this is a very controversial assertion to make and it is clear that there are many better informed folk than me on this forum who would appear to agree.
I've no doubt there are good breeders & bad breeders. The show ring may not initiate some of these problems but a lot more could be done in the show ring to eliminate them by simply not tolerating them.
Not all dog shows are bad and not all breeders are bad but I don't believe either live up to the statement you have made and fashion plays a much bigger part than you seem prepared to acknowledge.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Why when the facts are well known and stated but swept under the carpet rather than being acknowledged openly.
> 
> Let's look at something not in PDE... how about the Scottish Terrier as it's obviously a brilliant dog and an example just won Crufts.
> 
> ...


Yes, let's look at the facts.

There is no date to this article, but the picture of the scottie he is talking about has the date 2003 under it and the author quotes media sources such as "Time Magazine 1994." The latest reference in the text I can find is the GSM dated 2003 - I'm not sure where you get the 2008 date from because it's not mentioned in this article, nor is GSM 2005.

But allowing that all he says is true, it is no use talking about what was happening 12 years ago - what is more important is what is happening now. Have these trends been reversed? Are breeders improving the breed? This is not sweeping anything under the carpet - it is a genuine enquiry as to whether things have stayed the same or whether changes have been made since this article was written. If things have stayed the same then we should STILL be concerned about what was happening over 12 years ago. However, if things have improved, we should be applauding the improvements and ensuring that improvements continue to be made. Have you any up to date articles about the scottie to analyse whether or not changes in breed standards and breeding practices since 2003 have made any changes? That would be a lot more relevant than posting old articles.



Goblin said:


> That's not someone with an axe to grind, it's not someone who want to be in the media. It's someone who cares for dogs and their breed.


It is obvious he cares for his breed - but I would argue that a magazine editor IS someone who wants to be in the media.



Goblin said:


> Let's also look at a blog post from someone who did go to crufts:
> Pet Chronicles: Five things that made me sad about Crufts


Of course, a blog whose writer openly states "_I have no experience of the showing world, Im actually not a fan_" is going to give true and unbiased reporting there then!

But yes, let's look at some of the things he says:
"_many who show their dogs are truly dedicated, principled, caring owners - I witnessed a lot of them over the weekend_."

"_on my Facebook page, it was also pointed out that it would be useless for a miserable dog to be shown  and of course this is true, a dog that truly dislikes being in the show ring isn't going to win prizes_"

"_the majority of dogs had their owners/handlers with them_ "

"_Many of the dogs seemed to enjoy being in the ring, they loved being around the other dogs and adored the fussing they received  that I cannot deny_"

The fact that in each case he goes on to expand each of these statements to make it seem as if these things which he observed were not actually happening makes me wonder about his reasons behind his posting what he did - and where his photographs are to support his assertions when he says he took his camera with him. By the sound of it, he's also been castigated on fb for his comments.

It's only one person's opinion of Crufts - does it make it true? I'm sure there are many blogs by people who went to Crufts that would give a glowing picture. Does that make them true?

I too was there on the Friday and I am wondering if we were at the same venue. I saw no dogs in cages that were too small; I saw no dogs crying as they were groomed; I saw no dogs strung so tightly on their leads that the leather was digging into their necks. I did see one or two dogs left alone on benches; I did see one or two dogs whose heads were stretched higher by their lead than they should have been: I saw lots of happy dogs in the ring and on and around the benches: I saw Crufts officials wandering around the benching area and checking crates and dogs.

And whilst the majority of my time was spent near the border collie rings, showing a bergamasco as well meant I had to walk through four halls of showing and benching to get from the border collie rings to the bergamasco ring, so I too saw quite a lot of Crufts. But what's betting my opinion is dismissed as "sweeping things under the carpet" despite the fact that I too am saying exactly what I saw?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Delilahdog said:


> The post I originally referred to stated:
> Dog shows are a means to:
> Ensure dogs are bred to standards so that they are fit for the function their breed was originally intended
> Provide a comparison of breeding stock against the written breed standards and against each other
> ...


And I have disagreed with you and given you facts and figures and references as to why I do so. You on the other hand have merely given an opinion unsubstantiated by facts and refererences, I know what your opinion is - you have made that clear on your other posts. I was interested in why you held that opinion and what had caused you to form that opinion - but you clearly do not want to tell me. No problem - no law says you have to! Sorry for being interested in you and your opinions!


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

I was there Friday too and did see a few dogs that appeared uncomfortable in and around the show ring. But I think it's a bit extreme to expect all the dogs there to be totally unfazed by the environment. It's massive, it's noisy, it's hot, it's crowded. I'd forgive the odd dog or two for being a bit overwhelmed, especially those whose first time it is at the show. 

In general though the vast majority of dogs in and around the breed rings are calm, quiet, and seem unfazed by the hustle and bustle and I think that's a great testament to the dog's temperament.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> And I have disagreed with you and given you facts and figures and references as to why I do so. You on the other hand have merely given an opinion unsubstantiated by facts and refererences, I know what your opinion is - you have made that clear on your other posts. I was interested in why you held that opinion and what had caused you to form that opinion - but you clearly do not want to tell me. No problem - no law says you have to! Sorry for being interested in you and your opinions!


In fact you haven't disagreed with me, you have agreed that fashion has a part to play but you have put a different interpretation on what you see.
I don't have facts and figures at my fingertips, I came on this thread to commiserate about what I think is a terrible loss regardless of who why or where. But this is a subject in which I have taken an interest over the years and formed an opinion.
I haven't made sweeping statements, I haven't tarred all breeders with the same brush or suggested all pedigree dogs are inbred. I haven't criticised dog shows as cruel.
I have pointed out that there is a problem that needs addressing. I believe the KC and Crufts could be a lot more pro-active in helping to eliminate this. You, apparently, do not.
I am ok with that.


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2015)

This thread started with a tragedy, a dog died.

From there went some wild speculations about how rival competitors are so blinded by the need to win that they would poison another dog. 

Now we've moved on to criticism (some of it legitimate) of purebred breeding.

I find myself wondering how much of this is just bitching for the sake of bitching and self satisfying righteous indignation, and how much is intentional work towards bettering the lot of all dogs in general. 

There are indeed issues in the dog world, one of those issues is definitely breeding extremes at the expense of health. And lets not forget that extemes can be mental as well as physical, so it's not just the show world that has breeding practices to answer for, there are some lines of working dogs that I would not call mentally balanced but who are rewarded for those breeding practices. 

The show world is visible this time of year and an easy target. But if the purpose of the discussion is to genuinely make things better for ALL dogs, then the bitching for the sake of bitching and arguing to just prove ones' "rightness" isn't really helpful  

JMHOFWIW


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

ouesi said:


> This thread started with a tragedy, a dog died.
> 
> From there went some wild speculations about how rival competitors are so blinded by the need to win that they would poison another dog.
> 
> ...


As always, a very, very good point!


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

ouesi said:


> This thread started with a tragedy, a dog died.
> 
> From there went some wild speculations about how rival competitors are so blinded by the need to win that they would poison another dog.
> 
> ...


That's why I said some of the attitudes sucked a few pages back. And they really do!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Delilahdog said:


> In fact you haven't disagreed with me, you have agreed that fashion has a part to play but you have put a different interpretation on what you see.
> I don't have facts and figures at my fingertips, I came on this thread to commiserate about what I think is a terrible loss regardless of who why or where. But this is a subject in which I have taken an interest over the years and formed an opinion.
> I haven't made sweeping statements, I haven't tarred all breeders with the same brush or suggested all pedigree dogs are inbred. I haven't criticised dog shows as cruel.
> I have pointed out that there is a problem that needs addressing. I believe the KC and Crufts could be a lot more pro-active in helping to eliminate this. You, apparently, do not.
> I am ok with that.


And what have I written to make you think that?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ouesi said:


> This thread started with a tragedy, a dog died.
> 
> From there went some wild speculations about how rival competitors are so blinded by the need to win that they would poison another dog.
> 
> ...


. 
Yes, the thread has been hijacked by people jumping in and using it to promote their anti-Crufts, anti-pedigree dogs stance that was nothing at all to do with what happened to poor Jagger. It would be much better if they had started a new thread. However, given that they didn't, you can hardly expect those of us who disagree with them to ignore them. Especially if one of the people who disagrees with them is me. You know me better than that 



ouesi said:


> The show world is visible this time of year and an easy target. But if the purpose of the discussion is to genuinely make things better for ALL dogs, then the bitching for the sake of bitching and arguing to just prove ones' "rightness" isn't really helpful
> 
> JMHOFWIW


It's hard to discuss anything rationally when the person who you try to discuss things with just keeps stating what they think is true without giving any reason as to why they think it is true.

Debate has to be two-sided. It's no good one person giving reasons, quotes and statistics to explain why they think they do, and asks questions of the person they are addressing to try to understand their points, when the person they are addressing ignores all the points, all the quotes, all the questions, and merely restates their opinion.

When that happens, you just know that minds are going to stay closed no matter how much proof you give people to the contrary. And no proper debate can take place with closed minds.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Looks like Jagger wasn't poisoned at Crufts after all.

Crufts dog Jagger probably ate toxins on way back from show says vet | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Happy Paws said:


> Looks like Jagger wasn't poisoned at Crufts after all.
> 
> Crufts dog Jagger probably ate toxins on way back from show says vet | Daily Mail Online


Ah, but that is just rumour still, not fact, let's not forget.

Until the toxicology results are back I think we should all take a vow of silence


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> *The standards were designed to describe a dog that could do the job [that their breed] was used for.*
> Lean, long legged sighthounds, low to earth sturdy terriers, etc. The show ring should - *in theory* -
> be a test of those characteristics.
> 
> *Some breeds are far away from that*, of course, *but even those are getting better.*


Where's the "better"?... I haven't seen it in the USA.

I would challenge anyone who claimed their goose-rumped, short-hocked, roach-backed, show-bred GSD
could ever in their life, even in youth, work sheep for a full day - sunup to sundown - outside a fence.
To make that statement would be asinine.

As for *'getting better'* - as yet, there's been no improvement whatever in the heads, jaws, & faces - or sinuses! -
of brachy-breeds in the USA, that i've seen. The increasing spread of brachy-traits into NON-brachy breeds, such as
St Bernard, Bullmastiff, & even show-line Beagles with foreshortened muzzles, goes on apace.

I don't "hate" dog-shows, & i have shown dogs & run handling classes for novice owners. What do i hate?...
the breeders who insist upon matador studs, line-breeding [just another word for inbreeding or slightly-less
intense incest], & despicable but powerful kennels who do as they dam*ed well please, & reap massive rewards.

The HIGHLY-REPUTED & MUCH-ADMIRED Rough Collie kennel that bred the double-merle sire of a dog
who went on to be awarded Westminster's BOB is just the latest & most-flagrant example of these monsters,
& monsters they are, in more ways than one: they earn monstrous sums for stud-fees & puppies of their get.

The double-merle sire is a recluse who can barely walk, due to skeletal issues his son inherited, & which
he continues to throw in his pups, who have vertical fronts & poor rears; plus Grandad is dam*-near blind.
But blind & crippled tho he is, he's guarateed to throw *color! & pattern* in every single pup - & that's
all that matters, isn't it? :crying:

His son is the biggest SIRE of champion Rough Collies in the USA, & even abroad - he's the product of a sire
who should have been struck from the registry, but he's coining money by the barrel for his owners & breeders,
& *breeders* are lining-up to buy his semen for their bitches.

That not only condemns the original kennel - the wonderful, famous kennel that produced the double-merle,
a *singleton pup from a lethal-white mating* - but all the bitch owners who turn a blind eye, & proffer
their females as dams, & their purses to rifle. :incazzato: Words fail. :thumbdown:

So, yes - there are definite tainted aspects of dog breeding, as well as dog showing. Judges who award the handler
[the pro on the end of the leash] on the presumption that s/he wouldn't handle a lousy dog. Judges who play
the political cards & make the powers happy by choosing their dogs. All of these are far-more common in AKC
than in UKC shows, by the by - UKC shows often feature handlers in shorts & T-shirts wearing sneakers, or jeans
& boots with a windbreaker. AKC shows include pro handlers who might have 20 dogs or more in one day.

There's plenty of guilt, corner-cutting, pretense, bad genetic practices, cronyism, ignorance, plain old
pigheaded _"That's how we've always done it..."_, & more, to spread around & share. It's also way-past time
to clean it up - because now there's no excuse for NOT gene-screening, NOT banning double-merle & other egregious
mortal sins, NOT re-writing judge rules to free them from being punished by kennel clubs for choosing the 'wrong'
dog - one that didn't belong to a club officer, for instance...

Show culture needs to change - yesterday. Breeders need to be MADE to change accepted practice.
Our purebred dogs are already on the slide to disaster - we aren't on any brink, we're headed for the pit.

I think legislation & regulation are inevitable, if the INDUSTRY - & it *is* one! - doesn't move its collective a$$.
.
.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I believe the rough collie club here condemns the breeding of double merles? Although no doubt some people continue to breed and use them . There was plenty of uproar this side of the atlantic when that poor dog's story came out as his son won the breed at westminster.

Some of the high profile breeds showed great improvement this year although there's still a way to go I don't think anyone is denying that.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> Some breeds are a mess, you only had to look at the *BOB Peke* to see that.
> ...


Then there should have been no breed winner. :huh: The judge SHOULD have the right to withhold all awards;
do they not?
They do in the AKC - altho, of course, they rarely invoke it. But if NO DOG in a given ring rates a ranking,
then none are given.


Nicky10 said:


> ...
> But the breeders are working hard to improve them. The problem with Cavaliers is that the issues
> are so widespread in the breed [never look at the memorial sections on the breed forums...  ]
> that it will take a long time to see improvements.
> ...


thank U for that! - :thumbup1: Happy to hear that there are some genuine bright spots in the murk.
That's heartening - not an overall Good, but a sign of hope.
.
.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> Then there should have been no breed winner. :huh: The judge SHOULD have the right to withhold all awards;
> do they not?
> They do in the AKC - altho, of course, they rarely invoke it. But if NO DOG in a given ring rates a ranking,
> then none are given.
> ...


Eric is the top peke at the moment, has passed numerous health checks and still struggled to waddle a short distance around the ring. He placed 4 in the group . The group videos are up on the crufts youtube.

There are some very nice working clumbers which are lighter than the show dogs. Their main issue was no interest in using them in the field so the show breeders were allowed to breed unchecked.


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> I believe the rough collie club here condemns the breeding of double merles? Although no doubt some people continue to breed and use them . There was plenty of uproar this side of the atlantic when that poor dog's story came out as his son won the breed at westminster.


Since 2013 KC does not register any puppies born from double merle breeding of any breed. So I would assume that if you can't register the puppy then there is no way to 'legally' breed the double merle dog?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> Then there should have been no breed winner. :huh: The judge SHOULD have the right to withhold all awards;
> do they not?
> They do in the AKC - altho, of course, they rarely invoke it. But if NO DOG in a given ring rates a ranking,
> then none are given.
> .


Judges can and do withold awards in the UK too.

At Crufts this year, the first and second places in the Post Grad Dog award in the Imoprt Register Classes were withheld because the judge did not think they were merited. There may or may not have been more - I only know about this one because my bergamasco was in the next class so I saw it with my own eyes.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

> ... I saw *no dogs* strung so tightly on their leads that the leather was digging into their necks.
> 
> I did see one or two dogs left alone on benches; *I did see one or two dogs whose heads were stretched
> higher by their leads than they should have been*...
> ...


I have never, ever, in my life been to ONE show - even a small-time local or regional match, let alone a major of
any type whatever - national Breed Speciality, national champs-only, any sort of national venue! - where i could
remotely make either of those statements, even by ignoring half the entries.

If that's literally true - & mind U, i'm NOT saying it isn't! --- then Cruft's is a world-wide wonder, IMO. :yesnod:

I truly wish i could say either of those things. Stringing-up a dog on a show martingale is more the USA-rule
than the exception - & i don't exaggerate, at least 60% of the dogs in the ring have their necks pulled up,
their airways narrowed, their gait foreshortened & at least semi-Hackney from the tension, they are being
throttled, but not to the point that they pass-out. :nonod: It's everywhere.

I do wonder who many show-dogs develop eye problems due specifically to the increased intra-ocular pressure
from that dam*ed common habit of 'lifting' the dog's skull off the atlas vertebra as if the dog's neck isn't
connected, & the dog isn't capable of carrying the WEIGHT of her or his own head, thanks very much. :thumbdown:

It's just rife, in the USA - pro handlers, breeders, casual hobbyist, juniors, experienced & seasoned seniors,
brand-new novices - every type.
.
.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

leashedForLife said:


> I have never, ever, in my life been to ONE show - even a small-time local or regional match, let alone a major of
> any type whatever - national Breed Speciality, national champs-only, any sort of national venue! - where i could
> remotely make either of those statements, even by ignoring half the entries.
> 
> ...


I have noticed that whenever I watch Westminster to be fair, although admittedly it's on the TV. I understand the arguments for showing the dog off with these leads but to be honest I'm not a fan of them at all.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> I have never, ever, in my life been to ONE show - even a small-time local or regional match, let alone a major of
> any type whatever - national Breed Speciality, national champs-only, any sort of national venue! - where i could
> remotely make either of those statements, even by ignoring half the entries.
> 
> If that's literally true - & mind U, i'm NOT saying it isn't! --- then Cruft's is a world-wide wonder, IMO. :yesnod:


Well, I can't show you what was happening in the breed rings as I passed because I didn't have my camera with me.

You can, however, take a look for yourself at the group judging. I was there on working and pastoral day - the following links will take you to the full video of the judging for each group. Not much stringing up, is there? Except for the odd one or two, even those who who had leads upright were allowing the dogs their correct head carriage. (btw - the border collie in the pastoral group is litter brother to Gracee, one of our border collies.)













leashedForLife said:


> It's just rife, in the USA - pro handlers, breeders, casual hobbyist, juniors, experienced & seasoned seniors,
> brand-new novices - every type.
> .
> .


Can't debate that with you as I have never been to a show in the USA and don't like to offer opinions on things I know nothing about. I have watched Westminster online and not been very impressed by some of the handling, but whether that is indicative of the rest of showing in the USA I have no idea.


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2015)

Meh... US conformation ring handling pretty much sucks. That and grooming is pretty much the most backwards and least improved areas of the dog world from my POV. Groomers are really rough, and you see a lot of it in the conformation ring prep areas. No surprise that CM comes from a grooming background (hell, why not throw him in here too, we've covered every other contentious topic )

A good friend of mine is one of the top breeders in the nation clicker trains her dogs for the ring. She gets lots of jibes for this, but hey, her dog won BOB at Westminster a few years ago, so  to them 

Change is slow, change is hard, and no one is going to change for the better by being attacked with emotional, irrational arguments, and criticized without salient facts. 
People need to be validated and understood before they will listen to alternatives. 

The people who will bring change to the breed ring and breeding practices are the ones already in the ring making those changes themselves and proving that they can work. Those looking in on the outside just throwing stones only accomplish muddying the waters and making change take longer.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Meh... U-S conformation ring handling pretty much sucks. That & grooming are pretty much the most backward
> & least improved areas of the dog world, from my POV. Groomers are really rough, & you see a lot of it in conformation
> ring prep areas. No surprise that CM comes from a grooming background (hell, why not throw him in here too,
> we've covered every other contentious topic.  )
> ...


Good on her! :thumbup1: Yes, i've helped folks clicker-train for ring work, also for grooming, exams [vet or ring],
etc.

The clicker-training BOOK for show ring handlers is also good; they have a Yahoo Group for help & to boost
one another, too. Sharing problems or posting wins, it all helps. 


ouesi said:


> Change is slow, change is hard, & *no one will change for the better by being attacked with emotional,
> irrational arguments, & criticized without salient facts.* People need to be validated & understood before
> they'll listen to alternatives.
> 
> ...


I don't agree, if U mean that no-one OUTSIDE the show fancy should offer any criticism of their practices.

If _*'Pedigree Dogs Exposed'*_ had never aired, do U think we'd see even the minimal improvements that have
been noted in this thread, in UK judges' choices, entries conformation, KC breeding practices, etc?

I don't.

Breeders & fanciers of all stripes, owners of show dogs, breeders of show dogs, pet-dog breeders,
pet-dog owners, ANYONE - they might hate PDE, but it was a massive & much-needed wake-up call.
More like a bomb going off, but it was a PR-bomb, & no-one was physically injured - in fact, the overall
result, IMO, has been an improvement, not "destruction".

The breeders, registries, & fancy as a whole have been p*ss-poor at self-regulating for 2 centuries.
Even with the DNA knowledge we have now - which they DIDN'T when this all began, in the late-19th century -
breeders play fast & loose more often than they are ethical & stringent.

Removing all outside criticism won't _"make change happen faster"._ It might very well make change
cease entirely - IMO, & IME of other navel-centered, self-congratulatory, closed groups.
.
.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

So what improvements were made between 1985 and the airing of PDE compared to the improvements after PDE (2008) as suddenly things couldn't be simply swept under the carpet and life continue as normal?

[youtube_browser]N5RMa7AW5u8[/youtube_browser]

How about comparing the bulldog there with the bulldog in 2008 or the basset?

Yes things are now improving. I believe a descendant of the dalmation Fiona was actually placed (2nd) which is great. Some breeds are noticeably with less exageration. However pressure needs to be maintained. That's not throwing mud, that's facing reality. The other option is to have an independent body which can stand up to the breed clubs and force change.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Of course it needs to be maintained, a few generations of breeding from tested dogs or for less wrinkles won't do much in the long run. 

It's great one of the luas got placed although they come with their own issues all coming from the one outcross.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> ...
> It's great one of the LUA-Dals placed, *although they come with their own issues, all from one outcross.*


All the LUA-Dals are progeny of a Pointer outcross, to eliminate the purine incompetency / gout gene.

However, there is a good variety of Dal-genes within the LUA-group, & if they are bred to other Dals,
why would there be massive issues? - they don't need to breed only LUA to LUA within that line. 

I'm stymied - the Pointer was tested for heritable issues, temp was desirable, etc. What's the problem?
Surely more variety was INTRODUCED to a closed studbook than was lost?
.
.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

One dog is hardly a huge injection of genes though and the dogs are only being used by a few breeders. Surely a few outcrosses to suitable dogs selected as the first was would have been better?

Funny thing is I haven't seen as much of a backlash against "impure" dogs with the bobtail boxer project outcrossing to natural bobtailed corgis when the docking ban came in as with the luas. And the luas were bred for a much better purpose than not liking the natural tails


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> *One dog* is hardly a huge injection of genes... & LUA-Dals are only being used by a few breeders.
> Surely *a few outcrosses to suitable dogs, selected as the first Pointer was,
> would have been better?*


This was no massive effort with unlimited funds & many wannabe participants banging on the door -
this was largely the work of one man, working AGAINST the tide of popular feeling in the breed club.

The History of LUA Dalmatians | LUA Dalmatians World EN
LUA Dalmatians World EN

H***'s bells, Pointer breeders weren't happy about absconding with Pointer genes, either. 

It's not as if he had a crowd of excellent dam & sire prospects, their owners all fighting to be selected.
I think he did bl**dy well, to accomplish what he DID achieve; then the Breed Club turned around & banned
the LUA-Dals from the AKC studbooks, anyway - after agreeing beforehand they'd allow them if they met
breed standard criteria, which they assuredly did.

AND THERE'S NOTHING to stop anyone repeating the process, today - if they want to expand it.
That _"only a few breeders use LUA-Dals..."_ is THEIR narrow-minded choice; no one else's problem.


Nicky10 said:


> ...
> I haven't seen as much of a backlash against "impure" dogs with the bobtail Boxer project - outcrossing
> to natural-bobtailed Corgis, when the docking ban began, compared to LUAs. And LUA-Dals were
> outcrossed for a much-better purpose than [congenital bobtails to replace a naturally-long, tapered tail].


That's because narrow-minded ppl who want a stub-tailed dog don't mind "muddying" their breed
for the traditional look. :w00t:
.
.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2015)

I can't speak for the KC, but the AKC recognizes over 170 dog breeds, not including the 60+ foundation stock breeds. UKC has even more I believe.

So easily 200 different breeds (worldwide, I think there are more like 400 different breeds of pure-bred dogs). 

But let's be super conservative and say there are 150 pure bred dogs recognized in the world of conformation showing. 
Of those 150, how many have health issues due to exaggerated physical or mental traits? 
How many of those breeds are exaggerated at all?
How many have actually improved once enthusiasts started paying attention to how the dog was put together?

And how many mongrels out there have major health and mental issues?
Two of the dogs with the worst allergies I know are both major heinz 57 mutts. 

At least with a pedigree dog, there is a written history, a literal paper trail that can be used to figure out where these issues are coming from and actually do something about them.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

the only thing that varies is how fast or how slowly they lose gene diversity.



ouesi said:


> ...the AKC recognizes over 170 dog breeds, not including the 60+ *foundation stock* breeds.
> UKC has even more I believe.
> 
> So easily 200 different breeds (worldwide, I think there are more like 400 different purebred dog breeds).


"foundation stock" is nothing more nor less than an attempt to commandeer the studbooks.
:huh: The AKC virtually stole the Aussie & JRT studbooks by co-opting them, via breakaway breeders -
a very small fraction, mostly BYBs & "commercial" AKA puppy-mills, plus a few wannabe show-breeders.

FWIW, there are approx 600 breeds & landraces, worldwide.


ouesi said:


> But let's be super conservative & say 150 purebred [breeds] are recognized in the world of conformation
> showing. Of those, how many breeds have health issues from exaggerated physical or mental traits?
> How many of those breeds are exaggerated at all?


How many are EXAGGERATED doesn't mean a thing.

Berners aren't "exaggerated" - they're moderate. However, they're so inbred that breeding depression has
been a known issue for 30-years.


ouesi said:


> How many have actually improved once enthusiasts started paying attention to how the dog was put together?


The root cause isn't whether structure or function is on an UPWARD curve, or a DOWNWARD curve;
the problem is *closed* stud-books. A gene pool without flow is stagnant & shrinking, by definition.


ouesi said:


> ...how many mongrels... have major health & mental issues?
> Two... dogs with the worst allergies I know are... Heinz-57 mutts.
> 
> At least *with a pedigree dog, there's a written history, a literal paper trail that can be used to figure out
> where these issues came from, & actually do something about them.*


With any dog, U have Dx & Tx. An existing individual cannot be "improved" - U can't "do something"
to fix her or him. Their congenital defects are a fait accompli.

A Heinz-57 mutt isn't a prospective sire or dam, either. So there's no "improving" progeny -
it's a dead end, & the dog's issues are immaterial. Their unknown sire or dam isn't foundation stock.

U can IMPROVE breeds only by obtaining gene analysis & predictive tests, aside from actual objective
scoring of structure, tail set, ear set, markings, & other VISIBLE traits, which may be multi-factorial.

As just one example of a bad decision in the distant past still shadowing the present breed, "Johnny" was
a dog in the 1960s with a terrific 'headpiece' in a "head" breed - Boxers. He was put to dam* near every
bitch who had 4 legs & 2 eyes; unfortunately, he had a ferociously vertical front, which is a multifactorial
problem that still persists in Boxers; his 'beautiful head' is gone, his Hackney front continues. :sosp:

Penn-HIP scores or OFA ratings, CERF certificates & coat-genes, etc, are all testable data. *Visible traits*
are another category - & can be dominant / recessive, partial penetrance, multi-gene, etc, etc.
.
.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

LIDA Dogs - LIDA Dogs - Faculty of Veterinary Science - The University of Sydney makes frightening reading.

You can also look at something like Inherited defects in pedigree dogs. Part 1: disorders related to br... - PubMed - NCBI



> The United Kingdom pedigree-dog industry has faced criticism because certain aspects of dog conformation stipulated in the UK Kennel Club breed standards have a detrimental impact on dog welfare. A review of conformation-related disorders was carried out in the top 50 UK Kennel Club registered breeds using systematic searches of existing information. A novel index to score severity of disorders along a single scale was also developed and used to conduct statistical analyses to determine the factors affecting reported breed predisposition to defects. According to the literature searched, *each of the top 50 breeds was found to have at least one aspect of its conformation predisposing it to a disorder; and 84 disorders were either directly or indirectly associated with conformation.* The Miniature poodle, Bulldog, Pug and Basset hound had most associations with conformation-related disorders. Further research on prevalence and severity is required to assess the impact of different disorders on the welfare of affected breeds.


KoiraNet-jalostustietojÃ¤rjestelmÃ¤ is yet another interesting site. Haven't come across things like this available and based in the UK for UK statistics.

I have yet to see justification regarding health advantages for inbreeding or the limiting of diminishing gene pools as that is what is boils down to. Simply denials and that health testing solves the core problem.

[youtube_browser]jG0BGqOKer8[/youtube_browser]​
That's not to say crufts doesn't have great competitions such as agility or flyball.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Why when the facts are well known and stated but swept under the carpet rather than being acknowledged openly
> 
> Let's look at something not in PDE... how about the Scottish Terrier as it's obviously a brilliant dog and an example just won Crufts.
> 
> ...





I've already answered other points from this quote, but just wanted to show you this - research and treatment in canine cancer by the AHT - made possible by an interest free loan from the Kennel Club. It does not mention scotties or any other breed, but it does show how things have moved forward since the 2003 article you quoted.

Some quotes from this up to date article:

_"The addition of the purpose built cancer centre, equipped with a linear accelerator, a high dose radiation therapy unit and CT scanner to administer radiotherapy treatment, has enabled us to significantly further veterinary and scientific knowledge of cancer in dogs whilst offering the full spectrum of cancer treatments;"_

_"The centre is increasing our clinical knowledge of how best to treat and diagnose cancer, with many of our clinicians undertaking peer-reviewed research projects based on their clinical observations to further veterinary medicine. At the same time, our scientists are working on research projects to better understand, and fight, the disease in dogs from all possible avenues_"

_"Continued support from the Kennel Club Charitable Trust has also enabled us to make incredible progress in the last two years in our cancer research programme."_

_"The pilot study using uveal melanoma biopsies has been made possible through use of the GeneAtlas System, funded by the Kennel Club Charitable Trust."_

_"Mark Vaudin, CEO of the AHT, said: "The Kennel Club were incredibly generous to give us the interest-free loan which enabled us to complete the build of the cancer centre in record time"_

_"Dr Mark Vaudin, added "The Kennel Club is a fantastic partner to our vital work. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all of the Breed Clubs, breeders and dog owners who give so generously, both financially and in the form of samples, to the AHT's research. Their continued support helps us to make this progress in the fight against cancer in dogs."_

Animal Health Trust | Animal Health Trust
Cancer research | Animal Health Trust

No-one is able to go back in time and wave a magic wand to eradicate what was done in the early 20th Century. However, this article shows things *are* moving forwards and concerns *are* being addressed. (a lot more relevant than a magazine article from 2003!) And the last quote in particular shows that it's not just the Kennel Club involved, but also breed clubs, individual breeders and individual dog owners. No sweeping under the carpet there!

We are where we are and we have to deal with things as they are now. To quote an article from 2003 as if no progress is being made and accusing present owners and breeders of sweeping things under the carpet is misleading. There will be a lot of old articles you can quote about how things were, but it's surely more important to quote up to date articles showing what - if any - progress has been made.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> _"The addition of the purpose built cancer centre, equipped with a linear accelerator, a high dose radiation therapy unit and CT scanner to administer radiotherapy treatment, has enabled us to significantly further veterinary and scientific knowledge of cancer in dogs whilst offering the full spectrum of cancer treatments;"_


Notice you do not actually use facts on current health but then the KC and breed clubs are not known for providing that information to the public are they. Your post proves nothing really. Dealing with some of the symptoms is great but avoids and sidesteps the main core problem. Better would be dealing with the cause of the symptoms. What is the advantage to health of limiting gene pools and interbreeding?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> I have never, ever, in my life been to ONE show - even a small-time local or regional match, let alone a major of
> any type whatever - national Breed Speciality, national champs-only, any sort of national venue! - where i could
> remotely make either of those statements, even by ignoring half the entries.
> 
> ...





Spellweaver said:


> Well, I can't show you what was happening in the breed rings as I passed because I didn't have my camera with me.
> 
> You can, however, take a look for yourself at the group judging. I was there on working and pastoral day - the following links will take you to the full video of the judging for each group. Not much stringing up, is there? Except for the odd one or two, even those who who had leads upright were allowing the dogs their correct head carriage. (btw - the border collie in the pastoral group is litter brother to Gracee, one of our border collies.)
> 
> ...


LFL - have you had the time to look at these two videos yet? What do you think? Were there only one or two dogs with tight leads and heads too high as I said, or were they as "strung up" as you thought they were going to be?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Goblin said:


> Notice you do not actually use facts on current health but then the KC and breed clubs are not known for providing that information to the public are they. Your post proves nothing really. Dealing with some of the symptoms is great but avoids and sidesteps the main core problem. Better would be dealing with the cause of the symptoms. What is the advantage to health of limiting gene pools and interbreeding?


The cairn breed club at least asks that all health issues in registered cairns are reported to them. They also list them on the website. I'm sure others do the same when I briefly looked into Poland lowland sheepdogs they listed all the test results for the registered dogs


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Notice you do not actually use facts on current health but then the KC and breed clubs are not known for providing that information to the public are they. Your post proves nothing really. Dealing with some of the symptoms is great but avoids and sidesteps the main core problem. Better would be dealing with the cause of the symptoms. What is the advantage to health of limiting gene pools and interbreeding?


Got to smile Goblin - I give you a current up to date picture of what is being done by the KC and breed clubs to research the cause of cancer in dogs because this was something which you were concerned about in your post.

Just like researching cancer in humans, this will include genetic predisposition and how to overcome this.

Do you acknowledge that this is a step forward in finding out and overcoming the genetic predisposition to various types of cancer in dogs? Do you acknowledge that you were mistaken when you throw out the blanket accusation of things being swept under the carpet?

No, you actually try to sweep this advancement under the carpet yourself by 
a) saying that KC and the breed clubs don't give info to the public (despite the acknowledgement in this article of them doing that very thing) 
b) saying I don't use facts (read the articles - they're teaming with facts)
c) saying an up to date article on the advancement in research of genetic pre-disposition of cancer in dogs proves nothing (it proves the KC and breed cluibs are not sweeping it under the carpet but are doing something about it with an end view of being able to reverse it)
d) diverting attention to the completely different topic of limiting gene pools and interbreeding (two worthy topics but not the subject of your post or my answer to your post)

Part of the findings of the research may well be that the genetic predisposition of cancer is caused by close breeding. It might equally find that the only way to eradicate the predisposition to cancer is to limit breeding even more to those dogs who are geneticallly not predisposed. I don't know. I'm not a scientist. I'm guessing. But the point is that the research is being done, and the results of that research will hopefully enable breeders to put right what has happened in the past.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Goblin said:


> You can also look at something like Inherited defects in pedigree dogs. Part 1: disorders related to br... - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> .


Just looked up all the people involved in this study to see how relevant and trustworthy it is............quite impressed with this link 

I think I've got them all right
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/vet/people/lucy.asher

This one actually been quoted I believe in tail docking threads 
G. Diesel, BVSc, MSc, PhD, MRCVS

Dr Jennifer Summers - Our People - About - Royal Veterinary College, RVC

http://sydney.edu.au/vetscience/about/staff/profiles/paul.mcgreevy.php

Queen's University Belfast | Dr. L. Collins


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

ouesi said:


> The people who will bring change to the breed ring and breeding practices are the ones already in the ring making those changes themselves and proving that they can work. Those looking in on the outside just throwing stones only accomplish muddying the waters and making change take longer.


Unfortunately institutions in general have a tendency to suffer from a superiority complex imo and consequently are not inclined to acknowledge problems. It is sometimes the outsiders looking with a fresh pair of eyes, declaring 'The Emperor Is Naked' and challenging accepted practices that are the only pressure which bring to bear change.
We are all inclined to dismiss what we read in the media as hyperbole but the fact is if they didn't bring certain issues to our attention, they may well stay well and truly swept under the carpet.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2015)

I wonder why it's so hard to acknowledge that people from within can see isssues and do make changes?

I just gave an example of a top breeder in this country who decided to changge the way she handles and trains her dogs, who went against the grain and did start doing something something different. 

In all sorts of dog sports and venues, there have been massive changes in the way dogs are trained. Those changes didn't happen because someone from outside looking in showed some objection, those changes happened because someone from the inside found a better way, showed how it could work, made it happen, and others saw it with their own eyes and followed suit.

Think about just this forum. How well do we members respond when a newbie comes on here guns a blazing calling everyone out for rudeness and harshness of replies? It's not appreciated, and certainly not respected enough to make that member do anythng different. Yet when an established member chides another for an inapprpriate reply, that holds far more weight doesn't it?


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2015)

Just adding to what I just posted.

I think in simplest terms it boils down to relationships. Just as it does when working with a dog. You have to start with establishing a relationship. 

The issue with a bunch of outsiders crying foul to the insiders has nothing to do with who's right and who's wrong, but rather the fact that those crying foul didn't establish a relationship first, before trying to influence the other enough to change. 

That just flat never works. Unless you're forcing change against the other's will, and forced/coerced change is always superficial, the underlying issues will still be there.

If some random stranger walks up to me and tells me I'm an asshat for supporting the AKC by showing my dog, I'm going to laugh in their face. 
If someone who doesn't know me out and out attacks me physically or emotionally for daring to be at an AKC show, I sure as hell am not going to listen to anything they haveto say.

However, when my friend who does have a relationship with me complains about the AKC not allowing her deaf dog to show in rally, I'm going to sit up and listen, and I'm going to write the apprpriate people, and I'm going to try and get that changed. If it doesn't I might even boycott or let my membership lapse and go to UKC shows instead. 

Relationships eh?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Just like researching cancer in humans, this will include genetic predisposition and how to overcome this.


Solution to this and many other problems is known and ignored while people try to find ways around it. Genetic diversity.



> No, you actually try to sweep this advancement under the carpet yourself


No, I said it's applying a bandage to a wound without solving the cause of the wound. It will undoubtably help loads of dogs and is to be commended but fails to solve the real issue.

Once again.. what health benefits are there to restricting genetic diversity when the negatives are so well known? What is Crufts about if not a celebration of the restriction of genetic diversity? Why do people do it and celebrate it?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

ouesi said:


> The issue with a bunch of outsiders crying foul to the insiders has nothing to do with who's right and who's wrong, but rather the fact that those crying foul didn't establish a relationship first, before trying to influence the other enough to change.
> 
> That just flat never works. Unless you're forcing change against the other's will, and forced/coerced change is always superficial, the underlying issues will still be there.


Why is there an independent police complaints commission? What changes where made which made a positive difference between 1985 (video already posted) and the release of Pedigree Dogs Exposed (PDE) in 2008? What else do we see.. vet checks with so many restrictions they are meaningless, that's a great example of an opportunity which has been knobbled by the reaction of the breed clubs and the fact the KC has no power. Remember the phrase when vet checks were first introduced, dogs were penalized and a breeder complained with something along the lines of "but I can't breed to the standard without eye problems". Were the standards changed? No, the vet checks were.

Yes progress is now being made, especially in the UK I'm happy to say. I've already pointed out a couple of examples. Doesn't change the fact that the culture is against change and the pace of change has been pushed by outside people "butting their nose in". That's not to say people inside didn't want changes. Many did but egos and politics are dangerous combination when it comes to changes.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

When posting I try and avoid words like 'always' & 'never' and I do respect that others have different opinions to me. Just because I am newer to this forum doesn't mean I have not previously given a lot of thought or taken interest in the issues explored here (and take it for granted everyone else on here has too)

It would be nice to be given the benefit of the doubt as I do to others.

Unfortunately I do disagree that "a bunch of outsiders crying.... flat never works."

Here in the UK the recent scandal regarding MP's expenses only came to light because of an inquisitive and persistent reporter. If she hadn't done her thing the British public would probably still be paying for all sorts of frilly bits because the MP's sure didn't see any reason for change!

Where animals are concerned I feel we cannot afford to trust and be complacent because we have a duty of care and for all their many wonderful talents, they are unable to speak up for themselves.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Solution to this and many other problems is known and ignored while people try to find ways around it. Genetic diversity.


No, it's scientifically finding a solution, not ignoring a solution!



Goblin said:


> No, I said it's applying a bandage to a wound without solving the cause of the wound. It will undoubtably help loads of dogs and is to be commended but fails to solve the real issue.


So finding a way to eradicate a genetic predisposition to canine cancer is not solving any issues?



Goblin said:


> Once again.. what health benefits are there to restricting genetic diversity when the negatives are so well known? What is Crufts about if not a celebration of the restriction of genetic diversity? Why do people do it and celebrate it?


Why do you ignore the fact that the Kennel Club allows outcrossing when necessary?


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2015)

Goblin said:


> Why is there an independent police complaints commission?


I don't know about the UK, but in the US, the independent bodies that regulate things like police behavior have a lot of training and information on actual police work. It's not a bunch of laymen with no experience in law enforcement.

For the same reason doctor's review boards and ethics committees are made up of licensed, practicing doctors, not laypeople with no knowledge and experience of practicing medicine.

There is a reason for this.

The AKC has an ethics committee. Parent clubs for individual breeds have ethics committees and their rules change and improve all the time. Which is how I am able to not only register my mongrel dog with the AKC, but also show him in any venue I want except for the breed ring. Which is how my "All American Dog" (code for mutt) has multiple AKC titles 

And FWIW, most people dog-crazy enough to participate on a dog forum is not an "outsider looking in". But when someone who's only experience with dogs is the backyard pet that barely gets walked tries to tell me I'm cruel for showing my dog, because dog shows are nothing but beauty pageants, forgive me for not taking much notice of what they have to say.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Delilahdog said:


> When posting I try and avoid words like 'always' & 'never' and I do respect that others have different opinions to me. Just because I am newer to this forum doesn't mean I have not previously given a lot of thought or taken interest in the issues explored here (and take it for granted everyone else on here has too)
> 
> It would be nice to be given the benefit of the doubt as I do to others.
> 
> ...


I do too. In any closed kind of sport or hobby you are going to find people getting complacent and happy with the way things exactly are. Sometimes it takes a fresh pair of eyes to see where the problems lie and ways in which to help eradicate those issues by working together. The problem here, although I think the tide is generally turning, is that there is very much a 'us vs them' kind of attitude. People within the show/breeding community feel 'vilified' and people from outside put to much pressure on those within that community. Changes can't and won't happen as quick as some appear to believe they can. As dog lovers and enthusiasts we should all be able to find common ground and begin to work from somewhere.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Nothing wrong with a fresh pair of eyes.

But a fresh pair of eyes means actually looking at something for yourself.

A fresh pair of eyes means looking at something for yourself, without a prior agenda.

Reading about something in the media, seeing it on TV, and then forming opinons about it is not looking at anything with a fresh pair of eyes. All that is doing is basing your opinions on what someone else's eyes has seen - and you have no proof that what they have seen is the truth. All you know is what they are telling you and showing you; and what they are telling you and showing you might be specially selected bits just to fit in with their prior agenda. They may have left all sorts of things out that they are not telling you.

So by all means let's have a fresh pair of eyes. Go out and see for yourselves what is happening. Base your opinions on what you see rather than what others tell you is happening.

You might just be amazed.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2015)

Spellweaver said:


> Nothing wrong with a fresh pair of eyes.
> 
> But a fresh pair of eyes means actually looking at something for yourself.
> 
> ...


Yep. Reminds me of this post:
HumaneWatch | What I Learned at the Dog Show
I don't agree with everything in that, but the author makes a very salient point.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> So by all means let's have a fresh pair of eyes. Go out and see for yourselves what is happening. Base your opinions on what you see rather than what others tell you is happening.


Funny when you dismiss anyone who does that if they do not agree with your viewpoint.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> LFL -
> have you had the time to look at these two videos yet? What do you think?
> 
> Were there only one or two dogs with tight leads and heads too high, as I said, or were they as
> "strung up" as you thought they were going to be?


Sorry, someone else will have to make that call - my laptop hasn't run videos in over a month,
it won't install the flashplayer-update, so zero videos are available. All of UTube, everything.

Ouesi, have U seen them? --- What did U / do U think?

Anyone else, stateside or elsewhere, have an opinion?...
.
.
.
.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

What is a Lua-Dal?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Doggiedelight said:


> What is a Lua-Dal?


L-U-A = *L*ow *U*ric *A*cid

Dal = Dalmatian

Dals carry a deletorious recessive that means they can't properly digest & use PURINES - a specific type
of protein. It causes a form of GOUT.

From this point on, U need to read the link, below:
.
.


leashedForLife said:


> This was no massive effort, with unlimited funds & many wannabe participants banging on the door -
> this was largely the work of one man, working AGAINST the tide of popular feeling in the breed club.
> 
> The History of LUA Dalmatians | LUA Dalmatians World EN
> ...


.
.
.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Doggiedelight said:


> What is a Lua-Dal?


Every dalmation carries a mutation that meant they couldn't digest high levels of purines. So they outcrossed to a pointer who didn't have the mutation and problem solved. Only a lot of dalmatian people threw tantrums over these impure dogs , corrupting the gene pool etc etc.

I wonder if it's a situation that will come in norwegian lundehunds. Most if not all of the breed suffer from genetic digestion problems and there's such a tiny gene pool to begin with it seems outcrossing is their only option. Of course they might have to sacrifice some of the breed's unique qualities for a while to do it


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Funny when you dismiss anyone who does that if they do not agree with your viewpoint.


Really? Who?

I've seen people forming their opinions about dog showing after reading and watching what other people have seen. That's not looking with a fresh pair of eyes. That's looking at what someone else wants you to see.

I've seen people going and looking at dog showing with prior agendas. That's not looking with a fresh pair of eyes. That's looking with your eyes firmly set on a goal you have decided upon before you even set out.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> Every dalmation carries a mutation that meant they couldn't digest high levels of purines. So they outcrossed to a pointer who didn't have the mutation and problem solved. Only a lot of dalmatian people threw tantrums over these impure dogs , corrupting the gene pool etc etc.
> 
> I wonder if it's a situation that will come in norwegian lundehunds. Most if not all of the breed suffer from genetic digestion problems and there's such a tiny gene pool to begin with it seems outcrossing is their only option. Of course they might have to sacrifice some of the breed's unique qualities for a while to do it


I think I read somewhere that by the sixth generation from an outcrossing, the breed will be back to its previous looks but with all the benefits of the outcrossing - but I could be wrong because I can't find it anywhere


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> I think I read somewhere that by the sixth generation from an outcrossing, the breed will be back to its previous looks but with all the benefits of the outcrossing - but I could be wrong because I can't find it anywhere


Lundehunds are so unique though polydactyl, incredibly flexible to the point you can bend a relaxed dog's head back until it's parallel with it's spine and not cause any discomfort. They bred them to climb up sheer cliffs after all. So it would be what the breeders are willing to sacrifice in the name of health.

The luas look like any other dalmatian clearly if they're winning shows.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> Really? Who?
> 
> I've seen people forming their opinions about dog showing after reading and watching what other people have seen. That's not looking with a fresh pair of eyes. That's looking at what someone else wants you to see.
> 
> I've seen people going and looking at dog showing with prior agendas. That's not looking with a fresh pair of eyes. That's looking with your eyes firmly set on a goal you have decided upon before you even set out.


Doesn't really matter how they formed their opinion or agenda if they ultimately have the future of dog welfare at heart. If those very people bring about positive changes/influence regardless of their experience or insider knowledge, it can only be of benefit.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Dogloverlou said:


> Doesn't really matter how they formed their opinion or agenda if they ultimately have the future of dog welfare at heart. If those very people bring about positive changes/influence regardless of their experience or insider knowledge, it can only be of benefit.


Of course it matters. No matter how much anyone has the welfare of dogs at heart, they are not going to be able to achieve any change whatsoever unless they have a correct picture of how ithings are now.

How can you change something for the better if you have a skewed notion of what is right and what is wrong in the dog world today?

And how can you end up with a correct notion of what is right and what is wrong in the dog world today? By finding out for yourself, by using a fresh pair of eyes- ie your own eyes.

You were the one who said a fresh pair of eyes were needed - and I agree with you. But a fresh pair of eyes means just that - and someone who has formed opinions from old sensationalist TV programs and the debates about them on forums, is not looking at something with a fresh pair of eyes; nor is someone who is harking back to, and forming their opinions from, articles that are over 12 years old. A fresh pair of eyes does not form opinions from old, out of date sources.

Forming opinions from old sources is like arguing the world is not flat when everyone else has known it is round for years - ie pointless.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Nicky10 said:


> Every dalmation carries a mutation that meant they couldn't digest high levels of purines. So they outcrossed to a pointer who didn't have the mutation and problem solved. Only a lot of dalmatian people threw tantrums over these impure dogs , corrupting the gene pool etc etc.
> 
> I wonder if it's a situation that will come in norwegian lundehunds. Most if not all of the breed suffer from genetic digestion problems and there's such a tiny gene pool to begin with it seems outcrossing is their only option. Of course they might have to sacrifice some of the breed's unique qualities for a while to do it


I will google this when im more awake, but for now, outcrossing, do you just mean 'breeding?' So pup would be a dal x pointer?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Doggiedelight said:


> I will google this when im more awake, but for now, outcrossing, do you just mean 'breeding?' So pup would be a dal x pointer?


Yes they bred a dalmatian to a carefully selected pointer and then back to dalmatians. As the pointer didn't have the mutation that caused the problem the dogs from that line have normal uric acid levels.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Doggiedelight said:


> I will google this when im more awake, but for now, outcrossing, do you just mean 'breeding?' So pup would be a dal x pointer?


Yes, and then bred back to Dalmatians.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Doggiedelight said:


> I will google this when im more awake, but for now, outcrossing, do you just mean 'breeding?' So pup would be a dal x pointer?


That's what happens at first. Then the progeny is mated to a ful dal, and their progeny is mated to a full dal, and they keep repeating that until about 6 (I think) generations later, when the progeny are then back to being ful dals but without the mutation because of the mutation-free gene from the pointer.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Nicky10 said:


> Yes they bred a dalmatian to a carefully selected pointer and then back to dalmatians. As the pointer didn't have the mutation that caused the problem the dogs from that line have normal uric acid levels.


Thank you for clarifying. I can see however why although its done for the good of the breed, that some people with crosses, who dont have health problems are snubbed 'designer dogs' in a negative way by some people. It happened to me when I got penny. Even when my others are rescues. When in reality a dalxpointer would be a designer, no matter to reason why, even back again. All things designed are designers. Its just the KC accept some and not others. I accept some 'designers' are badly bred. However others arent. It comes across as double standards sometimes.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Doggiedelight said:


> Thank you for clarifying. I can see however why although its done for the good of the breed, that some people with crosses, who dont have health problems are snubbed 'designer dogs'. It happened to me when I got penny. Even when my others are rescues. When in reality a dalxpointer would be a designer, no matter to reason why, even back again. All things designed are designers. Its just the KC accept some and not others. I accept some 'designers' are badly bred. However others arent.


People rarely have a problem with the designer crosses themselves just the breeders. Just as they would with an unethical pedigree breeder.

Labradoodles and for that matter cockapoos were bred for good reasons originally, a guide dog for those who were allergic and an attempt to correct the disaster that american cockers had become after they exploded in popularity in the 50's.

The luas breed true as dalmatians therefore they are dalmatians. Same as irish wolfhounds breed true even after they had deerhounds, greyhounds and danes bred in in the 1800s when the numbers crashed to almost nothing.

Is this a record for the most controversial topics in one thread?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Doggiedelight said:


> ...
> I can see however why - although [outcrossing to a Pointer was] done for the good of the breed['s health]
> that *some people with cross[-bred dogs, whose dogs] don't have health problems, are snubbed [as]
> 'designer dogs' in a negative way* by some people.
> ...


D-D,
did U actually READ the link i posted, to the history of LUA-Dals?

If not, why not? :huh: Obviously, U can read - U're literate. What's the problem?
Do U buy the Cliff's Notes version of every text of required reading, in school?

A "designer dog" is NOT a LUA-Dal.
*Designer Dogs* are CROSSBREEDS produced by repeatedly breeding individuals of one breed with another,
over & over & over & over & over... forever. U do this in order to get the consistent "look" of the F1 progeny.
Or in the case of dog-sports designer crosses, the same function - Ex., JRT x BC for flyball.

If U mate an F 1 x F1, U get... an unpredictable mess of God-knows-what-traits in a litter.

It's just like "saving seed" from hybrid vegies or fruits - the next season won't breed true - they'll lose their
appearance, or habit of growth [creeper, bush-type, dwarf, whatever version] or the flower color
or the seed pod or the resistance to disease or SOMETHING will change.

Designer-dogs are bred for appearance or convenience; they don't become a "breed" because the breeders
aren't culling for undesired traits to get a true-breeding hybrid; that takes years of effort. Lab x Doodles
in Australia are still throwing pups who don't meet the basic criteria [non shed coat, size, temp, behavior,
dog-social, low-allergen saliva, etc] & it's been, what?... TWENTY YEARS? More, maybe?

A Jug or Puggle looks IDENTIFIABLE because they are F1 hybrids of true-breeding parent breeds -
a 1st generation mating. If U mate a Jug to a Jug, U get a mish-mosh of whatever pops out in each pup,
from both parent strains. Same with Puggle x Puggle - U'd have pied pups, long ears, ring tails, flag tails,
short tab ears, hound faces, whatever, all in ONE bizarre litter.
That's why they remain cross-breed F1 pups - forever.

the other reason that designer-dogs are not admired is that they are primarily a means of raising
the PRICE of each puppy - often to 3 to 5 times or more what U would pay to buy a show-quality purebred from
an ethical breeder, WITH the apropos breed-specific & dog-generic screening on both parent dogs - sire & dam.
In short, they are a rip-off, & often profiteering. :thumbdown: The breeders are frequently novices, or BYBs,
or hobby-sized "puppy-mills" churning out pups. :nonod:

The LUA outcross was a specific event; F1 progeny were backcrossed to Dals to increase the similarity
of the spotting, body shape, etc. U don't want a Dal with a bee-sting tail.

If U haven't had basic genetics, read at least 2 or 3 articles explaining it. Then read the LUA History.
Then, if U have Qs, come back & ask them. For now, U're confusing 2 very different things: designer breeds
[forever F1] & an outcross for F1 progeny, multiply back-crossed to the parent breed for generations,
to produce F6 or F10 generations that look IDENTICAL to the parent-breed that was outcrossed.
.
.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

leashedForLife said:


> D-D,
> did U actually READ the link i posted, to the history of LUA-Dals?
> 
> If not, why not? :huh: Obviously, U can read - U're literate. What's the problem?
> ...


I'm going to keep this as polite as possible, a long time member or not, a member with a lot of rep points or not. Your post in the first paragraph was disrespectful and very patronising. Not quite sure who you thought you were there. I will not respond to anymore of your post until you can learn to speak to me in a correct manner. I understand typed words can be misinterpreted differently than when spoken however you know full well you were typing in a negative manner towards me and I for one will not tolerate that.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

Nicky10 said:


> People rarely have a problem with the designer crosses themselves just the breeders. Just as they would with an unethical pedigree breeder.
> 
> Labradoodles and for that matter cockapoos were bred for good reasons originally, a guide dog for those who were allergic and an attempt to correct the disaster that american cockers had become after they exploded in popularity in the 50's.
> 
> ...


I think it must be! 
We all have strong opinions as we love dogs, we can all agree on that


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Doggiedelight said:


> I'm going to keep this as polite as possible, a long time member or not, a member with a lot of rep points or not.
> *Your post in the first paragraph was disrespectful and very patronising.*


I don't think so - it was sarcastic - but Ur questions & statements clearly showed a complete
misunderstanding of the topic under discussion, partly as a result of relying on 2 to 3 sentence
"explanations" of a fairly-complex topic.



Doggiedelight said:


> Not quite sure who you thought you were there.


??? - I don't pretend to be anyone else - my real name is in my sig.


Doggiedelight said:


> I will not respond to anymore of your post until you can learn to speak to me in a correct manner.


No worries.  I still urge U to *read* LUA-Dal history, & *learn* basic genetics.



Doggiedelight said:


> I understand typed words can be misinterpreted differently than when spoken however you know full well
> you were typing in a negative manner towards me and I for one will not tolerate that.


"Typing in a negative manner"...?

No - i was expressing irritation that U glossed over accurate info & half-grasped an inadequate
pocket-explanation, convenient only for its brevity.

Then U conflated it with an entirely-separate phenomenon, the mass production of "cute" crossbred pups
for retail by mostly-profit-driven breeders, AKA designer-dogs. They aren't the same.

Pleasant dreams,
- terry
.
.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

Whew! It's a can of worms hey!
Dog shows (any shows) are almost by definition a public display. People are invited to go along and see stuff. 
Not everyone is going to see it the same or make the same conclusions, that's life.
Over the years I have visited/spectated all sorts of animal based events, from local pony clubs and dog shows to major agricultural shows (with competitive livestock & equine presentations, dog handling, ferrets, you name it) to regional dog grooming events and more. I haven't been to Crufts because it is at a difficult time of year for me to take the time and visit (not because of any prejudice).
For me, the best of these shows set out to entertain and educate the visitors and make them feel part of it all. Crufts may well work equally well on this level as some of the events and competitions I have enjoyed and supported.
But I am afraid so long as these issues continue in highly bred dogs I find it difficult to accept that dog shows set the standard of health and well being in the animals they display or that they safeguard breed standards.
Sorry but I am just not convinced.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Delilahdog said:


> Whew! It's a can of worms hey!
> Dog shows (any shows) are almost by definition a public display. People are invited to go along and see stuff.
> Not everyone is going to see it the same or make the same conclusions, that's life.
> Over the years I have visited/spectated all sorts of animal based events, from local pony clubs and dog shows to major agricultural shows (with competitive livestock & equine presentations, dog handling, ferrets, you name it) to regional dog grooming events and more. I haven't been to Crufts because it is at a difficult time of year for me to take the time and visit (not because of any prejudice).
> ...


One of the worst cases of hd I've heard of was in a medium sized mongrel. Crosses can have issues, the main gene test lab has developed tests for the more popular ones like labradoodles. The issues aren't going to be fixed overnight, it will take more than a handful of generations to fix the disaster of the peke or English bulldog, but it is the breed clubs that are funding the research into health issues.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Delilahdog said:


> Whew! It's a can of worms hey!
> Dog shows (any shows) are almost by definition a public display. People are invited to go along and see stuff.
> Not everyone is going to see it the same or make the same conclusions, that's life.


I agree. But people who have never seen it can't really come to any accurate conclusions at all about it, can they?

If everyone is talking about some new film, those who have been to see it will be talking about the scenes, the actors, how they liked this, how they didn't like that, and so on and so forth. If I hadn't seen the film but only read the reviews, all I would be able to do would be to reiterate those reviews - ie reiterate someone else's opinions of the film - and I would have no idea of whether they were accurate reviews or not.



Delilahdog said:


> Over the years I have visited/spectated all sorts of animal based events, from local pony clubs and dog shows to major agricultural shows (with competitive livestock & equine presentations, dog handling, ferrets, you name it) to regional dog grooming events and more. I haven't been to Crufts because it is at a difficult time of year for me to take the time and visit (not because of any prejudice).
> For me, the best of these shows set out to entertain and educate the visitors and make them feel part of it all.] Crufts may well work equally well on this level as some of the events and competitions I have enjoyed and supported.
> But I am afraid so long as these issues continue in highly bred dogs I find it difficult to accept that dog shows set the standard of health and well being in the animals they display or that they safeguard breed standards.
> Sorry but I am just not convinced.


If you did go to Crufts, as well as seeeing all the happy and healthy dogs being shown, you would see all the educational stands. You would see what is being done to set standards of health and well-being. And that might just influence and even alter your opinion - at the very least it would inform you as to all the measures being taken.

What you see with your own eyes may or may not convince you - but then at least your opinion would be based on fact and not what you have read.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I cannot believe this thread is still going on.

I think Spellweaver makes some good points - it really is perception. If you are involved and enjoy a sport/hobby then, though you may have some niggles over things, on the whole you will be happy with what goes on.
If all you have done is read about it or maybe gone along to a show with a skewed outlook then you will have a totally different take on it, or even if you have tried it and had a bad experience you will have a different outlook.

How about flyball. I think most of us on here see happy excited dogs with handlers that are competitive but loving working with their dogs and we will assume that the dogs are much loved pets.

You could see a lot of wound up, stressed out dogs with handlers that so obviously do not care about anything but winning. The dogs are hauling on the end of their leads, barking their heads off, in a terrible state. Some of the dogs are being picked up by their harnesses and loose skin and held in the air, how cruel is that. And dogs are actually being bred to produce a dog that will behave like that - why on earth would you want a dog in society that is so stressed and noisy, it just would not fit in.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

It isn't always possible to go along and 'see with your own eyes'. Look at all the evidence produced on this thread (by everyone) it is all statistics collated by others, articles written by others, programmes edited by others. You can prove anything with statistics and edit a programme to suit your own point of view. It is all according to whether you trust your source or not. But it isn't reasonable to instantly dismiss someone else's argument out of hand because 'that's old' or you personally don't trust the source or it doesn't fit in with your personal experience.
The general public don't have all the information that is available to the inner circle however it is not fair to just assume because their opinion differs to yours that it is based on rubbish. Much of what has been discussed here has been generally accepted in the public domain by everyone for a long time now.
If someone challenges these things at least it shows they care and that is a good thing surely?


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2015)

I'm having trouble articulating that niggling feeling I get on all these type of threads, but I'll try.

The very public and popular dog shows like Crufts and Westminster garner a lot of attention, and these conversations always ensue from that attention. 
I'm often left wondering how much of the concern over how these animals are treated is genuine and how much is just jumping on a bandwagon that shows up once a year for the free popcorn at the parade if you know what I mean.

IOW, breeders are working all the time, year after year to improve their breeds, better their ethics, increase their responsibility. 
Trainers work all the time, year after year to improve the way dogs are treated, to find better ways to achieve results with less discomfort to the dog. 
And the breeders and trainers often work with those involved in rescue, and those involved in rescue are also working every day, all the time, to improve the lot of as many dogs they can.
Dog welfare is not a once a year concern for many of us. It is a constant, every day, year in, year out, life's work even. 

So when folks who I'm not seeing at the shelter every weekend offering their pro-bono free training for shelter dogs and volunteer dog walkers, or who I'm not seeing at the ethics reviews, or workshops on form and function, or cancer in dogs, or all the other informative venues that are about improving dog welfare - when these people show up to argue dog welfare only when Crufts is on TV, rightly or wrongly, I do question the genuineness of their concern.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Delilahdog said:


> It isn't always possible to go along and 'see with your own eyes'.


No, I agree it isn't. But then you should not reiterate other people's ideas and opinions as facts.



Delilahdog said:


> Look at all the evidence produced on this thread (by everyone) it is all statistics collated by others, articles written by others, programmes edited by others.


No - many people have given their _own_ experiences and _then_ used up to date articles and statistics to support what they have seen with their own eyes.

Others have quoted out of date articles and statistics and programs that even if they _had_ been accurate at point of publication (and a lot of them were not) bear no resemblance on how things have moved on and changed and how things are today.



Delilahdog said:


> You can prove anything with statistics and edit a programme to suit your own point of view.


And there you have the exact reason as to why you should not base your opinions on what others have published!



Delilahdog said:


> But it isn't reasonable to instantly dismiss someone else's argument out of hand because 'that's old' or you personally don't trust the source or it doesn't fit in with your personal experience.


I have not seen anyone doing that. I have seen people saying that instead of old information you should be looking for new information - I can't for the life of me see what is wrong with that. Live in the past if you want to - but only makes you look silly when you castigate the show scene for how it used to be when it has changed since then. You may look at how it is now and still find issue with it - and that's fair enough. But equally, if you look at it as it is now you might be very embarrassd at some opinions you have expressed.



Delilahdog said:


> The general public don't have all the information that is available to the inner circle


Yes they do. The things is that when someone from the "inner circle" tries to impart that information, certain members of the general public won't listen and prefer to go on believing how it used to be.



Delilahdog said:


> however it is not fair to just assume because their opinion differs to yours that it is based on rubbish.


I have never done that. Quite a lot of people's opinions differ to mine. I respect anyone whose opinons are their own. I have no respect for anyone who passes off regurgitation of someone else's opinons as their own opinions.



Delilahdog said:


> Much of what has been discussed here has been generally accepted in the public domain by everyone for a long time now.


Generally accepted by some. Equally as many have refuted it.



Delilahdog said:


> If someone challenges these things at least it shows they care and that is a good thing surely?


I have agreed with you on this point repeatedly. Where we differ is that you think that clinging to the past and saying things should change is challenging it. I think you should look at things as they are now and challenge it.

Many of the things that you would want to challenge may have now changed already. Don't you think you ought to find out what has changed and what still needs challenging before you embark upon your white charger?

Would you write a letter to a newspaper complaining about the fights between mods and rockers? Or would you realise that that happpened in the past and was not happening now?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Blitz said:


> I cannot believe this thread is still going on.
> 
> I think Spellweaver makes some good points - it really is perception. If you are involved and enjoy a sport/hobby then, though you may have some niggles over things, on the whole you will be happy with what goes on.
> If all you have done is read about it or maybe gone along to a show with a skewed outlook then you will have a totally different take on it, or even if you have tried it and had a bad experience you will have a different outlook.
> ...


I completely agree with this and it's one of the reasons I stopped doing agility with my dogs. They are gundogs, they are and need to be steady, while also being keen and hard hunting. But what I used to see was people actively winding their dogs up. Not for me and not what I felt comfortable doing with my dogs.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> No, I agree it isn't. But then you should not reiterate other people's ideas and opinions as facts.
> 
> No - many people have given their _own_ experiences and _then_ used up to date articles and statistics to support what they have seen with their own eyes.
> 
> ...


Much of what you say here is not what comes over when I read your posts I'm afraid but I am too weary to carry on making a point just for the sake of it.

I know there is starvation and poverty in Africa and I don't have to see that with my own eyes.

Nothing that you (or anyone else) have posted has encouraged me to change my point of view on this, sorry.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

ouesi said:


> I'm having trouble articulating that niggling feeling I get on all these type of threads, but I'll try.
> 
> The very public and popular dog shows like Crufts and Westminster garner a lot of attention, and these conversations always ensue from that attention.
> I'm often left wondering how much of the concern over how these animals are treated is genuine and how much is just jumping on a bandwagon that shows up once a year for the free popcorn at the parade if you know what I mean.
> ...


I can assure you I have done my fair share of volunteering in dog rescue centres! And I find this particular post about as smug as it gets.


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2015)

Delilahdog said:


> I can assure you I have done my fair share of volunteering in dog rescue centres! And I find this particular post about as smug as it gets.


That post was not directed at you or anyone in particular for that matter 
It was meant to express the feeling I get whenever I read through the entirety of one of these types of threads.

And if smug is the worst thing I get called today, I'm doing pretty well


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> I completely agree with this and it's one of the reasons I stopped doing agility with my dogs. They are gundogs, they are and need to be steady, while also being keen and hard hunting. But what I used to see was people actively winding their dogs up. Not for me and not what I felt comfortable doing with my dogs.


Please be aware it is not my opinion of flyball - I was just saying that there were two ways of seeing the same thing.
I have never done flyball but I have wound my dogs up for other sports.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

ouesi said:


> And if smug is the worst thing I get called today, I'm doing pretty well


I can do worse for a small fee. The fee may be waived if I find myself particularly funny. I'm not sure what's wrong with winding dogs up... or that it equates to stress. Having been on the start line of a CaniX race.. holy crap Batman.. Dief was highly disappointed when I didn't take off at the same speed.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Blitz said:


> Please be aware it is not my opinion of flyball - I was just saying that there were two ways of seeing the same thing.
> I have never done flyball but I have wound my dogs up for other sports.


Oh OK - fair enough - but it is mine  My dogs are very keen, but I have no desire to deliberately wind them up to the levels I have seen, not to mention the incessant barking gets on my nerves - good job I've got a quiet breed


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

A lot of that ball drive in flyball dogs is created I think. Obviously a good one is ball driven to begin with and then they build it up. They're now breeding all kinds of crosses to do better borderxstaffy, borderxwhippet etc.

I'm surprised there aren't more fights if one of the dogs looses focus. They're so wound up


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2015)

rocco33 said:


> Oh OK - fair enough - but it is mine  My dogs are very keen, but I have no desire to deliberately wind them up to the levels I have seen, not to mention the incessant barking gets on my nerves - good job I've got a quiet breed


I tend to agree about the dogs being wound up for flyball (or any high-drive sport). Suzanne Clothier is hilarious in person talking about this she has a bit where she says if a pilot getting on a plane was insanely crazy excited about flying a plane, that's not going to reassure her at all that he's good at his job.

Same thing with high drive dogs. There is NO reason to get a dog hyped up to the point these dogs get hyped up just so that they'll run fast. My friend competes in flyball with her ACD, and other than the few seconds at the start, her dog is chilling out. Once running, her dog is super fast, but not insane about it, just focused on the job.

Here's the article:
Drive and brakes and steering | Suzanne Clothier


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> ...
> My dogs are very keen, but I've *no desire* to deliberately wind them up to the levels I've seen,
> not to mention *the incessant barking gets on my nerves* -
> good job I've got a quiet breed,


Seconding this! :thumbup1:

I love dogs, but can't say i "love" hearing the ear-splitting cacophony of 200 or 300 BCs & Aussies, inside a hard-surface,
high-ceilinged, echoing space, with concrete floors & a metal roof to reflect the audio insanity. :yikes:

It's a wonder the dogs themselves don't go deaf - i KNOW it has to be painful, 'cuz it hurts MY ears, & mine are nowhere
near as sensitive nor as wide-ranging in their audible spectrum.

Personally, i prefer dogs to be properly trained, so that their excitement is *focused -* not frantic, not crazed,
but channeled into the activity - whatever that might be. But then, again...  i'm a picky bitch. :lol:

Given my druthers, the excited cries & yodels of Nordic teams being led to a starting line are way-more pleasant
than the barking mania of flyball - perhaps it's only cuz it's outside that it hurts less?... Or maybe the difference
in pitch & type of sound; i dunno.

But just like crazy-barking cop-K9s who can't settle in the police-cruiser & make it impossible to hear the radio,
i think deafening barking at flyball is a sign of poor training.  Sorry - i know flyball aficionados will not like
that bald statement, but truthfully, it's my impression.
Wouldn't U rather have that intensity saved-up & shunted into their run, or their pouncing reverse?... I'd think so.
.
.


----------



## Doggiedelight (Jan 27, 2015)

The barking I find annoying when watching but but I honestly think one of my dogs would have loved it! Wish i'd have gotten her into it as a youngster actually. I think when you are participating the noise wouldnt bother you.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

I'd like to add that a client of mine [& her hubby, whom i never met in the 6-weeks we spent] was deeply involved
in dog-sports - Flyball, Disc-dog, & Bike-joring - plus, they both showed in Breed Conf.

The reason she consulted me was her BSD-Mal's severe anxiety: inability to relax, gut-motility issues, teeth-
chattering, pacing indoors, OCD patterned running in the fenced yard, over-grooming like a neurotic cat -
he'd nibble-groomed his forelegs till they were balding & looked almost shaved, in places - he was a wreck. :nonod:
He even had trouble maintaining body-weight - he'd eat, but race or stress it all off; not "fat", he had almost none,
MUSCLE.

It developed that i COULD help the dog - but not with that handler.  She herself was wound to such a pitch,
she was on meds to sleep & SSRIs for anxiety; she *could not seem to stop* petting her dog - over & over & over 
& over & o...
:crazy: Watching her hand tentatively fiddle with his hair, sweep it the wrong way, flick / pause / touch... If i'd been
that Mal, i'd have bitten her hand till she got the message, as just watching her do this was maddening for ME.
I couldn't imagine what it did to the dog!... :yikes:

She had 4 dogs that competed in 3 sports; her hubby had 3, competing in 4 sports [he did agility; she didn't].

The sound of her car pulling into the parking-lot for our weekly appt was... _unique._  Barks - 
LOTS of barks, in 4 voices - the BSD non-stop, the other 3 joining in as soon as she SLOWED DOWN... to park.

I couldn't have lived with her dogs for a 3-day weekend. Then again - i couldn't have spent a weekend
competing with her, on my flyball team. :lol: Her intensity, jiggling her foot as she sat, scrolling her phone
with taps of her 3/4-inch long glued nails, fiddling with her dog, drumming her fingers... was exhausting.

The dog did get better - but we couldn't sustain it, cuz the owner couldn't alter her *own* behavior. I'm a decent
trainer, & i'm good at B-Mod - but i'm not a human psychologist, nor a social worker, at the end of the day.
 It was kinda sad - she truly believed that her dogs were only "happy!" when they were in that barking-mania,
jumping up & down, wild-eyed, slavering, shaking insanity.

I disagree - borderline psychotic isn't "happiness". It's intense stress & physically injurious, over time.
Mentally, it's a disaster for an intense dog - & this dog came from an "accidental" litter, sired by a BSD-Mal
who was so neurotic? / psychotic?, he was euthanized before his 3rd birthday. He had OCD-behaviors, including 
fly-snapping & stereotypies [running the yard in a set pattern, pacing floors indoors in a fixed pattern, tail-chasing...]
but what got him killed was 'herding' airplanes. :blink:

Not joking - he chased airplanes 5-miles up, running into objects on the ground, like walls & vehicles, as if they
were holograms.
After he shattered his rt-shoulder & injured his neck & skull, hitting the brick wall of a house, the owners put him down.

But his 'accidental' litter was then over a year old - & this dog was one of his get. I wonder what became of them -
owner & dogs, her hubby & his dogs. Their "recreational" lives were as busy & demanding as the work-lives of
their weekday co-workers.
I can't imagine their marriage could survive much longer; it was starved of attention.

She was by far the worst i've seen, for communicating her own anxiety & tension to her dog, & worse,
encouraging his inherited tendency to mania. Sad case. 
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

.
.
.
.
Header Pages Dog World Dog World Home
.
.
.
Two poisons, both fairly fast-acting, one banned in Europe - should have shown symptoms within 3- to - 5 hours.
Ergo, the dog consumed the meat sometime after reaching Belgium.
.
.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> .
> .
> .
> .
> ...


Quelle surprise...............................


----------

