# Canine Alliance Formed Last Night



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Some info here - News >Dog World >Dog World Home >Dogworld

There's more details in the Facebook group.


----------



## Autaven (Dec 10, 2011)

I find it frightening. The Kennel Club have major issues and I think Crufts 2012 was a step in the right direction we should be applauding and hopefully with the backing of breeders who are actually following protocol and the public they will stick to their guns and not back down.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

They want BOB health testing for all breeds, rather than discriminating against 15, which seems like a step forward to me. They also want the vet check process to be transparent as it was different to what was originally cited as being same as the judge in the ring.


----------



## Autaven (Dec 10, 2011)

Sorry I was just reading the DogWorld Facebook page that what I was getting my information from! Seems like it's full of breeders who are wanting to boycott Crufts because their BOB didn't get put through.

But I completely agree, all breeds should be tested not just those who have visible problems. Coming from a CKCS owner, one of which has SM (which was made aware to the world on PDE) I am all for dogs being health tested and only those who are clear being allowed to win BOB


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Snoringbear said:


> They want BOB health testing for all breeds, rather than discriminating against 15, which seems like a step forward to me. They also want the vet check process to be transparent as it was different to what was originally cited as being same as the judge in the ring.


I agree it should be all breeds, after all Crufts is supposed to be the best of the best and the benchmark for future breeding.

How tranparent is transparent though in regard to the vet checks, is it in the context that they want stated exactly how and what the checks will be which makes sense, but will the transparency run to the results if there is a problem being made available for public scrutiny and knowledge.

Also are any of the 14 strong responsible for pedigree dogs, geneticists, veterinarians or other professional bodies as regards to health and welfare.


----------



## Autaven (Dec 10, 2011)

I agree - what exactly should be checked in which breeds really needs to be put in black and white.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Sled dog hotel said:


> How tranparent is transparent though in regard to the vet checks, is it in the context that they want stated exactly how and what the checks will be which makes sense, but will the transparency run to the results if there is a problem being made available for public scrutiny and knowledge.
> 
> 
> > The former. People were expecting the same level of examination executed in the same manner as the judges. The reality was an examination 10 times as long as the time afforded to the judge with a reported use of instruments. Going forward, I've no idea of how in depth the examinations are desired to be, just that it is 100% clear as to what happens.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

In my inexperienced view I don't think they have done themselves any favours asking for the vet checks to be suspended.

I thought the report from one of the vets who did the checks made interesting reading - particularly the reasoning why "specialists" were not used seemed valid & fair


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

Although they may make some good and valid points, I too don't think they've done themselves any favours by asking for the checks to be suspended.

Just doesn't give the right impression to the general public/'non-show folk'.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

So lets see.. 6 dogs failed of which 2 are being queried and a fuss raised. Only complaint the others have is a torch was used. So two thirds of the disqualified breeds are probably laughing if the vet checks are suspended. Probably hoping putting in on the backburner will mean maybe the whole thing will go away again and they can continue as before.


----------



## Dober (Jan 2, 2012)

I agree that it should be on all breeds, not just the high profile cases. I seem to get the impression that its mostly the people who feel 'hard done by' though, not people who actually want to better the breeds. Are any of the members in the Canine Alliance breeders who are upset as their breed _isnt_ getting a health check?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dober said:


> I agree that it should be on all breeds, not just the high profile cases. I seem to get the impression that its mostly the people who feel 'hard done by' though, not people who actually want to better the breeds. Are any of the members in the Canine Alliance breeders who are upset as their breed _isnt_ getting a health check?


from what ive seen the vast majority of breeders in the group are saying the 15 breeds shouldnt be singled out, vet checks should be done across All breeds, and the checks have to be implemented properly to avoid another Crufts fiasco...and im also very much in favour of that


----------



## beris (Aug 30, 2010)

As a layman when considering breeding and showdogs I thought that the kennel club where staring to make the right moves in respect of dogs health. 

As Galadriel17 states "Just doesn't give the right impression to members of the general public/non-show folk. 
As a member of general public and non -showing person IMO it is a sign of 'Sour Grapes' and some breeders just not being interested in ensuring a healthy dog able to cover any activity.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

beris said:


> As a layman when considering breeding and showdogs I thought that the kennel club where staring to make the right moves in respect of dogs health.
> 
> As Galadriel17 states "Just doesn't give the right impression to members of the general public/non-show folk.
> As a member of general public and non -showing person IMO it is a sign of 'Sour Grapes' and some breeders just not being interested in ensuring a healthy dog able to cover any activity.


how is it sour grapes to want all breeds vet checked?


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> how is it sour grapes to want all breeds vet checked?


My comment was referring to the request for the health checks to be suspended.


----------



## beris (Aug 30, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> how is it sour grapes to want all breeds vet checked?


It isn't sour grapes to get all breed checks I agree they should all be checked.
But the kennel club are going in the right direction to try to ensure healthy dogs.
IMO they have made a start with some health checks. To want them suspended IMO is petty. 
I know nothing about breeding so my reply is purely as one of many members of the public and a dog owner for many years.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Galadriel17 said:


> My comment was referring to the request for the health checks to be suspended.


well until theyre properly implemented i think thats the only thing they can do tbh...the KC breached their own rules and regulations in the way the checks were conducted at Crufts..they have now left themselves open to litigation.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> well until theyre properly implemented i think thats the only thing they can do tbh...the KC breached their own rules and regulations in the way the checks were conducted at Crufts..they have now left themselves open to litigation.


Maybe they have but all I'm saying is requesting a suspension doesn't look great to the average Joe like me.

I don't know all the ins and outs; the gist I got which relates to your comment is that the checks took longer and were a more thorough than it was said that they were going to be and if that's the reason (I could be completely wrong here, please put me right if I am!) to justify the request for suspension then that looks even worse.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Very much a sour grapes appearance. Asking for all breeds to be checked only appears to be a case of "we don't want to be singled out" rather than anything else. 

Simple solution from the layman point of view in regards to vet checks... allow vets to use the instruments of their trade rather than restrict them.


----------



## chinnybull (Mar 16, 2012)

I would like to point out that this group is in no way 'sour grapes' by any of the breeds which didn't pass the health check. The group is to come up with suggestions to hopefully then work with the KC. Breeders all want the same thing' healthy dogs'. Its just the way it happened at Crufts did not work and gave completely the wrong impression to anyone who is looking to buy a dog. To suggest breeders don't want to go along with this and breed healthy dogs is absolutely laughable!! This is at the forefront of everyone responsi ble breeders mind! And before people post on here they really should find out whats what. It isn't just 2 of the breeds which 'are causing a fuss', at least 80% of the dogs which didn't pass went to their own vet to make sure their dogs were fine to be told there was nothing wrong with their dogs. So as you can rightly imagine they are very annoyed. So please all stop slating the breeders and members of this group before you actually read up on whats it about!


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2012)

i don`t show and am not a breeder , but don`t see this as sour grapes at all.
all folks want is whats fair and right , nowt wrong with wanting that.


----------



## Autaven (Dec 10, 2011)

Sorry to say but 'healthy dogs' isn't what ALL breeders want. Of course it is important to not have a dog who is falling apart - but the issue is that breeders are NOT doing the tests which they should before breeding dogs. A lot of the BOB weren't even old enough for the tests to matter before they were used as stud dogs, but they were anyway. 

It would be lovely if all breeders done what they were supposed to - but if they did in the first place this whole thing wouldn't be happening. There IS issues which need to be addressed. Health checks are just the beginning - hopefully.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

chinnybull said:


> I would like to point out that this group is in no way 'sour grapes' by any of the breeds which didn't pass the health check.


None of the reactions by people including this newly founded group indicate otherwise. Instead comments and actions just reaffirm the idea that breeders are in a state of denial.



> The group is to come up with suggestions to hopefully then work with the KC.


Past experience indicates that this is also known as sweep issues under the carpet and hope people lose interest as has been happening for the past 20+ years.

This is the problem... we hear "good breeders" and "doing things" but then we get denials, we get groups form. What we don't hear loudly are the facts. Why haven't the vet reports been released by those disqualified? Instead we get excuses. "They used an illegal instrument !" also known as a torch. This for many is simply an excuse and a poor one.



> This is at the forefront of everyone responsible breeders mind!


Actions appear to support otherwise. In fact the very actions taken by the majority seem to always support the so called minority of poor breeders.



> So please all stop slating the breeders and members of this group before you actually read up on whats it about!


Past experience influences viewpoints. Vet checks were one of the only things the public had confidence in as they were independent. Now you complain about them on what, to many, is on flimsy grounds.

Edit: How can it be called the Canine Alliance if it's only pedigree dogs? Aren't crossbreeds also Canine?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> *People were expecting the same level of examination executed in the same manner as the judges*. *The reality was an examination 10 times as long as the time afforded to the judge with a reported use of instruments.* Going forward, I've no idea of how in depth the examinations are desired to be, just that it is 100% clear as to what happens.


But the vet is checking the health of the dog surely, that isn't something the judge is qualified to do. And why is the use of instruments a problem; surely the object of the exercise is to check the dog is healthy. You do go to the vets to have your dog's temperature checked and object when the vet uses a thermometer.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But the vet is checking the health of the dog surely, that isn't something the judge is qualified to do. And why is the use of instruments a problem; surely the object of the exercise is to check the dog is healthy. You do go to the vets to have your dog's temperature checked and object when the vet uses a thermometer.


I don't have an issue with vets using instruments, in fact going forward, the more comprehensive the examination the better IMO. The issue for many at Crufts was that the vet check was described as being the same as what was afforded to the judge. A judge has 2 minutes and no instruments to assess each dog. The vet checks were around 20 minutes and in one instance (that I know of) involved an instrument. As long as the vet check is clearly and correctly defined in advance, I can't see why anyone should have an issue whatever it contains.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Might be a bit simplistic but I would like to ask every person who attended to set aside for one moment issues about length of checks, whether or not a torch or whatever was used, just look at them as dogs - forget breeds & breed standards just dogs. Is it right or wrong to accept certain health issues simply because its become expected that certain breeds will have say heart defects, breathing difficulties, eye discomfort?

I would also like to ask why you can band together now over this issue which affects you the breeder, handler, judge, owner but not actually the dog who doesn't care if they win or not - why have you not stood together before and spoke out to say this is wrong?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> I don't have an issue with vets using instruments, in fact going forward, the more comprehensive the examination the better IMO. The issue for many at Crufts was that the vet check was described as being the same as what was afforded to the judge. A judge has 2 minutes and no instruments to assess each dog. The vet checks were around 20 minutes and in one instance (that I know of) involved an instrument. As long as the vet check is clearly and correctly defined in advance, I can't see why anyone should have an issue whatever it contains.


But a vet is a trained professional. He or she knows what to look for and what the limitations are of a check in such circumstances. Why does the vet check have to be defined?

What instruments would a judge need (or be qualified to use)?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Autaven said:


> I agree - what exactly should be checked in which breeds really needs to be put in black and white.


Should the vet not be checking the dog is healthy; not limited to what they can check?


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

To me thats why independent, standard, vet checks are the way forward there is no leeway given for "breeds" they are viewed as dogs full stop, are they healthy as a dog not are the healthy compared to the majority in a "breed"


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Why is this group asking for the vet checks to be suspended? There is absolutely no good reason for it. The vet check at crufts worked - outwardly healthy examples passed and obviously unhealthy ones didn't. Yes there may be a question over the bulldog but a quick tweak of the rules could prevent that happening again and i'd rather see one miffed bulldog owner whilst the new scheme is ironed out than see dogs with clear ectropian being rewarded.

Some have argued that the vet check should be applied to all breeds - great idea but not a reason to suspend them in there current form. The 15 breeds are on that list for a reason - many breeders within those breeds have been guilty of allowing the production of dogs predisposed to lifelong breathing difficulties and/or chronic pain, that's not a cross border terrier breeders (for example) have to bear. 

If these show folk had shown as much outrage each time a disabled dog won a rosette as they are now over these vet checks then some breeds would be in a far better place.


----------



## Autaven (Dec 10, 2011)

Of course they also need to be checked if they are overall healthy - but it is a serious requirement that different breeds are checked for the health tests which are ruining their own particular breed. Of course we could just ask breeders to do every health test under the sun but it would cause an even worse uproar than there is already. 

I'm only saying this because I know that in CKCS they have a priority into SM and MVD health checks. Yes HD and such is also important, but for the firsts if we don't get them sorted out like, yesterday, we won't have a breed very soon at all. 

I just want what everyone wants though I guess - healthy dogs. I just wish the breeders would work with the Kennel Club to help implement these changes. But to me it feels like all they're doing is burying their heads in the sand.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Very much a sour grapes appearance. Asking for all breeds to be checked only appears to be a case of "we don't want to be singled out" rather than anything else.


so damned if they do damned if they don't .


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Sled dog hotel said:


> I agree it should be all breeds, after all Crufts is supposed to be the best of the best and the benchmark for future breeding.


????? to those who show Crufts is just another show in the show calender


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

dexter said:


> so damned if they do damned if they don't .


Hardly.. asking for checks across all breeds isn't going to impact the majority of healthy breeds. At school, if a child misbehaves with others they also don't like to be singled out. Frequently they cry... It's not fair..

Nowhere have we heard of positive actions for the improvement of health within the 15 breeds. That says it all.


----------



## cavmad (Jan 27, 2009)

I agree that all bob winners should have a health check but unfortunatly in the breed i love the cavs it wont show up the life threatening conditions they have. The BOB could have CM/SM and just not show the symptoms and if the stethascope isnt used they cant pick out mild heart problems.How many other breeds are the same but the checks are a beginning and it will show up skin eye and breathing troubles and i'm sure that most breeders wont mind them as long as there is a definate protocol and that they know straight away and can put their side of things like with the Bulldog who is suppused to have a scar from an accident in the eye which it was stopped going through to the group


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

Just been on the JH blog following a link that DoodlesRule posted about the crufts winner.

Now I really can understand the disappoint that some breeders/owners must be feeling but the more I read about this Canine Alliance, the less sympathy I have.

Have a look at this:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oRTxnY3RW...AAAz4/s5w3mbqG6fI/s1600/resume+of+meeting.jpg

It's a screen print taken from the Facebook group Exhibitors Choice and Vote.

The attitude that comes across is pretty dismal.

I'd love to know what was so 'sickening and an utter disgrace' about a vetinerary examination.

Also doesn't look great seeking advice from this West's former solicitor suspended for a year - News - The Independent solicitor!

ETA: I'm sure there really could've been a better way of going about it.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

I think the name is a misnoma. It should clearly be _"Exhibitor's Alliance"_ as _"Canine Alliance"_ misrepresents its purpose; that purpose is clearly not to protect the dogs (otherwise why call for vet checks to be stopped) but to simply protect the exhibitors.

They have an interesting choice of solicitor too; the KC's rules have legal status...?... really? :frown2:
_"Either you can produce the *best looking* dog in the country or you can't,"_ he says.... not a phrase that gives much hope that he's likely to have the dog's health at the top of his agenda.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

> The lack of transparancy in the Regs and the lack of appeal process are likely to be fatal to any defence put up by the KC


Doubt it.. World cup goal disallowed, go to court, you would be be thrown out of court. Transparancy... well it could be.. why haven't the owners released the vet reports.

The lawyer in question, looking at the reasons why he was struck off appears to be in it for reputation. I guess he thinks he could potentially write a book "I saved the breeds" or some such in the unlikely event he actually managed to do anything.



> non-discriminatory and applies to all breeds


By it's very nature Crufts is discriminatory.. Never seen a labradoodle for instance in the show ring.



> The pedigree dog fancy is fighting back. The Kennel Club will ignore the bunch at it's peril


I would say the pedigree dog fancy should be aware the tide has changed. No longer will Joe Public be content to allow them to accept health issues in their dogs as "normal". If they force changes then what is necessary is to push the legal process as described in Torture Breeding I for one would push and support this as we could no longer trust the pedigree fanciers to do what is best for their own dogs.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But a vet is a trained professional. He or she knows what to look for and what the limitations are of a check in such circumstances. Why does the vet check have to be defined?
> 
> What instruments would a judge need (or be qualified to use)?


Because it provides fairness and clarity to exhibitors and breeders. All other aspects of dog showing are subject to rules and regulations, as part of it, health checks should follow suit. If the criteria are made clear, then any exhibitor is able to have the vet checks undertaken by their own vet in advance and determine whether to enter their dog on the basis of that. From a judging point of view, it is of value to know what a dog will fail on if it is something that they can visibly identify. Then main reason for disqualification was ectropian in any degree. If that was made clear, then judges would have been better informed to withold BOB from dogs affected.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> If the criteria are made clear, then any exhibitor is able to have the vet checks undertaken by their own vet in advance and determine whether to enter their dog on the basis of that.


So not looking for the health of the dog in general, only enough to "pass". It should be once again pointed out... 9 of the 15 "at risk" breeds passed their vet checks.

What IS needed is some way to acknowledge advances in the health of breeds even if the BOB isn't awarded due to ongoing problems. Not sure how this would be achieved but this is what should be being pushed.


----------



## Argent (Oct 18, 2009)

Tbh, I'm not 100% sure what this Canine Alliance are getting at...in a way, they do sound like they're whinging about their breeds being singled out, but if it's vet checks across all breeds they want, then I'm :thumbup1: on that. If it's suspending all vet checks, it's :mad2: I'm afraid.

As for whining about instruments used and the vet couldn't do any more than the judge could, WHAT'S THE POINT!? IMO, the Judge is there to judge which dog looks to be the best example of its breed according to the breed standard, the vet checks whether or not the dog is healthy, as a dog, not as a particular breed - that can include things that need to be detected with veterinary equipment. Vets should be able to do a full and complete health examination, I wouldn't say no to a blood test either! Just because an illness is unseen or underlying does not make it any less valid than a physical defect and should *not* be passed down!

If strict rules were put in place and upheld, that the vet could do a full and thorough examination and each and every BOB, perhaps it would spur all breeders to buck up their ideas and start working on what the KC actually _says_ they're working on - beautiful, healthy dogs that are fit for function.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Galadriel17 said:


> Just been on the JH blog following a link that DoodlesRule posted about the crufts winner.
> 
> Now I really can understand the disappoint that some breeders/owners must be feeling but the more I read about this Canine Alliance, the less sympathy I have.
> 
> ...


So we Have the Canine Alliance Battle cry Responsible for Pedigree Dogs!!

Now I can understand that if the vets gave a cursory minute or two if that quick look over, no instruments and a quick feel about, and then proclaimed a dog disqualified and couldnt go through to the group. Then yes I can see the uproar and understand it. How can they tell in that short of time without a through check not using instruments, if that dog was sufffering from this that and the other. So as said if it were my dog I would be pretty peed off, that someone had disqualified him/her without a proper examination. In fact if I took this lot to the vet knowing they were below parr and the vet didnt do a proper exam and missed something and the dog become really sick when it could have been prevented then I or anyone would not be happy.

I believe the argument is that the vet was only supposed to do what the judge did no more or no less. Ie look over the dogs and feel over the body and I believe I read somewhere time allocated is up to 2 minutes, although watching crufts the individual look over and feel didnt seem 2 minutes although of course it could well have been. At the risk of seeming stupid, surely a look over by eye and hands is not going to pick up any problems like a veterinary exam and instruments are. Its easy for a judge to miss things, even though by some of the photos things did looke quite visible to a layman.

I understand that this Canine Alliance Responsible for pedigrees, want amongst other things to suspend vetting imediately at champ shows, and be inagurated. Their main protest being the 20 minute vet exam using instruments and torches, and that the Basset eye exam alone lasted a full 15Mins. Now unless Im being totally thick or missing something here, I would think that these are pretty intensive examinations, so that the vet would have been very very sure that what they have diagnosed is correct. Unlike a quick look and a feel which could have led to a mis diagnosis surely?

Also considering Ogden the Solicitor, who unless I have it wrong represented Fred West, and was incidently sacked and suspended owing to trying to cash in on selling a book. Im assuming he must be more a criminal Lawyer. Odd then that he is getting involved with all this, wonder how much his fee is, wonder if its reduced or gratis? Is a nice high profile case though to put him back in the limelight. Wonder also what his personal interests are in Dogs.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

As a Pet owner with no understanding of breeding and showing and therefore looking in from the outside - to me it seems that the show breeders are throwing their toys out the pram and are doing nothing to help their image.
I would of thought they would welcome an examination by a vet to ensure only the healthiest dogs win the top prizes.
The way they seem to be acting - or at least the way they are being portrayed in the press - would not encourage me to go to a 'show' breeder and sadly I think it will drive even more puppy buyers to BYB's and PF's


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Goblin said:


> So not looking for the health of the dog in general, only enough to "pass". It should be once again pointed out... 9 of the 15 "at risk" breeds passed their vet checks.
> 
> What IS needed is some way to acknowledge advances in the health of breeds even if the BOB isn't awarded due to ongoing problems. Not sure how this would be achieved but this is what should be being pushed.


Your comment in the first paragraph isn't a reflection of what I said and at odds with what I've said in this thread so far. I'm all for vet checks no matter how exhaustive, but criteria is still required to define what is a pass. I'm well aware of the dogs which passed, I show and judge a high profile breed.

I agree with your second point. One problem with the disqualification of dogs in some instances is that it doesn't reward or reflect progress. In the Alison Skipper article she comments that having seen the BOBs in comparison to photos of other entries afterwards that the judges had put forward the better healthy examples of the breed. JH has also made similar comments on her blog.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

dexter said:


> ????? to those who show Crufts is just another show in the show calender


I always though that a win at crufts was the highest accolade tbh. Certainly breeders seem to treat it like the Holy grail. Apart from maybe Westminster.
It seems to be help up as the Greatest Dog Show, I think I might have even heard a similar reference when it was on the telly actually. Certainly when the majority of breeders seem to be interviewed and asked what it would mean to win, or what it means after a win then Just another dog show doesnt seem to be what comes across.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

Snoringbear said:


> Your comment in the first paragraph isn't a reflection of what I said and at odds with what I've said in this thread so far. I'm all for vet checks no matter how exhaustive, but criteria is still required to define what is a pass. I'm well aware of the dogs which passed, I show and judge a high profile breed.
> 
> I agree with your second point. One problem with the disqualification of dogs in some instances is that it doesn't reward or reflect progress. In the Alison Skipper article she comments that having seen the BOBs in comparison to photos of other entries afterwards that the judges had put forward the better healthy examples of the breed. JH has also made similar comments on her blog.


I thought the criteria to pass was that the dog needs to be healthy? And to be found not to have exagerations in conformation that would cause chronic pain or discomfort?


----------



## Stellabella (Jan 8, 2009)

I haven't read all through the thread, or the Canine Alliance links, so apologise if this is a bit off the wall...

IMO the first thing that should happen is the Kennel Club should have all the test results an individual dog has accessible on it's Health Test result finder - regardless of whether they are KC requirements or not. My dog has 3, and soon to be 4 health test results, only one of which is recorded on the KC health test finder. It's not hard to do, Champdogs manages it! This way claims to testing can be quickly validated.

Secondly there should be some way of presenting those results when a dog is entered for Crufts. Either like a breed record card which can be validated by a vet on presentation of the test certificates, at the same time as having a vet check before the event. The health status of a dog should be open to inspection at every step.

This would leave the Crufts vet free to see if there was anything on the day that would DQ the dog, and would hope, that in the future, any unhealthy animals wouldn't get that far.

This years system seems all good on the surface, but I suspect, like a lot of us here do with our own pets, there is a certain amount of mistrust that a particular vet may have a bias for or against certain breeds. I'm sure there's a lot of good in both the KC and the CA that can be worked together for the promotion of health in all breeds.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Sled dog hotel said:


> I always though that a win at crufts was the highest accolade tbh. Certainly breeders seem to treat it like the Holy grail. Apart from maybe Westminster.
> It seems to be help up as the Greatest Dog Show, I think I might have even heard a similar reference when it was on the telly actually. Certainly when the majority of breeders seem to be interviewed and asked what it would mean to win, or what it means after a win then Just another dog show doesnt seem to be what comes across.


Crufts is just another dog show , however because Joe Public pays to come in we the exhibitors are not allowed out until 4 p.m whereas at other Champ shows we can go when we want.. There are far greater accolades in showing than a first at Crufts  in fact many breeders won't exhibit at Crufts.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Galadriel17 said:


> I thought the criteria to pass was that the dog needs to be healthy? And to be found not to have exagerations in conformation that would cause chronic pain or discomfort?


That's correct as a generalised overview, but I would rather it had more granularity and quantify what is looked at and what is a pass or fail.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Also considering Ogden the Solicitor, who unless I have it wrong represented Fred West, and was incidently sacked and suspended owing to trying to cash in on selling a book. Im assuming he must be more a criminal Lawyer. Odd then that he is getting involved with all this, wonder how much his fee is, wonder if its reduced or gratis? Is a nice high profile case though to put him back in the limelight. Wonder also what his personal interests are in Dogs.


FYI Howard Ogden doesn't need to be put back into the limelight he's also a top breeder and judge of Griffons and other breeds.


----------



## Autaven (Dec 10, 2011)

Just another point to add after reading through.

If the exhibitors are saying that the Judge is doing what the vet is anyway - then this is something which needs to be considered. To me this says that the Kennel Club should have a vet look through their Breed Standards and be able to amend them in order for breeders to produce a healthier type. If the Judge is looking for a perfect Breed Standard dog, and the vets are saying that these perfect Breed Standards are unhealthy - then surely that says it all.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

dexter said:


> Crufts is just another dog show , however because Joe Public pays to come in we the exhibitors are not allowed out until 4 p.m whereas at other Champ shows we can go when we want.. There are far greater accolades in showing than a first at Crufts  in fact many breeders won't exhibit at Crufts.


Not the impression the owner of this years best in show gave - she said something along the lines of Elizabeth will now retire from showing as there's nothing better that she can win, she's reached the pinnacle.



Snoringbear said:


> That's correct as a generalised overview, but I would rather it had more granularity and quantify what is looked at and what is a pass or fail.


I'm all up for things being quantifiable but in this context would it not mean having diferent standards for diferent breeds like how much haw is allowed to be visable in one breed would differ to the next which is what I gather the purpose of these health checks is to get away from?


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Autaven said:


> Just another point to add after reading through.
> 
> If the exhibitors are saying that the Judge is doing what the vet is anyway - then this is something which needs to be considered. To me this says that the Kennel Club should have a vet look through their Breed Standards and be able to amend them in order for breeders to produce a healthier type. If the Judge is looking for a perfect Breed Standard dog, and the vets are saying that these perfect Breed Standards are unhealthy - then surely that says it all.


vets haven't a clue about breed standards.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

dexter said:


> FYI Howard Ogden doesn't need to be put back into the limelight he's also a top breeder and judge of Griffons and other breeds.


I think his background, which is irrelevant to dogs, was revealed on JH's blog in the same vein as the association with breeders and the KC with Nazis in PDE. Once associated with fascists, now associated with murderers. A completely cheap shot.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

dexter said:


> FYI Howard Ogden doesn't need to be put back into the limelight he's also a top breeder and judge of Griffons and other breeds.


Oh well Quelle surprise, why am I not surprised.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Oh well Quelle surprise, why am I not surprised.


why the surprise?


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

dexter said:


> vets haven't a clue about breed standards.


No but after several 5, I think years at vet school studying plus years of practice, I would imagine they could figure out when a dogs sick or not or theres something wrong with it!! Either that or everyones seriously got worries entrusting the health and welfare of their animals into their vets hands.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

dexter said:


> why the surprise?


Im not surprised more of the old boys network.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

dexter said:


> FYI Howard Ogden doesn't need to be put back into the limelight he's also a top breeder and judge of Griffons and other breeds.


Interesting.

Here's a pic of him when he won BOB last year with his griffon bruxellois.

Welcome to Flickr!


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

Snoringbear said:


> I think his background, which is irrelevant to dogs, was revealed on JH's blog in the same vein as the association with breeders and the KC with Nazis in PDE. Once associated with fascists, now associated with murderers. A completely cheap shot.


It only takes a quick Google to find out his history which gives an insight into his character.

It seems JH isn't the only one who likes to bring up Nazis - Why Crufts Should Worry Us


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Galadriel17 said:


> I'm all up for things being quantifiable but in this context would it not mean having diferent standards for diferent breeds like how much haw is allowed to be visable in one breed would differ to the next which is what I gather the purpose of these health checks is to get away from?


This is a very good point and one that has been rattling around my head the past few days. However, I don't have a defining answer. Some breed standards still allow visible haw. In the Clumber some is acceptable and the Bassett is described as having a lozenge shaped eye. If any degree of ectropian is a vet check fail then these standards should be amended. That said, I can see value in having some degree of flexibility in what is acceptable for these breeds and awarding them BOB if they reflect an improvement, but that should be something that should be reviewed annually with the objective of eliminating it.


----------



## Autaven (Dec 10, 2011)

dexter said:


> vets haven't a clue about breed standards.


I'm pretty sure a vet, who has studied animals for years and then no doubt worked in the industry for god knows how many and saw the effects of these 'breed standards' has quite a good idea of them. Just because a breeder knows that a puppy's colour is nice or a spot in the right place is good because it says so in a book doesn't mean they are well educated. It is the vets who are having to refer these dogs because they are falling to bits.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

dexter said:


> vets haven't a clue about breed standards.


Neither should they. They should concentrate on healthy dogs. That's the whole point. Too many vets are accustomed to making allowances for things which shouldn't be acceptable, breed standard or not. If the breed standard said in plain english "mild but constant pain or irritation is acceptable" would you still hold that up as a thing to allow?

Question.. who actually writes and accepts the breed standards? My understanding is the KC can influence but not dictate the standards. The breed clubs have a major say. There are also other considerations such as the internationalization of standards to take into account. A wibblewobble breed (don't want to singlea specific breed out) should be able to win in the UK, Franceand even America for instance (not that it will happen)


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Neither should they. They should concentrate on healthy dogs. That's the whole point. Too many vets are accustomed to making allowances for things which shouldn't be acceptable, breed standard or not. If the breed standard said in plain english "mild but constant pain or irritation is acceptable" would you still hold that up as a thing to allow?
> 
> Question.. who actually writes and accepts the breed standards? My understanding is the KC can influence but not dictate the standards. The breed clubs have a major say. There are also other considerations such as the internationalization of standards to take into account. A wibblewobble breed (don't want to singlea specific breed out) should be able to win in the UK, Franceand even America for instance (not that it will happen)


Breed clubs write them and the KC accepts them.


----------



## chinnybull (Mar 16, 2012)

Autaven said:


> I'm pretty sure a vet, who has studied animals for years and then no doubt worked in the industry for god knows how many and saw the effects of these 'breed standards' has quite a good idea of them. Just because a breeder knows that a puppy's colour is nice or a spot in the right place is good because it says so in a book doesn't mean they are well educated. It is the vets who are having to refer these dogs because they are falling to bits.


Different vets do actually specialise in different types of animals. So when an equine vet is used to carry out these tests in crufts, what were they looking for? The difference between a horse and a dog is pretty significant I would say. And I would just like to point out I have bred dofs for over 20 years and my vet will be the first person to tell you I could probably tell him more about my breed than he knows, and a puppys colour and a spot in a relevant place is by far the last thing I look for/at.


----------



## chinnybull (Mar 16, 2012)

Galadriel17 said:


> It only takes a quick Google to find out his history which gives an insight into his character.
> 
> It seems JH isn't the only one who likes to bring up Nazis - Why Crufts Should Worry Us


Just wondered why this man is being so beaten up on this forum? This man may be a solicitor acting for someone but whats that got to do with where the Canine Alliance is going?


----------



## Autaven (Dec 10, 2011)

chinnybull said:


> Different vets do actually specialise in different types of animals. So when an equine vet is used to carry out these tests in crufts, what were they looking for? The difference between a horse and a dog is pretty significant I would say. And I would just like to point out I have bred dofs for over 20 years and my vet will be the first person to tell you I could probably tell him more about my breed than he knows, and a puppys colour and a spot in a relevant place is by far the last thing I look for/at.


What I'm getting at is the fact that a vet has studied for animals for years. Yes they might specialise, but at the end of the day they are vets. They are able to tell you if a dog is healthy or not - no matter what the Breed Standard actually says. It is a bad day when a dog is said to be a perfect Breed Standard and then is deemed to be unfit when this is meant to be the best of the best.


----------



## Galadriel17 (Jan 22, 2012)

chinnybull said:


> Just wondered why this man is being so beaten up on this forum? This man may be a solicitor acting for someone but whats that got to do with where the Canine Alliance is going?


I don't know if he's getting 'so beaten up', just who he is and some of his history has been highlighted.

I just don't think it gives a great impression to the general public when the newly formed Canine Aliance request for health checks to be suspended and broadcast they have a right to legally challenge the KC as advised by solicitor who's made his fair share of mistakes because the checks were more thorough than they we told they were going to be.

C'mon, to an outsider it doesn't look great does it?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> Because it provides fairness and clarity to exhibitors and breeders. All other aspects of dog showing are subject to rules and regulations, as part of it, health checks should follow suit.


Sorry but the health of a dog should not be subject to the rules of a dog show. Whether the health check is "fair" to the exhibitor is completely irrelevant; the judge is not in a position to question the professional opinion of the vet.

If the vet says "this dog is unhealthy" then the dog is unhealthy (always subject to second opinion of course (another vet that is).

Are you arguing that only dogs with certain conditions should be barred? If so, which conditions of poor health do you consider highlight the best aspects of a particular breed; are these dog shows supposed to be the dog closest matches the breed standard? Unless, of course, the breed standards promote or even aspire to achieve (certain types of) poor health?


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

chinnybull said:


> Different vets do actually specialise in different types of animals. So when an equine vet is used to carry out these tests in crufts, what were they looking for? The difference between a horse and a dog is pretty significant I would say. And I would just like to point out I have bred dofs for over 20 years and my vet will be the first person to tell you I could probably tell him more about my breed than he knows, and a puppys colour and a spot in a relevant place is by far the last thing I look for/at.


A equine vet is not just an equine vet though is he. He may have studied further after he qualified to specialise as an equine vet, just as a orthopeadic vet would have gone on to study and specialise. He would have done exactly the same 5 years training and qualified the same as any vet, so one would assume he knows one end of a dog from the other and all the most common ailments. I dont think anyone on this thread is trying to say all breeders are bad, or all breeders dont know their stuff.

Speaking for myself Im just getting a bit sick of some people trying to say all breeders are fantastic and caring and put their dogs first because they dont.
Some put there own glory and egos first. Im also sick of some trying to say its all lies as well because its not. The some have been caught out and they dont like it.

Not all judges are saints either, who was that pair of top breeders, and judges
think it was two women whos dogs got confiscated by the RSPCA and they
got proscecuted for neglect. So to say all Breeders and crufts Judges are squeaky clean is nonsense. There has been other cases too of kennels that were well know dogs in disgusting conditions and show or ex show kennels,
Its been in Dog World in the past.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

What have I learnt from this thread - crufts is not important its just one of many shows, canine alliance are using a solicitor who appears to have lets say suspect morals according to what has been said, certain pedigree breeders/show breeders appear unconcerned whether their dogs are healthy so long as they look the part - mild to moderate discomfort is fine & dandy because thats what they should look like, various serious health issues are just part of the breed you have to accept.

Well I think I will give it a miss thanks and stick to my mutt/mongrel whatever you more knowledgeable folk want to call him - maybe the breeders who think nothing is wrong and you know best ought to pootle off and have your own shows/ethics etc waving a banner listing your principles so the idiotic joe public have the facts in front of them and can make an educated decision. 

If I can find a pedigree breeder who puts the dog before anything else I will buy another pedigree


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> I think his background, which is irrelevant to dogs, was revealed on JH's blog in the same vein as the association with breeders and the KC with Nazis in PDE. Once associated with fascists, now associated with murderers. A completely cheap shot.


I don't think the fact he volunteered to represent West is relevant but his opinion about dogs _"Either you can produce the best looking dog in the country or you can't"_ doesn't show any concern for health, just looks.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> What have I learnt from this thread - crufts is not important its just one of many shows, canine alliance are using a solicitor who appears to have lets say suspect morals according to what has been said, certain pedigree breeders/show breeders appear unconcerned whether their dogs are healthy so long as they look the part - mild to moderate discomfort is fine & dandy because thats what they should look like, various serious health issues are just part of the breed you have to accept.
> 
> Well I think I will give it a miss thanks and stick to my mutt/mongrel whatever you more knowledgeable folk want to call him - maybe the breeders who think nothing is wrong and you know best ought to pootle off and have your own shows/ethics etc waving a banner listing your principles so the idiotic joe public have the facts in front of them and can make an educated decision.
> 
> If I can find a pedigree breeder who puts the dog before anything else I will buy another pedigree


oohh you wont have to look very far then!...cos i put the dogs before anything else :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: accept maybe my kids 

.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Sorry but the health of a dog should not be subject to the rules of a dog show. Whether the health check is "fair" to the exhibitor is completely irrelevant; the judge is not in a position to question the professional opinion of the vet.
> 
> If the vet says "this dog is unhealthy" then the dog is unhealthy (always subject to second opinion of course (another vet that is).
> 
> Are you arguing that only dogs with certain conditions should be barred? If so, which conditions of poor health do you consider highlight the best aspects of a particular breed; are these dog shows supposed to be the dog closest matches the breed standard? Unless, of course, the breed standards promote or even aspire to achieve (certain types of) poor health?


I've either expressed myself incompetently or you've misunderstood what I've said  The criteria of the health check should be part of the rules and regulations, I've already stated my reasons on this thread.

I'm not arguing that certain breeds should be barred in fact that all breeds should be health checked. I've also commented that aspects of conformation that are unhealthy and result in disqualification should be amended.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> I've either expressed myself incompetently or you've misunderstood what I've said  The criteria of the health check should be part of the rules and regulations, I've already stated my reasons on this thread.


No you're quite clear, but I'm disagreeing.

The health check should be the decision of the vet, not an unqualified judge or an unqualified breed club or an unqualified exhibitor or the KC. If the vet says the dog is unhealthy then the dog is unhealthy - the only decision then is whether those involved in the exhibition are happy to have an unhealthy dog as the prime example of the breed standard.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> No you're quite clear, but I'm disagreeing.
> 
> The health check should be the decision of the vet, not an unqualified judge or an unqualified breed club or an unqualified exhibitor or the KC. If the vet says the dog is unhealthy then the dog is unhealthy - the only decision then is whether those involved in the exhibition are happy to have an unhealthy dog as the prime example of the breed standard.


Seems like I wasn't clear enough because we're seemingly disagreeing on things we would otherwise agree with.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> Seems like I wasn't clear enough because we're seemingly disagreeing on things we would otherwise agree with.


So forgive me... are you saying that health testing should be governed by a set of rules laid down by those who set the rules for Crufts (as this is the show in question) ?


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

The whole 'raison d'etre' for the vet checks was to educate judges so that they did not send though to the group any dog that was *visibly *unhealthy or overexaggerated - a judge has roughly 2 minutes per dog and goes into the ring with nothing except a pair of eyes and hands and the vet checks were supposed to replicate this exactly,, the reasoning being, that the faults should be obvious enough to be picked out by the judge- if vets are using 20 minutes of close detailed examination including pulling back both eye lids to make the eye ball protrude and using a torch then how can this possibly educate judges who cannot do this in the ring ? - and if it cannot, then how can these vet checks have ANY impact on the way a breed is judged in the future ?......it's all incredibly confusing ......most exhibitors will have already had all the health tests required and most of the 'at risk' breeds are already working towards more moderate types - certainly this could be seen in the ring and in the breed type of the Bulldog, Bassett, Peke and Clumber BOB's but for goodness sake it will take time - and how confusing for those breeders to now be told that their more moderate versions of the breed are wrong - just where do they go to breed the next generation :confused5:

By breaking their own code of conduct in how the vet checks would be carred out the KC have simply used it to try an 'catch out ' judges who could not have possibly seen what the vet did and humilate and dishearten the very group of people who are working so hard to make changes

It was an own goal of epic proprtions and quite frankly I'm not sure where we go from here - personally I think the vet checks must be stopped in their present form and that all dogs should be issued with a vet check certificate annually before they enter a show - this would help with hidden health problems too ( not all of the wost problems are visible ! ) and stop the discriminatory factor of these tests ( what a nonsense that the Clumber was disqualified for showing haw and the Newfie got Res BIS showing the same 'fault ' ! )- and if breed standards need to be changed to ban any haw showing ( for example ) then make the changes - but be realistic and give breeders 10 years to breed for tight eyes etc

In their present form the health checks are less about using the show ring to improve health and much more of a knee jerk reaction by the KC who wanted to have a high profile way of being seen to be 'doing something' and used these 15 breeds to throw to the lions as a form of appeasement

..and please note that I along with most breeders and exhibitors have always and will always support health testing ...but NOT done in this illogical, ludicrous way.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

So correct me if I'm wrong, only dogs with "obvious" health issues that can be checked by simply looking and "kicking the tyres" (having a feel round) would stop them going on to be "Best Of Breed" ?


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Sorry Elmo I did'nt understand your post ?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Bijou said:


> Sorry Elmo I did'nt understand your post ?


Are you saying that only "obvious" health issues (that can be detected by a vet simply by looking at the dog having a feel round) should prevent a dog going forward to win Best Of Breed in Crufts?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Bijou said:


> The whole 'raison d'etre' for the vet checks was to educate judges so that they did not send though to the group any dog that was *visibly *unhealthy or overexaggerated


Just to be clear.. you're now saying they're a judge check, not a health check. Bad enough from joe public's point of view the vets couldn't use all their normal tools. Now you are saying they shouldn't even spend a bit of time doing the check to ensure they do it properly, making them worthless. The whole point is to make sure a dog is healthy not making sure a dog is healthy only within the guidelines of breed standard.



> and stop the discriminatory factor of these tests ( what a nonsense that the Clumber was disqualified for showing haw and the Newfie got Res BIS showing the same 'fault ' ! )- and if breed standards need to be changed to ban any haw showing ( for example ) then make the changes - but be realistic and give breeders 10 years to breed for tight eyes etc


How is it discriminatory? All the 15 breeds are tested the same, as dogs. 9 passed. As for standards.. who makes these changes... the breed clubs.. Why hasn't it been done before... complaints and resistance as its "part of the breed". That much was clear from the interviews.

It's true some recognition needs to be given for progress towards health but giving out BOB rewards regardless isn't the way. Joe public doesn't care if BOB is awarded, neither do the dogs in question.



> In their present form the health checks are less about using the show ring to improve health and much more of a knee jerk reaction by the KC who wanted to have a high profile way of being seen to be 'doing something' and used these 15 breeds to throw to the lions as a form of appeasement


Ah, this card, was wondering how long it would take.. How did 9 breeds pass then?


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> Are you saying that only "obvious" health issues (that can be detected by a vet simply by looking at the dog having a feel round) should prevent a dog going forward to win Best Of Breed in Crufts?


well yes ..that after all was the whole POINT of the vet checks - the vets were supposed to see and handle the dogs in exactly the same way that the judges did so that they could show the judges how they missed obvious problems -if judges cannot see the problems without using specialist equipment etc then how can they avoid sending future dogs through to the group ?.

If we are saying that a detailed vet examination is the way to go then have this done for ALL members of a breed prior to the show - at least this way you'll be able to see the true extent of any problems.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Bijou said:


> If we are saying that a detailed vet examination is the way to go then have this done for ALL members of a breed prior to the show - at least this way you'll be able to see the true extent of any problems.


Why not do this as well as the vet checks on the day. It has been shown, even by the basset hound "vet" that some vets make allowances for standards which may be detrimental to health. The vet health checks are required as the final confirmation that a dog is healthy making no allowances for standards. If they fail the standards are wrong.

Out of interest why isn't one of the key points of the Canine Alliance to actually review and correct the standards instead of trying to suspend the checks? Ah.. now I remember, they want to win their prizes.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> Why not do this as well as the vet checks on the day.


what 20 minutes per dog ? how could that possibly work ? - in my relatively unpopular breed there were 91 entries - can you imagine in a popular breed like Pugs just how long the vet checks would take ?.

and we have to remember what the checks were introduced for - the Kc wanted to use them to make the judging part of the drive towards improved health i.e to highlight things the JUDGE should have seen in the ring within the allocated time allowed and with no specialist instruments or tests....if it's simply to give a through vet check then it's illogical and unworkable to do this at the show and negates the point of the exercise



> It has been shown, even by the basset hound "vet" that some vets make allowances for standards which may be detrimental to health


..and it has equally been shown that some vets have a very biased view of show dogs - remember that freakish mutant quote ?....so what are you saying here ? ..that not all vets are equal ? ....just why is the vet at the show better than the opthalmic specialists that passed the Clumber subsequent to her disqualification ? - and was the vet who passed the Bulldog back in December at BUPA Champ show wrong to do so ? ...what makes the Crufts vet right ? ....and what happens if subsequent vets at other Champ shows throughout the season pass those dogs that have been disqualified - are they also wrong ?



> Out of interest why isn't one of the key points of the Canine Alliance to actually review and correct the standards instead of trying to suspend the checks? Ah.. now I remember, they want to win their prizes.


 all the standards HAVE been reviewed and breeders are working towards making the changes needed - but we're not dealing with car parts here - it will take many generations of careful breeding to more moderate dogs - you know the ones like the Bulldog that was FAILED by the Crufts vet ! - and all the while keeping a weather eye on the diversity within the gene pools - I truly don't know what more you lot want us to do.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

This is what I was concerned about. For the tests to have any meaning at all (and I'm fairly sure from what I've read that exhibitors only want it to be for "show") you must let the vet decide whether the dog is healthy.

A judge cannot tell whether a dog is healthy just by looking at them and feeling around a bit. A vet may have a little more luck due to the fact they are actually qualified to examine a dog, but to say to the vet you must this dog as healthy and you must do it in 2 minutes, using these rules, standing on one leg and with a hand tied behind your back, is clearly nonsense; simply an attempt to make it look like the exhibitors are interested in health when in fact they are just interested in making the public think they are.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> A judge cannot tell whether a dog is healthy just by looking at them and feeling around a bit.


precisely !! - so why do you expect them to be able to do so ?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Bijou said:


> what 20 minutes per dog ? how could that possibly work ? - in my relatively unpopular breed there were 91 entries - can you imagine in a popular breed like Pugs just how long the vet checks would take ?.


If everyone checked their dogs prior to entry and only the BOB winners were vet checked that's not 91 dogs. Remember 9 out of the 15 breeds checked passed. I think that says a lot, also in regards to your bias angle.



> ..and it has equally been shown that some vets have a very biased view of show dogs - remember that freakish mutant quote ?....so what are you saying here ? ..that not all vets are equal ?


Correct. You need an independent vet one not for or against pedigree and certainly not one who breeds a breed. Vet checks need to make no allowance for breed standards.



> ....just why is the vet at the show better than the opthalmic specialists that passed the Clumber subsequent to her disqualification ? - and was the vet who passed the Bulldog back in December at BUPA Champ show wrong to do so ? ...what makes the Crufts vet right ?


We do not know the situation with the Cumber Opthalmic specialist or the question actually asked. Did the owner have a working relationship with the vet? Does he own/breed a cumber? Is he working to the breed standard or the general health of a dog. If the owner had asked for an independent review it would hold far more weight. If a basset hound fails, the person goes to the basset hound breed club vet who will pass it for multiple reason, not least of which they accept the problems as they themselves breed bassets probably with the same problems. It should also be remembered that the vet only points out issues. It's up the the show organizers to actually disqualify the dog in question.

This isn't about the fact some changes don't need to be made. Some appeal process is necessary. Recognition of advances towards a breed's health needs to be recognized even if they don't pass the health check. The Canine Alliance however seems to be a group whose only interest is the continuation of bad practices for selfish reasons. How important is a ribbon/certificate/cup in comparison to the health of their dogs breed?


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Why not do this as well as the vet checks on the day. It has been shown, even by the basset hound "vet" that some vets make allowances for standards which may be detrimental to health. The vet health checks are required as the final confirmation that a dog is healthy making no allowances for standards. If they fail the standards are wrong.
> 
> Out of interest why isn't one of the key points of the Canine Alliance to actually review and correct the standards instead of trying to suspend the checks? Ah.. now I remember, they want to win their prizes.


If half, not a tenth of the efforts we have seen in the last couple of weeks at fighting the vets checks at Crufts was done years ago at actually taking note there were problems within certain breeds (and with some breeders), there would have not been a need of any 'knee jerking' measure today.
Not everybody's interest is vested in the dogs. Obviously not every pedigree breeder or show person or judge falls under these category, but some do. Why, the ones that are adamant are doing a good job, did not come up to speak out about some of the dodgy going ons that have always happened? In truth, I believe, it is because people don't want to be alienated. I know people that did start getting involved in shows and quickly got out of the scene because they didn't like what they saw.
A friend has a dog and she was told several times she would do very very well in the ring because she is from a popular breeder who is also a judge. My friend refused to show her knowing her dog is down health wise on several points shared by her littermates, one of which I know for sure died young due to them.
Same goes for another dog I know, again from a very popular breeder, apparently one of the best there are. The dog is three YO and already has had two corrective surgeries due to inheritable conditions known in the breed, his sire carried on being used despite this was reported to the breeder.
These people are extremely frustrated at the lack of support they have received, mostly they had to bit their tongues because speaking up against the breeders would only be met with a brick wall, indeed even mentioning the facts in black and white did.
When you know of stories like these, and dogs coming from extremely well known breeders with very tight circles around them you, as a mere mortal want something done and some quick results shown for it.

In fact you would have expected these done by the breed clubs themselves. So how about this Canine Allowance design a new stricter code of conduct for breeders as well, perhaps a register of dogs that have had to have corrective surgeries or shown illnesses popular with the breed. And make it compulsory for the owners of these dogs to report these issues to the register and let it be clear in the database where these dogs come from, who is the sire, the dam are and linking to the names of them will bring in all the names of the registered litters they have had to access how big of a risk those lines are.

Once a clear register is in place it would be dutiful for breed clubs to revise the standards and address clearly what work should be done to eradicate as much as possible certain health or conformation issues.
Clearly I agree with not singling out 15 breeds alone, but instead it should be done for every breed


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Vets already have to report any corrective surgery and health information is already recorded on the Kc database ( and on breed specific ones )



> So how about this Canine Allowance design a new stricter code of conduct for breeders as well,


this has already been raised as a future goal for the Alliance - many are already part of the KC's ABS but would like an even 'higher' standard a ther is no doubt that some poor breeders slip through the net.



> Once a clear register is in place it would be dutiful for breed clubs to revise the standards and address clearly what work should be done to eradicate as much as possible certain health or conformation issues.
> Clearly I agree with not singling out 15 breeds alone, but instead it should be done for every breed


....at the risk of repeating myself - there has ALREADY been great strides made towards improving individual breeds , you have to admit the Sharpei, Pug, Bassett, Bulldog and Clumber for example were all way more moderate than in the past - but we cannot simply concentrate all our eggs in one basket to eradicate a single issue without ensuring that other nasties don't pop up and without reducing our gene pools even further ... it will take time.


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

Goblin said:


> If everyone checked their dogs prior to entry
> 
> This isn't about the fact some changes don't need to be made. Some appeal process is necessary. Recognition of advances towards a breed's health needs to be recognized even if they don't pass the health check. The Canine Alliance however seems to be a group whose only interest is the continuation of bad practices for selfish reasons. How important is a ribbon/certificate/cup in comparison to the health of their dogs breed?


so much focus on the 6 that failed when 9 (the majority) where passed, surely they vets didn't examine the dogs with a 'hope to fail' 
The 9 breeds that passed, did they not under go the same length of scrutiny? Perhaps the vets wanted to be absolutely sure before failing a dog and if they had a more brief a look we might have seen more dogs disqualified?


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

Bijou said:


> Vets already have to report any corrective surgery and health information is already recorded on the Kc database ( and on breed specific ones )
> 
> this has already been raised as a future goal for the Alliance - many are already part of the KC's ABS but would like an even 'higher' standard a ther is no doubt that some poor breeders slip through the net.


I saw that point raised in the manifest, but it is very generic. So I am waiting on seeing what specifically it will mean



Bijou said:


> at the risk of repeating myself - there has ALREADY been great strides made towards improving individual breeds , you have to admit the Sharpei, Pug, Bassett, Bulldog and Clumber for example were all way more moderate than in the past - but we cannot simply concentrate all our eggs in one basket to eradicate a single issue without ensuring that other nasties don't pop up and without reducing our gene pools even further ... it will take time.


And I agree we should put some focus the majority of the breeds passed the vet checks, meaning some work is being done already and results showing for it. But I don't agree on giving leeway on dogs that are presently 'work in progress'


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So forgive me... are you saying that health testing should be governed by a set of rules laid down by those who set the rules for Crufts (as this is the show in question) ?





Elmo the Bear said:


> So correct me if I'm wrong, only dogs with "obvious" health issues that can be checked by simply looking and "kicking the tyres" (having a feel round) would stop them going on to be "Best Of Breed" ?


It should be clearly defined and therefore be part of the rules and regulations. If not then it will most likely be kicking the tyres whereas it should be more like an MOT to maintain that analogy.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Why not do this as well as the vet checks on the day. It has been shown, even by the basset hound "vet" that some vets make allowances for standards which may be detrimental to health. The vet health checks are required as the final confirmation that a dog is healthy making no allowances for standards. If they fail the standards are wrong.
> 
> Out of interest why isn't one of the key points of the Canine Alliance to actually review and correct the standards instead of trying to suspend the checks? Ah.. now I remember, they want to win their prizes.


At the meeting the highest priority of the confirmed by a unanimous vote of thr 320 attendees was that the health and welfare was the highest priority not winning prizes.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> But I don't agree on giving leeway on dogs that are presently 'work in progress'


"Giving leeway" :confused5: come on now.. these are living organisms - of COURSE there will be 'leeway' - we cannot produce cookie cutter 'perfect' dogs, nature is all about 'giving leeway' it's called variation !!- some pups in a litter will have tight eyes some will have looser ones..some will have more wrinkles some will have fewer - what should we do - cull the non perfect ones ? - reduce the gene pools even further by not using the ones that show a bit of 'leeway' ? ....

For goodness sake !!


----------



## cavmad (Jan 27, 2009)

I bet that if the vets had only done a couple of minute checks that the ones that failed would have said its not fair how can they see any problems that quickly.I'm glad that the canine alliance still want the health checks and do agree that all BOB should be checked. It is a shame that the improvements made by the 9 breeds that passed the tests havent been applauded more i think that the TV coverage could have mentioned them as well because i think the majority of the public didnt know which they were and it does seem that no improvements have been made in any breeds


----------



## Emmastace (Feb 11, 2011)

I'm just a dog loving idiot - but for my two pence

Health issues in dogs just can't be swept under the carpet any longer. The cat is out of the bag and the horse has bolted.

I'm not suggesting a knee jerk, DDA type, fiasco but something radical needs to be done and now. People found to have dogs that are unhealthy to the point that they suffer, and their offspring are likely to suffer, need to suck it up and accept that they have to stop breeding from them immediately and every breed should be forced to review the breed standard and have a plan of how long they will be allowed to breed out any issues. If the breed is basically healthy then it won't affect them. Those with major health issues can't really gripe about something that should never have been allowed to happen to the dogs they 'love' in the first place.

The KC is turning into a bit of a joke to me. They have their b***s held in a vice like grip by the breed clubs who in turn are the folks that have created their breeds for good or for bad. There are good and bad breeders in every breed but those that breed health issues into the dogs should not be allowed to continue. They should not be allowed to register any litter unless both parents are thoroughly health tested. They should not be allowed to win shows as many buyers look to see how many champions are in the line and buy on that basis not realising that this has nothing to do with health or temperament.

For all those that fear radical action will will make the BYB problem worse need to think this through. As far as I am aware the arguments for total ban on BYB's are based on lack of heath and welfare of the breeding dogs and the pups and the long term impact this can have even after they are in loving homes. Exactly the same arguments apply to so called KC registered breeders surely.

A stand has to be made and anyone that has had any responsibility for breeding suffering into a dog should not have any say in what that stand is.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

BOB 2000
Crufts 2000

Judged BOB 2012
Kennel Chervood :: breed of Clumber Spaniel
Not a lot of difference here is there?

http://www.tweedsmuir.org.uk/about_us.htm
This kennel has achieved great things in the show world over 30+ years but they seem to accept poor eyes. No difference in eyes from their early dogs to their top winner of 2011
I'm sure there are many kennels in many breeds exactly the same.
Blind to what they are inflicting on their dogs. These could have the best hip, elbow and any other score you wish to mention, those eyes are not right!

It's easier to pick things out in minor breeds, god know what's happening and being covered up in the more popular breeds


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

Bijou said:


> "Giving leeway" :confused5: come on now.. these are living organisms - of COURSE there will be 'leeway' - we cannot produce cookie cutter 'perfect' dogs, nature is all about 'giving leeway' it's called variation !!- some pups in a litter will have tight eyes some will have looser ones..some will have more wrinkles some will have fewer - what should we do - cull the non perfect ones ? - reduce the gene pools even further by not using the ones that show a bit of 'leeway' ? ....
> 
> For goodness sake !!


For a minute I considered ignoring this silly comment, there was certainly no hints of culling the non-perfect dogs, surely I am among the voices that find that repulsive, unlike some that find it all too normal in order to preserve the breed pure. You know fully well this is something else that goes some places.

Is it really the end of the world if, whilst more moderate dogs are being bred for a few years certain breed are deemed unfit to be shown or at the very least win achievements? Is it so imperative that dogs must be shown.
No, I don't think a leeway should be granted. Total nonsense to me, a dog is either of healthy conformation or it isn't. 9 breeds, I should myself remind you had shown sufficient progress, some didn't.
Now the cry out is for the ones that didn't that were not assessed in a just way (and at the same time no comments about the ones that passed assessed in the same way), then the contradiction that some breeds (among the ones that didn't pass) are not 'there yet' so we should understand and allowances be made because breeding changes will take time.

I fully agree breeding changes should take time, I expect years and I hope it will be done sensibly because the whole gene pool restriction is another paramount issue here already as it stands.

Why is it such a disaster if a breed is not represented in shows until breeders put their money and effort into working on the breed itself. Breeding when done right is no cheap venture, nor is showing, so is it breeding to produce beautiful healthy dogs for the love of the breed the vested interest or going to shows?


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

rona said:


> BOB 2000
> Crufts 2000
> 
> It's easier to pick things out in minor breeds, god know what's happening and being covered up in the more popular breeds


couldn't agree more! :thumbup1:


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Bijou said:


> "Giving leeway" :confused5: come on now.. these are living organisms - of COURSE there will be 'leeway' - we cannot produce cookie cutter 'perfect' dogs, nature is all about 'giving leeway' it's called variation !!- some pups in a litter will have tight eyes some will have looser ones..some will have more wrinkles some will have fewer - what should we do - cull the non perfect ones ? - reduce the gene pools even further by not using the ones that show a bit of 'leeway' ? ....
> 
> For goodness sake !!


But the thing is leeway has been shown. The issue of bad conformation leading to suffering dogs was not first raised with pedigree dogs exposed, it was raised decades ago and seemingly ignored.

From 1985 - 




Is 27 years not long enough for breeders to get it together? To realise that the extremes they have been breeding to are just not acceptable? It's time that the kc got tough and i'm glad they are finally showing signs of acting. Yes they may need time to get it right but it would help if exhibitors worked with the kc to do this rather than rushing off to threaten legal action.

I can't say i'm sorry that some breeders of extreme dogs feel unfairly treated, they should try tacking their lower eyelids down and stick their nostrils together and then maybe they'd understand how unfair they've been to their dogs. The solution is really, really simple - breed from more moderate dogs, outcross if necessary and if you're not prepared to do that stop breeding and leave it to the people that will.


----------



## Sashadog (Jan 4, 2012)

By doing this, breeders are putting people off. i only know one pedigree dog, a scottish terrier belonging to my auntie. The rest (including mine) are mongrels - this isn't a bad thing, hybrid vigor etc, but many are from back yard breeders.


----------



## pickle (Mar 24, 2008)

It has been reported that in a couple of cases the eye "problems" were scratches/old injury to the dogs' eyeballs. Any one of our dogs could be walking about with just that sort of thing and we may never know it, unless we shine a torch on it of course..................

I don't believe any exhibitor objects to hands on and visual assessment of their dogs, such as the judge does, by the vets. 

I think we should reserve judgement until the findings are made public.


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

pickle said:


> It has been reported that in a couple of cases the eye "problems" were scratches/old injury to the dogs' eyeballs. Any one of our dogs could be walking about with just that sort of thing and we may never know it, unless we shine a torch on it of course..................
> 
> I don't believe any exhibitor objects to hands on and visual assessment of their dogs, such as the judge does, by the vets.
> 
> I think we should reserve judgement until the findings are made public.


I heard that, but is it actually true? Have the vets' results been disclosed in order that was the true reason for failing. Pardon my suspicion, but the Clumber's owner was upset in her video interview because her dog had been failed for conjunctivitis when it was Ectropion the ral failure.
you hear the reports the bull dog was disqualified by an old eye injury, but is it really what it says on the vet report? Only because in her statement vet Alyson Skipper was noting that they were not allowed to break client confidentiality and therefore not talking of their findings. 
I might be way out and misinformed here, so if this is what they were failed for a fact rather then hear say please point me in the direction of the source I have been meaning to find some info


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

pickle said:


> It has been reported that in a couple of cases the eye "problems" were scratches/old injury to the dogs' eyeballs. Any one of our dogs could be walking about with just that sort of thing and we may never know it, unless we shine a torch on it of course..................
> 
> I don't believe any exhibitor objects to hands on and visual assessment of their dogs, such as the judge does, by the vets.
> 
> I think we should reserve judgement until the findings are made public.


Finding? 

Is there an inquiry?

Who is looking into it?


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

rona said:


> Finding?
> 
> Is there an inquiry?
> 
> Who is looking into it?


Precisely Rona, The way I undertand it is that it cant be made public its between the Vet, The owner and the KC, and owing to confidentiality will remain that way unless the Owner I asume gives the sanction to make it be made public.

The Clumbers Vet report I am assuming was a "leak" It certainly seems to be as during the interview the Owner was still protesting that the eye was a little red due to the heat and lights and it was a little conjunctivitis. Yet clearly the report stated ectropian (the Cause) and conjunctivitis, and I think there was some otis eterna on their as well although stated not the reason for disqualification.

Now I maybe a bit Dim or maybe its just me, but if I had a written report that could prove that the one and only cause of my disqualification was scarring from a poke in the eye or similar, I would be printing it off and posting it on every tree and lamp post and make sure the Media had a copy to prove thats all it was. There would be no way I would be taking it lying down and have people speculating that I was a bad breeder or what I had been up too when I knew it wasnt so.


----------



## pickle (Mar 24, 2008)

rona said:


> Finding?
> 
> Is there an inquiry?
> 
> Who is looking into it?


Perhaps "findings" was the wrong word. I would hope, and expect, there would be a report published with the consent of the owners if they had nothing to hide.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

pickle said:


> Perhaps "findings" was the wrong word. I would hope, and expect, there would be a report published with the consent of the owners if they had nothing to hide.


I would have thought if there was nothing to hide the results would have been made public by now


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> Why is it such a disaster if a breed is not represented in shows until breeders put their money and effort into working on the breed itself. Breeding when done right is no cheap venture, nor is showing, so is it breeding to produce beautiful healthy dogs for the love of the breed the vested interest or going to shows?


...because how else can we monitor how breeds are progressing as a whole ? ...how else can we see potential stud dogs ...how else can we assess what they are producing ? ...how else can can aseess temperaments and construction or movement across an entire breed ?

Every single 'breed' goes through the same process - first they establish a type - then they form a network of breeders and owners - then they form a club and then they arrange for everyone to meet up with their dogs so that they can be assessed - even non recognised breeds do this -look here :

Plummer terrier association

News and Events - ISWS - International Silken Windhound Society

Shows - NATIONAL WORKING TERRIER FEDERATION (N.W.T.F.)

breeders CANNOT just breed in isolation from each other - showing is a vital part of assessing the quality of what you are producing which is why there are shows for ALL pedigree types of animals


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Bijou said:


> ...because how else can we monitor how breeds are progressing as a whole ? ...how else can we see potential stud dogs ...how else can we assess what they are producing ? ...how else can can aseess temperaments and construction or movement across an entire breed ?
> 
> Every single 'breed' goes through the same process - first they establish a type - then they form a network of breeders and owners - then they form a club and then they arrange for everyone to meet up with their dogs so that they can be assessed - even non recognised breeds do this -look here :
> 
> breeders CANNOT just breed in isolation from each other - showing is a vital part of assessing the quality of what you are producing which is why there are shows for ALL pedigree types of animals


Not much use though when they have to cover things up to get anywhere in the show world. Makes the whole process pointless and corrupted
http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/226115-crufts-winner-held-hostage.html

A very good breeder that I know has covered up a deformity in a very influential line who did very well at Crufts this year. Yet they still profess to be concerned about their breed

How is this possible?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Bijou said:


> ...because how else can we monitor how breeds are progressing as a whole ? ...how else can we see potential stud dogs ...how else can we assess what they are producing ? ...how else can can aseess temperaments and construction or movement across an entire breed ?


What's to stop them showing even if they do not "win" or is it simply that "winning" is the most important thing? If they are interested in the long term health of their breed they could use it as an opportunity to inform the public as to what is being done and progress being made.

Shows are not just about studs, used to be, but no longer. You can enter a neutered animal. Not that people do as lets face it... win = stud fees = money which only leads to less genetic diversity within the breed.


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

Bijou said:


> ...because how else can we monitor how breeds are progressing as a whole ? ...how else can we see potential stud dogs ...how else can we assess what they are producing ? ...how else can can aseess temperaments and construction or movement across an entire breed ?


through events organized within the breed club, or trough the newly formed breeders association (canine alliance). It is a huge commitment from the part of breeders to come together and change the standards, no one expect it to be an easy job and to happen overnight.



Bijou said:


> ...breeders CANNOT just breed in isolation from each other - showing is a vital part of assessing the quality of what you are producing which is why there are shows for ALL pedigree types of animals


I agree breeders must liase with one another and appreciate there must meeting days to show the dogs and present them to assess progress, and I appreciate a show day is a perfect opportunity, but you must also appreciate that breeders of a particular type under scrutiny must accept the dog they present might not be ready yet to fit into the new standards. I appreciate it is very frustrating, but it might take years to achieve a new conformation and breed out certain traits, until then this hypothetical breeder should not take a failure as a personal affront to their name as it is happening at the moment. I also agree some recognition and encouragement should be shown, but I don't think this recognition to their work should come in the form of formal awards.

The problem as I see it at the moment, a disqualification due to vet scrutiny seems to be a big stain in the 'curriculm vitae' of the dog. Say this dog was already of much improved constitution (or health, temperament, any area the breed needs work done on), with a single area that needs further work (say the eyes), could be a good candidate to work with, perhaps mating him with a dog with great eye results, but perhaps lacking in another area, or cross breeding, or whatever else breeders do. But because the dog had been shown too soon it now carries a failure so the name has been ruined, which i think it's not fair to the breeder or the breed in the whole. This is what I mean about not showing for a while, avoid the risk of the work being disrupted by a negative feed back like a failure. Not sure I have made any sense, I am rushing


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Bijou said:


> ...because how else can we monitor how breeds are progressing as a whole ? ...how else can we see potential stud dogs ...how else can we assess what they are producing ? ...how else can can aseess temperaments and construction or movement across an entire breed ?
> 
> Every single 'breed' goes through the same process - first they establish a type - then they form a network of breeders and owners - then they form a club and then they arrange for everyone to meet up with their dogs so that they can be assessed - even non recognised breeds do this -look here :
> 
> ...





dodigna said:


> through events organized within the breed club, or trough the newly formed breeders association (canine alliance). It is a huge commitment from the part of breeders to come together and change the standards, no one expect it to be an easy job and to happen overnight.
> 
> I agree breeders must liase with one another and appreciate there must meeting days to show the dogs and present them to assess progress, and I appreciate a show day is a perfect opportunity, but you must also appreciate that breeders of a particular type under scrutiny must accept the dog they present might not be ready yet to fit into the new standards. I appreciate it is very frustrating, but it might take years to achieve a new conformation and breed out certain traits, until then this hypothetical breeder should not take a failure as a personal affront to their name as it is happening at the moment. I also agree some recognition and encouragement should be shown, but I don't think this recognition to their work should come in the form of formal awards.
> 
> The problem as I see it at the moment, a disqualification due to vet scrutiny seems to be a big stain in the 'curriculm vitae' of the dog. Say this dog was already of much improved constitution (or health, temperament, any area the breed needs work done on), with a single area that needs further work (say the eyes), could be a good candidate to work with, perhaps mating him with a dog with great eye results, but perhaps lacking in another area, or cross breeding, or whatever else breeders do. But because the dog had been shown too soon it now carries a failure so the name has been ruined, which i think it's not fair to the breeder or the breed in the whole. This is what I mean about not showing for a while, avoid the risk of the work being disrupted by a negative feed back like a failure. Not sure I have made any sense, I am rushing


I agree with the concept of fostering change by encouraging, demonstrating and rewarding the correct dog, or at the very least the one proving the most advancement. Less so with removing these dogs from the champ show ring as some HP breeds passed.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

If this is accurate then I think there are more important things to be worrying about

Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog: Breeds in danger of extinction in the UK


----------



## Ewan (Mar 1, 2012)

Watching a video with Andrew Brace from the meeting, consistently talks about wanting a KC that "cares for us" not the dogs but a KC that cares for these people. Is it not meant to be all about the dogs? Should be not be asking for a Kennel Club that cares about the dogs health & Welfare above all things? Surely to "dog people" that must be the most important thing!!!


But no it's all about caring for these peoples egos! 

Strap Line:

'Responsible for Pedigree Dogs'

What a joke. Lets not forget it's these same breeders and exhibitors that breed the dogs with shorter and shorter legs, breed the dogs with shorter and shorter faces to the point they can't breath properly or regulate heat, they bred in all the excess folds of skin causing misery and eye problems...I can go on and on.

Remember it's the same people that did this for the show ring, not puppy farms but breeders & exhibitors. 


What makes them the "dog people"? What about those involved in rescue that dedicate their lives to sorting out the messes left by other people? What about the pet dog owner that dedicate their lives to their pets? Why is this tiny group that doesn't even include a fraction of the dog owning/loving population get to be the "dog people"?


If they were really the "dog people" they would spend more time talking about the dogs rights and not their own rights, not how they expect to be treated. 



I'm sorry when they spend so much time talking about themselves instead of the dogs I find it extremely difficult to think they truly care about the dogs above their own egos.


The Facebook group 3000+ members in days? They forgot to mention that they were adding people to the group without permission.

It's all about the egos!


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Ewan said:


> Watching a video with Andrew Brace from the meeting, consistently talks about wanting a KC that "cares for us" not the dogs but a KC that cares for these people. Is it not meant to be all about the dogs? Should be not be asking for a Kennel Club that cares about the dogs health & Welfare above all things? Surely to "dog people" that must be the most important thing!!!
> 
> But no it's all about caring for these peoples egos!
> 
> ...


This one? Canine Alliance - Post Crufts meeting - Andrew Brace interview - YouTube

They come across badly in the end but at least their concern is that all dogs are fully health tested before entering a ring, which also seems to be a popular theme on this thread. I think the slant of this interview can be twisted either way.


----------



## Ewan (Mar 1, 2012)

He is talking about the dogs being embarrassed, no they weren't dogs can't be. People's egos were hurt, that seems to be his issue.

If it's all about the health checks then why not work more closely with the KC to make sure they are introduced properly instead of having a knee jerk reaction and then rant and rave about "our rights", "care about us".

Reading the Exhibitors Choice & Voice group info I have little faith in these people. It's one step away to comparing themselves to the Jews under Nazis Germany. Again there is far too much talk of the people and not enough of the dogs welfare. Maybe they dog have the dogs welfare at heart but reading they stuff they are coming out with it really doesn't seem like that.

"Exhibitors Choice & Voice
AN OPEN MEETING will be held on Thursday 15th March to discuss the implications of the health checks carried out at Crufts and arrive at some conclusions which would be forwarded to the Kennel Club.
The venue is The Britannia Suite, National Motorcycle Museum Services, B92 0EJ
The meeting will begin at 6 p.m.
Obviously securing the venue has involved considerable expense so we are asking that all who attend make a contribution as they feel appropriate. Once the venue is paid for, any surplus will be placed in a bank account which will be opened to begin a fighting fund
EVERYONE WHO IS PASSIONATE ABOUT OUR SPORT IS REQUESTED TO ATTEND - REGARDLESS OF WHAT BREED YOU HAVE AS THIS AFFECTS EVERYONE Your opinions on how to go forward Do you think it is right for Judges opinions to be over turned by a Vet ..This policy is not about 15 breeds, it is about the DISCRIMINATION it imposes on our sport. It is the knee jerk reaction our KC had to Jemima Harrison and PDE. They gave this "policy" no thought - just reacted! Judges can choose to withhold BOB or the CC winners can choose not to go forward for BOB...BUT that is NOT the issue. It is the policy we have to change! Why should 15 breeds have to have their 3rd CC and title of Champion ratified by a vet when the 100 and odd other breeds just get their title confirmed. Why can those breeds just walk into the group but the 15 others have to be vet checked? The discrimination is unjust and in any other walk of life, would be vilified. If we let this continue we are our own worst enemies. We have to act to CHANGE the policy. The KC is private members club and is a business and at the moment, not fit to be our governing body. They exist purely because of US.....no pedigree dogs, no KC. Discrimination is abhorent in any walk of life, why should we allow it to prevail in our sport! Comment from Joy Bradley

A Prime Minister of pedigree dogs and their exhibitors nhowever he has not said anything that the rest of us have not thought to say, most especially as the fiasco that is Crufts 2012 has now brought this to a head. But the difference that Andrew Brace makes to this whole issue is that whilst individuals gripe and talk among one another, the PM has the clout to make his voice heard above the white noise! As exhibitors we have watched the slow motion car crash that Pedigree Dogs Exposed started in 2008 and which is now threatening our sport and ridiculing us across the World. Had the PM been in charge this would NOT have happened on his watch. The KC have had almost four years warning and yet only responded at the last moment. Too little, Too late. Too wrapped up in their own world, the KC have sold us down the Swanie River. So what would the PM have done? Applied common sense? Yes! Been suckered into a programme that made the KC look like a little boys club? No! Conceded time and again to the demands of those with not an iota of care about the dogs but only pounds signs in their eyes? No! Made the greatest dog show in the World into a laughing stock? NO! Andrew Brace is articulating our dissatisfaction. We have all said it at some time. The KC are not looking after us. The PM of pedigree dog exhibitors IS! He has put his head above the parapet and is saying it like it is."


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

I haven't read the link, nor am I involved in showing and welcome any changes that improve on these exaggerated breeds, however, I can't help wondering if this really was the right way to go about it. It may have been if those involved are not prepared to change - a short, sharp shock treatment, but why was this introduced at Crufts (other than for the publicity)? All these dogs would have had to qualify for Crufts, so why was this not done at the qualifying championship level? How much has been done to educate judges/breeders/showing folk, what improvements need to be made in their breed and what exaggerations are unacceptable? There may have been much done already, I don't know, but I can't help feel, that, while it is long overdue, starting at Crufts has been done more for the publicity.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

They may be as ineloquent as the KC. But I support the health testing of all breeds to deem being helathy and fit for judging, rather than just testing 15 after the fact.

My understanding would be that they would formulating a plan of action to take to the KC to consider. I didn't go to that meeting, but have been to others where breeders confront the KC and it is fair to say that the KC don't seem to listen or represent the breeders interested especially regarding health testing. I've seen the KC being pretty much shouted down by breeders demanding compulsory health testing authenticated by microchipping and DNA profiling. Nothing seems to get done, hopefully this larger group will make seom changes, but it is far to say that the KC do not represent the interests of many breeders.


----------



## Ewan (Mar 1, 2012)

I agree for the need for all breeds to be health tested. My issue here is, well even you just said it "the KC do not represent the interests of many breeders". I want them to represent the interests of the dogs not the breeders. That's what go the show dogs in the exaggerated state they are in today. 

I'm not arguing with you on the principles here I agree whole heartedly with your points on health checks, I'm just having a major problem with the way it is all being put across by people(not you). If they spent more time talking about the dogs rather than the breeders and exhibitors involved I would have a much easier time supporting/believing them.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> They may be as ineloquent as the KC. But I support the health testing of all breeds to deem being helathy and fit for judging, rather than just testing 15 after the fact.


I think there is a fundamental difference between health testing and these examinations carried out at Crufts which are meant to ensure exaggerations (which lead to health problems) are not rewarded. Health testing is completely different and does not come under a judges remit when judging. Both are important, of course, but both completely different.

I can see the benefits of doing the examinations on all breeds, but can also see why these 15 breeds have been chosen to start with. If you take my breed, labradors, there is no doubt that show labradors are an exaggeration of the dog they were originally, however, none of these exaggerations have led to health problems, just a heavier looking dog.


----------



## Paganman (Jul 29, 2011)

pickle said:


> It has been reported that in a couple of cases the eye "problems" were scratches/old injury to the dogs' eyeballs. Any one of our dogs could be walking about with just that sort of thing and we may never know it, unless we shine a torch on it of course..................
> 
> I don't believe any exhibitor objects to hands on and visual assessment of their dogs, such as the judge does, by the vets.
> 
> I think we should reserve judgement until the findings are made public.


A scratched eye or corneal abrasion cannot be seen by a torch alone, a dye/ stain has to be put in the eye for it to show up.

Besides, a scratched eye is just that and it heals in time.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Im glad that they are for health testing and I agree it should be done before they even enter the championship show, and that all breeds should go through it.

However, their gripe seems to be why 15 breeds were targeted and humiliated and that its unacceptable,
I dont see how veterinary checking and finding problems can be called targeting and humiliating to be honest, if there wasnt a problem then the dogs wouldnt have beed pulled out. Besides the whole 15 had exactly the same checks, and more passed then didnt so this comment I dont get at all. Also I havent checked but am I right in thinking that these 15 breeds would have been ones that had ammendments to their breed standards anyway, so I assume that could be likely fair warning that "other things" were going to be checked that were not in the breed standard before. 

I notice they are calling for a Kennel Club that fosters the interest of the Breeders Exhibitors and Judges. A Kennel Club that cares for us. This I think is the real crux of the matter. The Kennel club has pandered to the Breeders, exhibitors and Judges for far too long, while they all had free reign and did as they liked the KC was a marvelous institution. Now though under pressure admitted the KC are going towards what they should have been doing all along putting Dogs first, the Dummies are being spat out big time.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> The problem as I see it at the moment, a disqualification due to vet scrutiny seems to be a big stain in the 'curriculm vitae' of the dog. Say this dog was already of much improved constitution (or health, temperament, any area the breed needs work done on), with a single area that needs further work (say the eyes), could be a good candidate to work with, perhaps mating him with a dog with great eye results, but perhaps lacking in another area, or cross breeding, or whatever else breeders do. But because the dog had been shown too soon it now carries a failure so the name has been ruined, which i think it's not fair to the breeder or the breed in the whole. This is what I mean about not showing for a while, avoid the risk of the work being disrupted by a negative feed back like a failure. Not sure I have made any sense, I am rushing


I think this is a very good point. The changes were gradual and happened over many generations. Equally, improvements will take time and generations. Such a reaction to a dog failing these tests does risk throwing the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Ewan said:


> I agree for the need for all breeds to be health tested. My issue here is, well even you just said it "the KC do not represent the interests of many breeders". I want them to represent the interests of the dogs not the breeders. That's what go the show dogs in the exaggerated state they are in today.
> 
> I'm not arguing with you on the principles here I agree whole heartedly with your points on health checks, I'm just having a major problem with the way it is all being put across by people(not you). If they spent more time talking about the dogs rather than the breeders and exhibitors involved I would have a much easier time supporting/believing them.


I was trying to use an example where the interest of the breeders was the best interest of the dogs in regards to health if that makes sense. 

I agree, his delivery in the interview is poor once the health testing aspect is mentioned. It comes across as putting their needs before the dogs. There was a unanimous vote by all attendess to prioritse the health and welfare of dogs as of paramount imprtance. I was hoping that would have been mentioned in the interview, but instead languishes on the FB Group.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> I think there is a fundamental difference between health testing and these examinations carried out at Crufts which are meant to ensure exaggerations (which lead to health problems) are not rewarded. Health testing is completely different and does not come under a judges remit when judging. Both are important, of course, but both completely different.
> 
> I can see the benefits of doing the examinations on all breeds, but can also see why these 15 breeds have been chosen to start with. If you take my breed, labradors, there is no doubt that show labradors are an exaggeration of the dog they were originally, however, none of these exaggerations have led to health problems, just a heavier looking dog.


Sorry, confused my words.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

DoodlesRule said:


> I would have thought if there was nothing to hide the results would have been made public by now


Indeed. Here's what the vet herself says;

Vet's POV

Two sections stand out to me:

"Obviously, I am bound by professional confidentiality and cannot comment on any of the dogs I examined. The owners are not so bound and I would be happy for any of the owners of the dogs I examined to make public the form I signed, in its entirety."

Also:

"Secondly, its obvious from the photographs on the Internet that some of the BOB winners which failed were indeed of more moderate conformation than some other dogs within that breed. It must have been particularly galling for those owners to fail. *However, we werent being asked to judge whether a particular dog was better than the breed average; we only examined the winner, and if the winner still had a problem that affected its welfare on that day, our task was to say so.*"


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> I appreciate it is very frustrating, but it might take years to achieve a new conformation and breed out certain traits, until then this hypothetical breeder should not take a failure as a personal affront to their name as it is happening at the moment. I also agree some recognition and encouragement should be shown, but I don't think this recognition to their work should come in the form of formal awards.
> 
> The problem as I see it at the moment, a disqualification due to vet scrutiny seems to be a big stain in the 'curriculm vitae' of the dog. Say this dog was already of much improved constitution (or health, temperament, any area the breed needs work done on), with a single area that needs further work (say the eyes), could be a good candidate to work with, perhaps mating him with a dog with great eye results, but perhaps lacking in another area, or cross breeding, or whatever else breeders do. But because the dog had been shown too soon it now carries a failure so the name has been ruined, which i think it's not fair to the breeder or the breed in the whole. This is what I mean about not showing for a while, avoid the risk of the work being disrupted by a negative feed back like a failure. Not sure I have made any sense, I am rushing


yes it IS very frustrating...and disheartening ...and illogical .....in what way was the Multi International Champion Clumber " shown too soon " ? ...or the moderate top winning Bulldog with an old eye injury " shown too soon " ? ..how else can breeders influence their breeds unless they get them out there and seen by other breeders.

I'll admit I simply don't know just what you expect us to do - we're saying that we are working towards moderating those breeds that need it - and we're beaten over the head because we hav'nt i*nstantly *achieved this ..... we're saying we support health testing - heck we want ALL dogs health tested ...but we're beaten over the head again because we cannot produce completely healthy dogs

We want the Kc to only register health tested dogs ...and thats twisted to mean that we want to overturn the KC

we want our more moderate versions of some breeds seen at shows ..and THAT'S twisted to mean that we only care about winning

...and constantly...constantly.... we're accused of 'ruining' pedigree dogs - when the truth is that without us there would not *BE* any pedigree dogs..the demise of some of our native breeds is perilously close - just WHO do you think is going to put their time , money, energy and passion into saving them ...will YOU ?

This forum has a 'sticky' against posting negatively against cross breeds and their owners, yet constantly allows 'open season' against the show world with accusations that we are all uncaring, ribbon chasing , and heartless people who view their dogs as cash machines and have no regard to their health and welfare - and THAT'S why we need the Canine Alliance - ..the Kc does not have the gonads to stick up for all the thousands of good ethical breeders out there and we're sick of having to justify ourselves to those who believe the hype and bias ...membership is now over 6000 ...and growing ..with support world wide ....enough is enough !!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Bijou said:


> yes it IS very frustrating...and disheartening ...and illogical .....in what way was the Multi International Champion Clumber " shown too soon " ?


But why has this monstrosity ever got to be a Multi international Champion.
All in the show world should have been horrified by it's rise to fame when there are perfectly good Clumber spaniels to choose and breed from


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

All the moaning about can't happen overnight what do you expect etc etc is quite depressing, who bred the over exagerated dogs in the first place? Those breeders that did not, why haven't you made some protests over the last god knows how many years? Sorry but any sympathy I have is firmly with the dogs living with their problems


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> yes it IS very frustrating...and disheartening ...and illogical .....in what way was the Multi International Champion Clumber " shown too soon " ? ...or the moderate top winning Bulldog with an old eye injury " shown too soon " ? ..how else can breeders influence their breeds unless they get them out there and seen by other breeders.


Frustrating and disheartening I agree with, but illogical? The Clumber did look more moderate to me, but still had the eye problem. The bulldog I'm not so sure about. Did the vet report actually acknowledge that it was an old eye injury? I can't see how an injury could be penalised, but that does need looking into *if* it is the case.

The Clumber while moderate did not pass the test. Surely, those breeders who really have the good of the breed in question can see that when their dogs are still failing there is simply more to do? The clumber was considered the best there. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it did not have it's win taken away from it, it was still awarded it's CC, simply not allowed to proceed. Why is that considered a complete failure and not enough.

Can breeders not take the positive out of this while at the same time realising that what their breeds need is some longer term view on improving on the exaggerations that have been bred for over the years?


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> But why has this monstrosity ever got to be a Multi international Champion.
> All in the show world should have been horrified by it's rise to fame when there are perfectly good Clumber spaniels to choose and breed from


 Below is the 'monstrosity' that was disqualified



















and here is a working Clumber stud :



















I know which one I think has better eyes and conformation and I know which one I would want to use to improve the breed !!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

More pictures of the Clumber in question

You Can't Pass A Health Test You Don't Take


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

Bijou said:


> yes it IS very frustrating...and disheartening ...and illogical .....in what way was the Multi International Champion Clumber " shown too soon " ? ...or the moderate top winning Bulldog with an old eye injury " shown too soon " ? ..how else can breeders influence their breeds unless they get them out there and seen by other breeders.


The Clumber had clear Ectropion from the photos I have seen so the one vet result paper that has been leaked seems justified. So not a case of too soon, a case of the Clumber bitch does NO LONGER fits the breed standards and nope, should not be used as a representative.
The Bull dog I make no comment and frankly nor should anybody else until the vet's form is made public (if ever).



Bijou said:


> ..I'll admit I simply don't know just what you expect us to do - we're saying that we are working towards moderating those breeds that need it - and we're beaten over the head because we hav'nt i*nstantly *achieved this ..... we're saying we support health testing - heck we want ALL dogs health tested ...but we're beaten over the head again because we cannot produce completely healthy dogs


maybe we expected the issue of exaggerations to have been addressed sooner, after all it has not come out because of PDE. The effects of exaggerations have been around for ages and ages and it was very frustrating for people outside of the breeding and show circles not to have a voice. Me personally I expected the truly ethical breeders to alienate the ones that were not doing a good job even if those were prominent names in the circle.



Bijou said:


> ...and constantly...constantly.... we're accused of 'ruining' pedigree dogs - when the truth is that without us there would not *BE* any pedigree dogs..the demise of some of our native breeds is perilously close - just WHO do you think is going to put their time , money, energy and passion into saving them ...will YOU ?


Of course I won't. I rather dogs are not born instead of being born with a strong chance of a life condition or a shape that can cause discomfort.



Bijou said:


> This forum has a 'sticky' against posting negatively against cross breeds and their owners, yet constantly allows 'open season' against the show world with accusations that we are all uncaring, ribbon chasing , and heartless people who view their dogs as cash machines and have no regard to their health and welfare - and THAT'S why we need the Canine Alliance - ..the Kc does not have the gonads to stick up for all the thousands of good ethical breeders out there and we're sick of having to justify ourselves to those who believe the hype and bias ...membership is now over 6000 ...and growing ..with support world wide ....enough is enough !!


I understand some people's comments are stronger then others, but some of us actually want the conversations carrying on, some people in your corner can manage to be objective some refuse to and feel attacked all the time with the results that people simply walk out of conversations (or simply play the bigger person and stop contributing), or the thread gets heated and removed without any warning, which is totally unfair as well.
It is widely known a pedigree is not an insurance certificate, many knew before PDE and some have just realized it, but even within the breeders and show people (and the judges), there are good and bad ones, the problem is the bad ones are not being eradicated and end up tarring the whole group with the same brush and therefore supplying ammo to the most vociferous ones. 
I appreciate no one is going to come on an open forum and speak badly about a fellow breeder or a judge, of course I know it happens in private conversations, but to come here and say all registered breeders of pedigree are doing a fabulous job is something I can't agree with.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

dodigna said:


> The Clumber had clear Ectropion from the photos I have seen so the one vet result paper that has been leaked seems justified. So not a case of too soon, a case of the Clumber bitch does NO LONGER fits the breed standards and nope, should not be used as a representative.


Current standard says "Acceptable to have some haw showing but without excess." I'm not saying that's acceptable. But if no amount of haw is deemed unacceptable then the standard should be changed to reflect a tight eye.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Bijou said:


> Below is the 'monstrosity' that was disqualified
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For heavens sake  That is puppy picture? 
Even though the average lifespan is 5.3 years? 
This from their own website. 
Kennel Chervood :: breed of Clumber Spaniel

Why do you bury your head in the sand.
No the working Clumbers aren't there yet but they started from a very very bad base and would still possibly be having to use the occasional show dog to keep the gene pool
Oh and sorry, those working dogs aren't being held up as the pinnacle of excellence


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Bijou said:


> I'll admit I simply don't know just what you expect us to do - we're saying that we are working towards moderating those breeds that need it - and we're beaten over the head because we hav'nt i*nstantly *achieved this ..... we're saying we support health testing - heck we want ALL dogs health tested ...but we're beaten over the head again because we cannot produce completely healthy dogs


1985 video highlighting the problem... that's almost 30 years...



> We want the Kc to only register health tested dogs ...and thats twisted to mean that we want to overturn the KC


Which will not work, simply means people get those health checks done by people in the "club".



> ...and constantly...constantly.... we're accused of 'ruining' pedigree dogs - when the truth is that without us there would not *BE* any pedigree dogs..the demise of some of our native breeds is perilously close - just WHO do you think is going to put their time , money, energy and passion into saving them ...will YOU ?


Nope. I care about the well being of dogs in general, not about a specific breed. Compare old photo's of many breeds. As dogs how many have improved their "function" when it come to the "show world". It's not just temperament that has changed.



> constantly allows 'open season' against the show world with accusations that we are all uncaring, ribbon chasing , and heartless people who view their dogs as cash machines and have no regard to their health and welfare


Hardly open season, as for accusations nobody has said all. You only reenforce the idea of a closed shop by giving that argument. The fact is "ribbon chasing", "non caring about health" etc is the impression the show world normally gives. In fact there are only a couple of "show" people that do not on this forum (probably a lot more that I don't know).

The impression is of a close knit society that is prepared to support each other even if they are in the wrong. Joe public simply doesn't see breeders stand up for dogs. They hear loads of rhetoric and little action and the action visible is negative. 
The "but it's the breed standard" doesn't hold up to scrutiny when they themselves write the breed standard.
The "but it's been health checked" doesn't hold up to scrutiny when you realize the vet in question breeds and shows that specific breed. 
The "we want healthy dogs" doesn't hold up to scrutiny when someone who pushes for change publically gets voted out of the breed club 200 to 30 or some such..

Many of us know how group politics can work. That's why we push and will continue to push. That's why the Canine Alliance needs to put action to words about health because at the moment it seems about people and ego, not the dogs.

I still think if the Canine Alliance does succeed in suspending Health Checks the only recourse for the health of dogs is to push for legislation to make it illegal to breed dogs with expected health problems.



> and growing ..with support world wide ....enough is enough !!


Yes I've seen some of the americans point of view. A country which can't sort out a general health system for people yet alone dogs.

I wonder how many members are people who are interested in dogs health in general, not being a breeder or even involved with pedigrees and will be elected to a position of responsibility? Simply put they will not. It will be another closed shop with the goal of hiding things or lessening potential rules and regulations so people can carry on as before. Not deliberately or as a starting point but that's what it will end up as.


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> Current standard says "Acceptable to have some haw showing but without excess." I'm not saying that's acceptable. But if no amount of haw is deemed unacceptable then the standard should be changed to reflect a tight eye.


Do we agree though, the standards should be written so they are less open to interpretation?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

dodigna said:


> Do we agree though, the standards should be written so they are less open to interpretation?


Yes. My standard is a tight eye. Some dogs have it some have a hanging lower lid. But at least the ideal is there in black and white.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Agree with Goblins post. 

The name is actually misleading so not a good starting point - surely it should be the Pedigree Breeders Alliance?


----------



## spaniel04 (Nov 27, 2011)

dodigna said:


> Do we agree though, the standards should be written so they are less open to interpretation?


I have found this Gundog Group Breed Standard amendments - The Kennel Club Am I reading this wrong or does the amendment actually say that the previous statement (a small amount of haw showing is acceptable) has been deleted. I am confused


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

spaniel04 said:


> I have found this Gundog Group Breed Standard amendments - The Kennel Club Am I reading this wrong or does the amendment actually say that the previous statement (a small amount of haw showing is acceptable) has been deleted. I am confused


It does say that but is dated 2009. The current standard dated 2010 includes it The Kennel Club


----------



## spaniel04 (Nov 27, 2011)

I wonder why it was changed back to the original version??


----------



## PippaM (Jun 5, 2011)

I am very interested in the question of haw, because it makes a working dog more vulnerable to eye injury. For this reason alone a working spaniel should always have tight eyes, and the Clumber standard does state that the dog should be fit for work. 

I also noticed the difference in breed standards agreed in 2009 and those on the current page. It looks as though this amendment has either been overlooked (human beings write web copy) or was later retracted. There are some other differences too. It is very confusing for anyone searching for the new standards and arriving on the 2009 page as I did. 

I have some sympathy for show breeders that find it bewildering when the public does not see eye to eye with them on the what a dog should actually look like. Breed blindness is a genuine and difficult problem to overcome, and I think it will take a long time to do this.

I do think that the formation of the Canine Alliance is a huge opportunity for show breeders to display to the world that they are determined to iron out problems in their breeds.

Unfortunately it doesnt give a very good impression when their top priority is to put an end to vet checks. I suspect they need to get themselves a good leader who understands what people are concerned about if they are to have any real impact.

Pippa


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

If as has been stated on this thread that Crufts is not seen by all as the highest accolade to win and that it is just one of many shows, and as there seems to be lots that could be discussed further or amended/changed etc....

Why instead of the vets exams being suspended- why not suspend the whole show?

Why not suspend Crufts until it can be worked out so that everybody is clear on everything? ( from the public right through to the judges)and all the queries/debates/problems the latest show has brought up is ironed out? 

Then if it can all be sorted out in the best interests firstly of the dogs and can come back as the "New Crufts"


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> If as has been stated on this thread that Crufts is not seen by all as the highest accolade to win and that it is just one of many shows, and as there seems to be lots that could be discussed further or amended/changed etc....
> 
> Why instead of the vets exams being suspended- why not suspend the whole show?
> 
> ...


The vet check will be required at all Champ Shows from now on, not just Crufts. WELKS is the next one in April.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> The vet check will be required at all Champ Shows from now on, not just Crufts. WELKS is the next one in April.


Which will presumably mean that crufts qualifiers for next year will have had to undergo the test (with the exception of those who are qualified for life)?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> Which will presumably mean that crufts qualifiers for next year will have had to undergo the test (with the exception of those who are qualified for life)?


Only BOB winners, those qualifying by gaining qualification through required class placements wouldn't. However, it raises an interesting and potentially unpopular question if crufts qualification also required a vet check pass?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> Only BOB winners, those qualifying by gaining qualification through required class placements wouldn't. However, it raises an interesting and potentially unpopular question if crufts qualification also required a vet check pass?


Thanks for clarifying that. I wonder if the hope is that the possibility of having to undergo one of these tests will be enough to prompt breeders to take it more seriously, even if they qualify without having to have had one.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Maybe the CA should organise their own Champ show that is only open to health checked and vet test passed dogs?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> Maybe the CA should organise their own Champ show that is only open to health checked and vet test passed dogs?


But they don't want the vet tests


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> But they don't want the vet tests


...yes they do ....but for *ALL* breeds


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> But they don't want the vet tests


They want the tests to be prior to exhibition for all breeds not just 15 after judging.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

yep...that way only healthy dogs will be able to be shown


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Bijou said:


> ...yes they do ....but for *ALL* breeds


So they think the elimination from group because the Clumber's eyes were a problem is correct?

I thought this came about because of the objections to the eliminations from the group judging.

If they are happy to have tests, why are they objecting to those eliminations for the breeds that were tested?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Bijou said:


> ...yes they do ....but for *ALL* breeds


Is it not that "they" want _their_ vet tests, not a check carried out by a vet.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> They want the tests to be prior to exhibition for all breeds not just 15 after judging.


While I appreciate that in an ideal world all breeds would be tested, realistically, these problems do not apply to all breeds and I suspect this is why these 15 breeds have been chosen. It makes sense to me, to start this on the breeds most at risk of these problems.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> While I appreciate that in an ideal world all breeds would be tested, realistically, these problems do not apply to all breeds and I suspect this is why these 15 breeds have been chosen. It makes sense to me, to start this on the breeds most at risk of these problems.


Depends what you're testing for. Any breed could have heart issues for example which a judge wouldnt be able to detect. Plus a lot of breeds have points to look for on Breed Watch. Take labs for example The Kennel Club) the dog which was placed in the groups at Crufts looked huge. I've seen DDB with less substance.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> I thought this came about because of the objections to the eliminations from the group judging.
> 
> If they are happy to have tests, why are they objecting to those eliminations for the breeds that were tested?


no ...it's about the unfair discrimination of these 15 breeds and the way the tests were conducted ...as I've said before they were supposed to be done under the same conditions that the judges worked under - as a way of highlighting conditions that judges should have noticed .



> It that "they" want their vet tests, not a check carried out by a vet.


sigh ....I'm not even going to answer this 



> realistically, these problems do not apply to all breeds and I suspect this is why these 15 breeds have been chosen. It makes sense to me, to start this on the breeds most at risk of these problems


.

no ...realistically ALL breeds will have some health problems it's just that some are not visible - after all Cavaliers are amongst the breeds with the most and yet they are not on the 15 high profile list ...would it not be better for these and *all* others to be health checked before entering a show ?

Thats what the CA is calling for ...why would you not support this  ....


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> Depends what you're testing for. Any breed could have heart issues for example which a judge wouldnt be able to detect. Plus a lot of breeds have points to look for on Breed Watch. Take labs for example The Kennel Club) the dog which was placed in the groups at Crufts looked huge. I've seen DDB with less substance.


But none of these 15 breeds are being tested for heart issues, or any other health problem for which clinical tests requiring specialist vets, equipment and analysis are required. The tests at crufts were purely for conformation faults that cause health problems, which is why I said in a previous post that they are two completely different issues but seem to frequently be confused.

As for the lab I couldn't agree more - show labs are too overdone for my taste, but some are so overdone it is a disgrace to the breed. I was at a working event recently and out of over 60 dogs competing there were two show/dual purpose labs - they were built like brick s**t houses and stood out like sore thumbs as being way over the top - even though these were dual purpose labs, fit and not overweight and not as heavy as many in the ring.

However, that said, however much substance they have, they still do not suffer from problems due to that conformation.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Bijou said:


> sigh ....I'm not even going to answer this


Sorry to pick you up on a drafting error here; you said _"I'm not even going to answer this"_ - when you meant to say _"damn, our ruse appears to have been rumbled" _

Don't worry, I didn't expect you to answer it; you've answered nothing else sensibly after all.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> no ...realistically ALL breeds will have some health problems it's just that some are not visible - after all Cavaliers are amongst the breeds with the most and yet they are not on the 15 high profile list ...would it not be better for these and all others to be health checked before entering a show ?


I've said it before, health tests (those that are typically done before breeding) are different to the vet tests carried out at Crufts. Health tests test for inheritable (or thought inheritable) diseases that may affect or be carried (in the case of DNA) by a dog. The vet checks are to check that a dog's conformation is not so exaggerated that it will lead to health problems. While both important, they are two completely separate things and shouldn't be confused.

Of course, I don't think it's a bad thing to health check every dog.

From what you are suggesting, then every dog should be health tested and submit the results before entering a show? That's fine, although how would that apply to some tests that can only be done on mature dog? That would be actually much more cumbersome than the existing vet tests that the KC have introduced.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rocco33 said:


> But none of these 15 breeds are being tested for heart issues, or any other health problem for which clinical tests requiring specialist vets, equipment and analysis are required. The tests at crufts were purely for conformation faults that cause health problems, which is why I said in a previous post that they are two completely different issues but seem to frequently be confused.
> 
> As for the lab I couldn't agree more - show labs are too overdone for my taste, but some are so overdone it is a disgrace to the breed. I was at a working event recently and out of over 60 dogs competing there were two show/dual purpose labs - they were built like brick s**t houses and stood out like sore thumbs as being way over the top - even though these were dual purpose labs, fit and not overweight and not as heavy as many in the ring.
> 
> However, that said, however much substance they have, they still do not suffer from problems due to that conformation.


It was more a point of conjecture as to what future vet checking may entail if it's thorough enough to assess the all round health of a dog. In terms of conformation, there are many other breeds that have conformational issues that lead to poor health not featured. Any breed with a standard which asks for straight stifles is more likely to have issues with patella lunation for example.

My eyes popped out of my head when I saw that lab. The excess substance may not cause problems other than overburdening the joints but I think being fit for function should be a consideration.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> In terms of conformation, there are many other breeds that have conformational issues that lead to poor health not featured.


I don't doubt it. As someone whose interest is limited to working gundogs generally, and labs in particular, I shall claim ignorance to the different breeds that have conformation issues, but suspect they started with the most obvious, although I also suspect, rather like the ABS, this is a 'work in progress' situation where other breeds would have been added in the future anyway.



> My eyes popped out of my head when I saw that lab. The excess substance may not cause problems other than overburdening the joints but I think being fit for function should be a consideration.


Well, I could get into the working vs show lab debate, but suspect that would take a whole other thread . I don't show, and if I did go to one, would have to avoid the lab ring


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Is it not that "they" want _their_ vet tests, not a check carried out by a vet.


I don't know the answer to this, I'm not sure if anyone does. I prefer to remain optimistic and hope that whatever is proposed considers the entire health of the dog. If not, then I would not be interested in supporting them.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Is it not that "they" want _their_ vet tests, not a check carried out by a vet.


Unfortunately the basset hound club statement seems to prove this. Actions speak louder than words.

Actions show the Canine Alliance is interested in their medals/trophies/prestige.

What could help the Canine Alliance... Actions such as getting corrections into the *6 breeds* who failed, as soon as possible. 
Actions such as officially listing the problems with the standards. (not popular can't publicly criticize a breed club).
Actions such as ensuring all 15 breeds pass continually (not just this once).
Actions such as suggesting methods of encouraging and recognizing progress in regards to health.

Expanding the health checks... why.. sounds good in theory but lets face it, more checks will make it less effective unless introduced correctly. Sure not everyone who's supporting this move thinks like that but I'm sure some are relying on it. Who knows maybe it can be "tied up" in committee while vet checks are suspended until it "dies". Far better to keep with 15 and get the system operating correctly before enlarging it.

It should be noted there is no current support for the disqualification if justified. Are the Canine Alliance saying all 6 breeds disqualified were due to failures of the vet in question and they are all healthy? I'm sure they could all claim "we were health checked". Just goes to show why independent vet checks are necessary.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Not sure if this has been posted before

Canine Alliance - Post Crufts meeting - Andrew Brace interview - YouTube

Says it all really


----------



## Emmastace (Feb 11, 2011)

rona said:


> Not sure if this has been posted before
> 
> Canine Alliance - Post Crufts meeting - Andrew Brace interview - YouTube
> 
> Says it all really


I've watched that twice now and still don't know what point he is trying to mke exactly.

What I do know is........looking around that room........ I would have fitted in like that meeting was made for me.........I played prop in womens rugby until I was 48 years old......seems to have qualified me for front row in that arena too !


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> I've watched that twice now and still don't know what point he is trying to mke exactly.


here you go :

1. To ensure that every single dog that goes to a KC show has been health checked* before *it is entered

2. to ensure that Kc supports the breeders and owners who *do* health test, collate and use data, fund health research, calculate COI's , use the Kc's Mate Select service, ratify the new breed standards and amend their breeding programmes accordingly and are members of it's own ABS scheme ...instead of simply accepting their money and publicly humiliating them.

3. to devise a set of recommendations for the Kc to act on.



> Don't worry, I didn't expect you to answer it; you've answered nothing else sensibly after all.


reducing a debate to the level of personal insults is simply pathetic 

..can I ask ...did you get* your* dog from a breeder who health tested ?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> What could help the Canine Alliance... Actions such as getting corrections into the 6 breeds who failed, as soon as possible


In fairness, that will take time - for a start, even if they began today, it would take several years before we saw a change.

I don't expect to see different dogs in the ring later this year, change does take time.

I would settle for an acknowledgement and realisation of the problem and them working towards it.

I think what most people get angry at is the denial that there are problems.


----------



## spaniel04 (Nov 27, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> In fairness, that will take time - for a start, even if they began today, it would take several years before we saw a change.
> 
> I don't expect to see different dogs in the ring later this year, change does take time.
> 
> ...


I very much agree with this statement. I too actually think there is a degree of self delusion and denial amongst some show clumber spaniel breeders going on. I found this statement on a show breeders website Erinveine Clumber Spaniel Breeders Puppies Australia

How can a loose fitting eye lid that exposes a certain amount of very sensitive, moist tissue around the eye actually protect the eye? A hawed eye will always collect dust and debris and make the eye more prone to injury.
It might be a good starting point for breeders to fully understand that loose, droopy eye lids are never a good idea, especially not in a flushing spaniel.


----------



## Ewan (Mar 1, 2012)

It's nice to see they have their priorities straight. As far as I can tell lots of people in FB don't know exactly what the agenda for the CA actually is. It's alll rather vague, it all ready seems to be causing some concern but instead of them decided on a clear and coherent direction in which to take the group they are more concerned with bank accounts, branding and merchandising:

"Wednesday's meeting will probably be fully taken up with a lengthy agenda that covers setting up the CA in the best possible format, establishing membership details, database control, bank accounts, website, social networking facilities, branding and merchandising etc and it is unlikely that there will be any time for further individual topics. However, once tomorrow is over official statements will be made as to how any topics can be put forward by members. Please be patient. This HAS TO BE DONE PROPERLY."


Everything I have seen so far does not fill me with confidence. Are these not the same people that took legal advice from a man that was disbar for trying to exploit a child killer for his own personal gain. They really don't do themselves any favours.

First order of business should be setting a clear agenda, then once people know what the group is truly about then then can worry about collecting money from everyone.

Oh above quote is from Andrew Brace.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> In fairness, that will take time - for a start, even if they began today, it would take several years before we saw a change.
> 
> I don't expect to see different dogs in the ring later this year, change does take time.


.... Like a breath of fresh air  thank you for that !

there may be a few die hards that are sticking their heads in the sand and denying that some breeds must move away from over exaggeration - but most of us are not in denial - we ARE trying to do something about it and this could clearly be seen at this years Crufts where more moderate types are beginning to filter through and gain top honours - but it WILL take time - by concentrating on breeding out one fault we have to be really careful that we don't allow others - perhaps worse ones- to come through ..and we have to work with the gene pools we have - but those more moderate dogs MUST be seen in the ring even if they are not perfect yet -if they are hidden away at home then other breeders will not know about them and subsequently use them in their breeding programmes.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

rona said:


> Not sure if this has been posted before
> 
> Canine Alliance - Post Crufts meeting - Andrew Brace interview - YouTube
> 
> Says it all really


Around about 2.10 mins in:

"Our wish is to have a KC that fosters the interests of the breeders, the exhibitors and the judges".

Not the interests of the dogs then. Pretty sure that forgetting the interests of the dogs was how this whole thing started.....


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Bijou said:


> 1. To ensure that every single dog that goes to a KC show has been health checked* before *it is entered


Fine.. should mean all dogs pass the independent vet check... wait 6 breeds failed, some of which have been health checked before. Something is going wrong. Most recognize it's not the independent vet check.



> 2. to ensure that Kc supports the breeders and owners who *do* health test, collate and use data, fund health research, calculate COI's , use the Kc's Mate Select service, ratify the new breed standards and amend their breeding programmes accordingly and are members of it's own ABS scheme ...instead of simply accepting their money and publicly humiliating them.


The KC already does support these but when breeds fail an independent vet check despite this something else needs to be done. Removing the check isn't it. 9 "at risk" breeds passed the vet check. This shows a lot of the progress is working. As for humiliating them, sorry, the reaction and the information coming out of the Canine Alliance has done far more harm than simply accepting the issues and detailing what is going on to correct the problems. If they have nothing to hide why haven't the vet check reports been publicized along with what is being done within the breed to negate the chances of it happening in future?



> 3. to devise a set of recommendations for the Kc to act on.


From what we've seen so far, lobbying to get what people want, not what is best for the dogs.



> ..can I ask ...did you get* your* dog from a breeder who health tested ?


Nope, first dog we didn't know about health testing, others are rescues. I care about dogs, certainly not just their looks. I'm not adverse to taking care of a sick dog but would like dogs not to be in sick in the first place. Look at my signature and you will see I am quite prepared to push for health testing.



rocco33 said:


> In fairness, that will take time - for a start, even if they began today, it would take several years before we saw a change.


However acknowledgement of the issues and changing the standard would be a positive action which wouldn't take years. Progress has been made already. Seems the Canine Alliance want people to turn a blind eye to other areas.

I think what Bijou is missing is many of us aren't expecting miracles. We simply want acknowledgement of the problems, practical actions to solve them and independent checks to ensure things are being done.

I for one have a crossbreed and two KC non-recognized breeds. I also however do have a pedigree breed even if it is handicapped (blind). Lets face it, no guarantees of health are ever going to be possible. I'm not anti pedigree, in fact I would like nothing more than to be able to recommend the pedigree "label" as an example of how to do things. This "high standard" is the impression that's been pushed for years and whilst it is true in certain areas it fails in others. The same goes for the Kennel Club Assured Breeders Scheme which still has faults. Only 15% of breeders have been checked, little is advertised in regards to the fact it's open to all not just pedigree and there are restrictions on non-pedigree breeders.

Seems to me that the KC has become aware that without visible change either legislation will become the only way forward or they will be replaced with a different independent organization whose remit is health and all dogs. They've therefore adapted, pushing the health of dogs as the primary concern rather than the breed clubs and "membership" and opening up more to dogs outside those breeds recognized. The Canine Alliance seem to want to lobby so they can continue as before with token gestures and keeping everything in-house.

EDIT:


Bijou said:


> we have to work with the gene pools we have - but those more moderate dogs MUST be seen in the ring even if they are not perfect yet -if they are hidden away at home then other breeders will not know about them and subsequently use them in their breeding programmes.


Why do you need to win a ribbon/certificate to show? Why not use the opportunity to educate and inform if the goal is a dog's health rather than owners?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Bijou said:


> ..can I ask ...did you get* your* dog from a breeder who health tested ?


What those same health tests that the show fraternity fought so hard against in the first place.
They didn't need them you see, they had been breeding "healthy" dogs for years. 
Oh, does that sound familiar?



rocco33 said:


> In fairness, that will take time - for a start, even if they began today, it would take several years before we saw a change.
> 
> I don't expect to see different dogs in the ring later this year, change does take time.
> 
> ...


While I agree with this, the Clumbers and I believe the Bloodhounds are already almost there with the working types.
Might speed things up a little if some of these were used



myshkin said:


> Around about 2.10 mins in:
> 
> "Our wish is to have a KC that fosters the interests of the breeders, the exhibitors and the judges".
> 
> Not the interests of the dogs then. Pretty sure that forgetting the interests of the dogs was how this whole thing started.....


That's the bit that shocked me.


----------



## cavmad (Jan 27, 2009)

It would be good if all dogs that go to shows have health checks but who would do the health checks,their own vets who they help pay their wages or certain registered vets paid by the kennel club. Also a silly question if a dog gets BOB and then fails the vet check does that stop it qualifiying for crufts because it is not a healthy representatve of the breed. To me if it is still allowed to qualify it is a complete mockery how can they let proved unhealthy dogs into Crufts Also will the KC let pups from these dogs be registered because again they say they are trying to improve the breeds so by that view they shouldnt allow it I'm not trying to be aggrssive if it comes across like this i'm sorry but i'm just intersted


----------



## spaniel04 (Nov 27, 2011)

rona said:


> Rona, you are right, the working clumbers are slowly getting there. The trouble is even if their owners wanted to show them they couldn't, because of the docking ban. They can't even be shown in the game keeper's ring at Crufts.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

spaniel04 said:


> Rona, you are right, the working clumbers are slowly getting there. The trouble is even if their owners wanted to show them they couldn't, because of the docking ban. They can't even be shown in the game keeper's ring at Crufts.


No but they could be used as studs etc. I'm sure the working people would have no objection to helping improve the breed as a whole 
Would certainly safeguard the breed further


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

cavmad said:


> It would be good if all dogs that go to shows have health checks but who would do the health checks,their own vets who they help pay their wages or certain registered vets paid by the kennel club. Also a silly question if a dog gets BOB and then fails the vet check does that stop it qualifiying for crufts because it is not a healthy representatve of the breed. To me if it is still allowed to qualify it is a complete mockery how can they let proved unhealthy dogs into Crufts Also will the KC let pups from these dogs be registered because again they say they are trying to improve the breeds so by that view they shouldnt allow it I'm not trying to be aggrssive if it comes across like this i'm sorry but i'm just intersted


I actually disagree with this. We have no eliminating faults in the UK and I think that is a good thing. What is important is that problems are accepted and addressed. If you take some of the dogs that failed at crufts, they were (as has been acknowledged by the vet) far more moderate than those competing a few years ago. Yes, they had faults and these need to be worked on, but to throw away those that are making progress is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you throw those away, what are you left with? For me it's quite simply. The dog may be the best on the day so it wins or gets placed (it has always been a puzzle to me why placings are not withheld in showing - you can have only one dog entered and it wins. This would not happen with working events and it is not uncommon for places to be withheld if the judge thinks that even the best dog on the day is not up to winning standard). So the best dog on the day wins or maybe gets placed, but may or may not be considered good enough to go forward due to faults - any faults/reasons will be in the write up.

Again, I'm happy to be corrected, but don't you get a write up by the judge about your dog when you show? So, in spite of a win or placing or qualification to crufts (or whatever), the bad points as well as the good points are noted? So the responsibility for this lies mainly with the judges - perhaps they need to get together with the vets and really sort this out.

Perhaps it's because I come from a working competitive background rather than a showing one where you quickly realise that good and bad times go hand in hand  - dogs are great levellers and failure is just as easy as success. You take great joy in the good bits and quickly learn where you need to improve. This is what I see missing from the show folk.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> While I agree with this, the Clumbers and I believe the Bloodhounds are already almost there with the working types.
> Might speed things up a little if some of these were used




But very true


----------



## Emmastace (Feb 11, 2011)

Surely any health checks on dogs intended for the show ring need to be performed by completely independent vets. Vets who have no connection with the owner, breeder or handler OR the breed in question to be completely unbiased in their opinion. We all know that vets and breeders get to know each other so well a blind eye is turned on too many occasions. The health checks should be performed at the very earliest stages of showing and reviewed periodically thereafter.
From a completely lay view, I have a problem in the premise that we should allow whatever time it takes to breed out health flaws. 
For so many reasons, any dog that has been bred for conformity to breed standard that has it's own health and that of it's offspring compromised in doing so should not be allowed to be shown from now on.
Breeders should not benefit in status or financially for breeding this way. Why should they be able to display a rosette or cup on the back of their dogs pain and discomfort. Why should they be able to benefit in stud or litter fees (I acknowledge most breeders do not benefit financially but you can bet those with champion in their name benefit more than most). Why should they be able to dupe the general public into believing they have bought the best pup they can because CC appears all over the pedigree.
I can't see how any individual that professes to care about their dog or dogs in general can condone any of it.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> Again, I'm happy to be corrected, but don't you get a write up by the judge about your dog when you show? So, in spite of a win or placing or qualification to crufts (or whatever), the bad points as well as the good points are noted? So the responsibility for this lies mainly with the judges - perhaps they need to get together with the vets and really sort this out.


yes you do get a critique but only on the first 3 placed dogs which generally means that the judge thought highly of them - personally I'd prefer the FCI system wheredogs are graded from Excellent down to Not Acceptable

Judges do withold placings or dismiss dogs from the ring, this was done at Crufts in a number of breeds including my own breed -



> So the responsibility for this lies mainly with the judges - perhaps they need to get together with the vets and really sort this out.


but there has to be an acknowledgement that judges are NOT vets and have only 2-3 minutes per dog and no specialist equipment in the ring .


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Wow, not read every post as I haven't got time unfortunately, but there are a lot of members who obviously bought their dogs from breeders who health test and ensure their breeding plan doesn't produce any problems they could possibly forsee producing health problems. Obviously there are those who rescue dogs as well, I'm not saying you're all perfect puppy *buyers* of course, but I pale in the shadow of all the saintly members who've rescued or bought guaranteed health tested not to ever develop a problem puppy type members who've posted. I'm years behind! 

Well I personally think that ALL people who love their pedigree breeds should, in the face of the obvious vehement dislike of ALL pedigree breeders, simply pack up and let their dogs procreate to produce animals with the mythical hybrid vigour. Because we're obviously all breeding or want to breed, unhealthy, unhealth tested animals, and haven't a clue what we're doing. I never want a vet to look my dogs over, oh no, that's right, I'm the silly sausage who health tests to the hilt and may not get one pup from all the planning I put in, because I put my dogs first.

Hmmm, seems to be an awful lot of trust for these independent vets, obviously us breeders can't be trusted, oh that's right, I'm the one who didn't breed from her bitch despite health testing more than many bother, and the vet at the time informed me Indie had mild ectropian (which is more obvious when she's tired) and she wouldn't put it on her records because I wanted (at that point) to take a litter. Those trust worthy vets eh! Glad there's obviously such a lot of faith put in them for our dogs and their future health and well being. I think one person already said it, I've only met one vet who knows as much as me about Labradors, and I've had several terrible experiences with vets where they've blatantly really not had a clue what to do in a given situation, including the vet that overdosed and c*cked up an injection which killed a pet budgie, and of course the one that didn't want to acknowledge Indie's mild ectropian who later went on to leave her with a dangling hind leg for nearly a week with a completely ruptured cruciate. I'd LOVE to see the show ring in charge of all those vets  

Having got the general gist of the thread, it's great to see all pedigree breeders lumped in just like sticking all breeders down as puppy farmers; so, damned if you do, damned if you don't, either way, no matter what people who genuinely love their pedigree breeds do and want for the future, it won't be good enough for some and we will always be seen to be doing wrong somewhere. It would bother me except I only really care about the opinions of those I respect, the rest I just find mildly amusing, sometimes a little saddening.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Emmastace said:


> Surely any health checks on dogs intended for the show ring need to be performed by completely independent vets. Vets who have no connection with the owner, breeder or handler OR the breed in question to be completely unbiased in their opinion. We all know that vets and breeders get to know each other so well a blind eye is turned on too many occasions. The health checks should be performed at the very earliest stages of showing and reviewed periodically thereafter.


The problem is that vets have different opinions too, and given that the KC want GP vets (rather than specialists) to do the tests, it leaves a degree of interpretation and personal opinion - vets do get to know breeders, but equally, there are many vets that are quite against showing, the KC and pedigree dogs in general, so bias could work both ways. Health tests (not the showing ones) are done by specialists who have been appointed to a panel. I do think it would be better to use appointed GP vets who have a clear remit and understanding. Now this may have been the case already, but I do think it needs to be done by an appointed independant vet.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> From a completely lay view, I have a problem in the premise that we should allow whatever time it takes to breed out health flaws.
> For so many reasons, any dog that has been bred for conformity to breed standard that has it's own health and that of it's offspring compromised in doing so should not be allowed to be shown from now on.


Many breeds have a conformation far removed form the original wolf like type - lets face it all short legged breeds cannot move as freely or as fast as longer legged ones - the giant breeds live shorter lives because of their sheer size, all the Brachy breeds will pant more than those with longer muzzles, there are very fine boned breeds and very long coated breeds - there are breeds with steep angulation and those that are over angulated what are you saying here that it's now not acceptable to breed them ? ...or is breeding them still ok and it's still Ok for the public to buy them ... it's just showing them that's wrong ? ..how hypocritical is that ?

I have what is probably one of the most 'natural' of all dog breeds - and it's pretty rare to see one - they are about as popular as a fox in a hen house ( and I'm glad it's that way  )- people LOVE the unusual extreme breeds it's this that's placed the Pug, the Sharpei and the Bulldog amongst the breeds with the highest increase in registrations - and if we're going to continue to have all the variation we love so much then it has to be bred for - surely the show ring is the place where a breeds progress can can be seen and monitored - show breeders are NOT the enemy but part of the solution


----------



## Emmastace (Feb 11, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> The problem is that vets have different opinions too, and given that the KC want GP vets (rather than specialists) to do the tests, it leaves a degree of interpretation and personal opinion - vets do get to know breeders, but equally, there are many vets that are quite against showing, the KC and pedigree dogs in general, so bias could work both ways. Health tests (not the showing ones) are done by specialists who have been appointed to a panel. I do think it would be better to use appointed GP vets who have a clear remit and understanding. Now this may have been the case already, but I do think it needs to be done by an appointed independant vet.


I completely agree that this subject is a mine field and arguements could go on forever as to who is suitable to make these decisions.

Bottom line, I don't think any dog that has health problems should be able to win a competition that many would see as an endorsement that it is one of the best examples of it's type.
If all dogs with health issues were banned from showing it would give those healthy examples a chance to win and move forward into the position where they and their offspring would be desired and their healthy lines are the basis of a new breed standard. I have absolutely no sympathy with anyone that has allowed suffering of animals in order to win a few bits of ribbon and the status that goes with it.

And don't even get me started on the argument of the embarrassment of those owners who's dogs weren't allowed to go any further. What kind of nonsense is that. 10 minutes of a red face cos they were caught out is WORSE than the potential lifetime of discomfort, pain or premature death of the animal they bred. Quite honestly they should be bloody ashamed.............like I said, don't even get me started.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Bottom line, I don't think any dog that has health problems should be able to win a competition that many would see as an endorsement that it is one of the best examples of it's type.


I'm not a fan of showing and do believe it leads to exaggerations however, I think your view is what has been created by the media hype/Pedigree dogs exposed programme. The fact is that the show dogs are more healthy than the pet bred/puppy farmed pedigrees of the same breed. The vast majority of show dogs are very healthy. So we are not talking about dogs with health problems being shown. What we are talking about is dogs that have been bred with features that could lead to health problems but are not unhealthy, rather than unhealthy dogs winning. There is a big difference.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Bijou said:


> Many breeds have a conformation far removed form the original wolf like type - lets face it all short legged breeds cannot move as freely or as fast as longer legged ones - the giant breeds live shorter lives because of their sheer size, all the Brachy breeds will pant more than those with longer muzzles, there are very fine boned breeds and very long coated breeds - there are breeds with steep angulation and those that are over angulated what are you saying here that it's now not acceptable to breed them ? ...or is breeding them still ok and it's still Ok for the public to buy them ... it's just showing them that's wrong ? ..how hypocritical is that ?
> 
> I have what is probably one of the most 'natural' of all dog breeds - and it's pretty rare to see one - they are about as popular as a fox in a hen house ( and I'm glad it's that way  )- people LOVE the unusual extreme breeds it's this that's placed the Pug, the Sharpei and the Bulldog amongst the breeds with the highest increase in registrations - and if we're going to continue to have all the variation we love so much then it has to be bred for - surely the show ring is the place where a breeds progress can can be seen and monitored - show breeders are NOT the enemy but part of the solution


I would actually add to that it is in part puppy buyers who want squishy faces, droopy saggy eyes, wrinkles all over, excessive hair etc, etc. I couldn't possibly count the amount of times you hear people go 'Aaahhhhhhh' over something like a basset pup with ears and wrinkles to the floor. The issues are a lot more complex than just blaming a minority of show breeders for problems with certain breeds. It's about time that the actual health and welfare of dogs was more fully understood by anyone who wanted to own one, surely in this day and age it's just not acceptable for puppy buyers to continue to be duped by unscrupulous breeders in the way that many are?

Slightly OT but the concept that all problems with dogs seems to be down to a handful of show breeders, who, let's face it, probably produce a tiny amount of the proportion of dogs bred overall, and yet are being blamed (some fairly albeit) for the downfall of all pedigree dogs, seems a bit far fetched. There are plenty of exaggerated dogs bred elsewhere, including cross breeds, I can think of one infamous member who created their own breeds which included repeating a mating that had produced an inherited eye condition the first time round for one pup.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Hmmm, seems to be an awful lot of trust for these independent vets, obviously us breeders can't be trusted, oh that's right, I'm the one who didn't breed from her bitch despite health testing more than many bother, and the vet at the time informed me Indie had mild ectropian (which is more obvious when she's tired) and she wouldn't put it on her records because I wanted (at that point) to take a litter. Those trust worthy vets eh! Glad there's obviously such a lot of faith put in them for our dogs and their future health and well being. I think one person already said it, I've only met one vet who knows as much as me about Labradors, and I've had several terrible experiences with vets where they've blatantly really not had a clue what to do in a given situation, including the vet that overdosed and c*cked up an injection which killed a pet budgie, and of course the one that didn't want to acknowledge Indie's mild ectropian who later went on to leave her with a dangling hind leg for nearly a week with a completely ruptured cruciate. I'd LOVE to see the show ring in charge of all those vets


This utter animosity towards the vets at crufts is something i've seen all too often on the canine alliance facebook group. People have known for a while that these vet check were to take place, they knew what was to be looked at in the 15 breeds and as far as I can tell nobody had much of an issue. All the vets did was go out and do their job and some breeds got disqualified for faults that the *KC* had listed as unacceptable. Have you actually read the statement by Alison Skipper? - Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog: Crufts vet Alison Skipper has her say

I'd be interested to know what you don't trust about her and what other, better profession than the veterinary one you think the kc should use to assess animal health. Whether you think the vet check system is right or wrong, attacking people who blatently are only out to improve canine health isn't nice to see and won't help your cause.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> This utter animosity towards the vets at crufts is something i've seen all too often on the canine alliance facebook group. People have known for a while that these vet check were to take place, they knew what was to be looked at in the 15 breeds and as far as I can tell nobody had much of an issue. All the vets did was go out and do their job and some breeds got disqualified for faults that the *KC* had listed as unacceptable. Have you actually read the statement by Alison Skipper? - Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog: Crufts vet Alison Skipper has her say
> 
> I'd be interested to know what you don't trust about her and what other, better profession than the veterinary one you think the kc should use to assess animal health. Whether you think the vet check system is right or wrong, attacking people who blatently are only out to improve canine health isn't nice to see and won't help your cause.


What?  I'm not talking about Alison Skipper, I'm talking about vets that have made major c*ck ups in my own personal experience. I'm not even talking about one vet, just pointing out that vets are human and as such that not all of them are as good as the next one, and some can and do make mistakes, even fatal ones! I'm not suggesting that dogs aren't checked over by vets, my post was slightly tongue in cheek for the simple reason that it seems damned if you do want to push for all dogs to be checked by a vet that is actually appropriately qualified, not just a snake or fish specialist roped in to look at dogs for a change as an example, but then some of us have been supporting health testing and progress in knowledge for health in dogs for as long as we've had dogs, not just since PDE, which is when the vast majority of people suddenly realised precious Poochie the third came from a brother/sister mating and no health tests were done, then blamed ALL pedigree breeders for the situation. I'm sorry, but the issues are much more complex, and I get fed up of being lumped in with people who couldn't give a damn about their dogs, and are willing to compromises their welfare simply to win, when it's something I wouldn't entertain, nor do any of the breeders I know breed purely and solely to win for appearances. Apologies for the rant, not aimed specifically at you, just a general grrrrr moment


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> I'm not a fan of showing and do believe it leads to exaggerations however, I think your view is what has been created by the media hype/Pedigree dogs exposed programme. The fact is that the show dogs are more healthy than the pet bred/puppy farmed pedigrees of the same breed. The vast majority of show dogs are very healthy. So we are not talking about dogs with health problems being shown. What we are talking about is dogs that have been bred with features that could lead to health problems but are not unhealthy, rather than unhealthy dogs winning. There is a big difference.


Not comparing the merits of how the dogs were bred as thats a different debate  but where is the information/data to confirm its a *fact* that show dogs are more healthy?


----------



## Emmastace (Feb 11, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> I'm not a fan of showing and do believe it leads to exaggerations however, *I think your view is what has been created by the media hype/Pedigree dogs exposed programme. The fact is that the show dogs are more healthy than the pet bred/puppy farmed pedigrees of the same breed. * The vast majority of show dogs are very healthy. So we are not talking about dogs with health problems being shown. What we are talking about is dogs that have been bred with features that could lead to health problems but are not unhealthy, rather than unhealthy dogs winning. There is a big difference.


Absolutely not - I didn't see the more than 2 minutes of the 2nd PDE programme and wasn't aware of the first one at all. I don't read newspapers and haven't in 50 years. Unfortunately my opinion is formed from my own observation and started in childhood when my father stopped showing his dogs for the reasons we are now discussing.
I may not have made myself clear, a large part of my issue is that show dogs offspring often end up in pet homes. We all know indiscriminate breeding happens there because pet owners choose a pup based on the amount of red shown on the champdogs pedigree pages and think they have a fine specimen they can pair up with any old other fine specimen. 
If the desirable lines were proven to be healthy or those that are healthy ended up as desirable lines ALL dogs benefit. It can still go wrong of course.

I am sorry if I come across as someone that can be influenced by mass hysteria and propoganda. You would think that my many years of working in criminal defence law would have cured me of that!


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> What?  I'm not talking about Alison Skipper, I'm talking about vets that have made major c*ck ups in my own personal experience.


Sorry if I misunderstood you but it did seem to be directed at the independent vets at crufts as you stated "Hmmm, seems to be an awful lot of trust for these independent vets....".



> I'm not even talking about one vet, just pointing out that vets are human and as such that not all of them are as good as the next one, and some can and do make mistakes, even fatal ones!


But that's obvious and not really relevent to the issue of vet checks at shows. Nobody uses the fact that there are bad doctors as an argument against cancer screening.



> I'm not suggesting that dogs aren't checked over by vets, my post was slightly tongue in cheek for the simple reason that it seems damned if you do want to push for all dogs to be checked by a vet that is actually appropriately qualified, not just a snake or fish specialist roped in to look at dogs for a change as an example,


All vets are qualified to treat all domestic species, though some choose to specialise. The vet checks are looking for very basic things that i'm sure your average fish vet can spot, even so the two of the vets we know were at crufts were highly experienced small animal specialists.



> but then some of us have been supporting health testing and progress in knowledge for health in dogs for as long as we've had dogs, not just since PDE, which is when the vast majority of people suddenly realised precious Poochie the third came from a brother/sister mating and no health tests were done, then blamed ALL pedigree breeders for the situation.


Nobody is blaming ALL pedigree breeders but there is clearly a large, vocal and influential group of people within some breeds that are not caring for the health and welfare of their dogs. These people need to stop being rewarded in the show ring and this issue won't go away until that happens.


----------



## Emmastace (Feb 11, 2011)

Nobody is blaming ALL pedigree breeders but there is clearly a large, vocal and influential group of people within some breeds that are not caring for the health and welfare of their dogs. These people need to stop being rewarded in the show ring and this issue won't go away until that happens.[/QUOTE]

Here here


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> Sorry if I misunderstood you but it did seem to be directed at the independent vets at crufts as you stated "Hmmm, seems to be an awful lot of trust for these independent vets....".
> 
> But that's obvious and not really relevent to the issue of vet checks at shows. Nobody uses the fact that there are bad doctors as an argument against cancer screening.
> 
> ...


I tell you what, go back through this thread and show me one person who appears to want to hide or not support proper vet checks for pedigree dogs. You are preaching to the converted, who just seem to take a bashing whenever pedigree dogs and breeding are mentioned on this forum. Cross breeding is fine, but we can't mention that, but pedigree breeding, nope, we are all stuck in one big pot because we're all the same. Or at least that's what it feels like for anyone who likes their pedigree breeds, and it can get incredibly frustrating and boring having to explain things so many times (not to you necessarily but health testing springs to mind and all the calls for compulsory testing and then what do you do with that information, do you start drawing acceptable lines in the sand? We know very little now so that for me would be dangerous territory and potentially very restrictive for some gene pools to cut out potential dogs that could produce perfectly healthy pups *if* the information about their status is used in the right way) - someone asked earlier about evidence for poorly bred dogs as opposed to show bred pedigree breeds, I can't point you in the direction of any one place, but take a look at 'Lab Health' which has quite a lot of info relating to Labradors and some of the health problems owners have come up against with their dogs, the co-founder of the site (Swarthy from here is the other site owner/founder) is a lady called Wendy, with a Labrador called Charlie, who has had to have a double hip replacement, he was bought as a six week old pup out of the small ads, sadly, he's not a one off case, there are many more like him. I can't think of one show bred pedigree Lab that's had to have even a remotely similar operation, but I can think of several straight away from byb's and puppy farmers. Right, off to walk the girls for a bit and get on with some more work.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Wow, not read every post as I haven't got time unfortunately, but there are a lot of members who obviously bought their dogs from breeders who health test and ensure their breeding plan doesn't produce any problems they could possibly forsee producing health problems. Obviously there are those who rescue dogs as well, I'm not saying you're all perfect puppy *buyers* of course, but I pale in the shadow of all the saintly members who've rescued or bought guaranteed health tested not to ever develop a problem puppy type members who've posted. I'm years behind!
> 
> Well I personally think that ALL people who love their pedigree breeds should, in the face of the obvious vehement dislike of ALL pedigree breeders, simply pack up and let their dogs procreate to produce animals with the mythical hybrid vigour. Because we're obviously all breeding or want to breed, unhealthy, unhealth tested animals, and haven't a clue what we're doing. I never want a vet to look my dogs over, oh no, that's right, I'm the silly sausage who health tests to the hilt and may not get one pup from all the planning I put in, because I put my dogs first.
> 
> ...


I will say it again, I and Im sure a lot of the others are not saying all breeders only do it for glory and put themselves before the dogs. We are not saying all breeders are bad. Im certainly not, there are good breeders, who do all the health testing and rear good socialised healthy puppies no doubt about it. There is, however, ones that are not good and carry on as they have always done and have no intentions to change.

These are the Breeders that every one is unhappy about. All these threads have really been about the 15 breeds, ones there is deffinately a problem in a lot caused by exaggerations. Forget a vet, in a lot of the cases you dont have to be one to see there is something not right. In the main anyone can see red eyes, eyes with discharge, little short legs trying to move the dog about, dogs over long in the back, "furnishings" AKA loads of baggy skin hanging down from the face body and legs. Snuffling and snorting and panting as they move around, or in somecases just when it gets that bit too warm and they are doing nothing. This is the reason why people get angry and frustrated. That and the fact that some Breeders wont do anything about it and still continue to make excuses.

Im sure if you asked anyone on here their deffination of a good breeder they will all say the same things, One who health tests, cares for their dogs, gives them a normal happy life, and rears healthy socialised puppies to the best of their possible abilities. These good breeders have everyone s backing no question about it,, they are not the ones people are talking about, or saying all breeders are the same.

The thing that is peeing everyone off is the fact is the illusion trying to be given that the Kennel club and, all breeders and exhibitioners and judges, 
are the be all and end all and all squeaky clean they are not!! The good needs to stand up and be counted and the bad need to be ostracised.
When people try though to stand up and say its not right in my breed, this that or the other needs to be adressed they are the ones that are ostracised and treated like dirt. Where the bad ones a lot of the time are all going on in their own sweet way they have always done. I just cant understand it. If I personally was doing the right thing I would stand up, and I certainly wouldnt be willing to sit and be lumped in with the bad ones.

I know good breeders and ex breeders and I know they exist and probably good do outweigh the bad. 5 of my dogs are rescued, and in fact the one that wasnt although Health tested parents, registered etc etc. was the problem oddly enough.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I tell you what, go back through this thread and show me one person who appears to want to hide or not support proper vet checks for pedigree dogs. You are preaching to the converted, who just seem to take a bashing whenever pedigree dogs and breeding are mentioned on this forum. Cross breeding is fine, but we can't mention that, but pedigree breeding, nope, we are all stuck in one big pot because we're all the same. Or at least that's what it feels like for anyone who likes their pedigree breeds, and it can get incredibly frustrating and boring having to explain things so many times (not to you necessarily but health testing springs to mind and all the calls for compulsory testing and then what do you do with that information, do you start drawing acceptable lines in the sand? We know very little now so that for me would be dangerous territory and potentially very restrictive for some gene pools to cut out potential dogs that could produce perfectly healthy pups *if* the information about their status is used in the right way) - someone asked earlier about evidence for poorly bred dogs as opposed to show bred pedigree breeds, I can't point you in the direction of any one place, but take a look at 'Lab Health' which has quite a lot of info relating to Labradors and some of the health problems owners have come up against with their dogs, the co-founder of the site (Swarthy from here is the other site owner/founder) is a lady called Wendy, with a Labrador called Charlie, who has had to have a double hip replacement, he was bought as a six week old pup out of the small ads, sadly, he's not a one off case, there are many more like him. I can't think of one show bred pedigree Lab that's had to have even a remotely similar operation, but I can think of several straight away from byb's and puppy farmers. Right, off to walk the girls for a bit and get on with some more work.


You could cut down the gene pool of Lab by half without risking the breed.
If all the cover ups that go on were stopped by those "good" breeders then I might start believing that the show people actually care


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Emmastace said:


> Absolutely not - I didn't see the more than 2 minutes of the 2nd PDE programme and wasn't aware of the first one at all. I don't read newspapers and haven't in 50 years. Unfortunately my opinion is formed from my own observation and started in childhood when my father stopped showing his dogs for the reasons we are now discussing.
> I may not have made myself clear, a large part of my issue is that show dogs offspring often end up in pet homes. We all know indiscriminate breeding happens there because pet owners choose a pup based on the amount of red shown on the champdogs pedigree pages and think they have a fine specimen they can pair up with any old other fine specimen.
> If the desirable lines were proven to be healthy or those that are healthy ended up as desirable lines ALL dogs benefit. It can still go wrong of course.
> 
> I am sorry if I come across as someone that can be influenced by mass hysteria and propoganda. You would think that my many years of working in criminal defence law would have cured me of that!


I apologise - I should have said is similar to those created by....


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Emmastace said:


> but there is clearly a large, vocal and influential group of people within some breeds that are not caring for the health and welfare of their dogs.


I think there are a few, but not the majority. Most show breeders care passionately about the health and welfare of their dogs. However, they are so heavily involved that IMO they are blinded by the problem and that is why they come across as not being interested in the health of their breed. I suspect the majority don't even think there is a problem - certainly didn't in the past, which is different from not caring. It is easy for us to see from the outside, but when you are immersed in something like these breeders are it is difficult to see the woods for the trees.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> These are the Breeders that every one is unhappy about. All these threads have really been about the 15 breeds, ones there is deffinately a problem in a lot caused by exaggerations. Forget a vet, in a lot of the cases you dont have to be one to see there is something not right. In the main anyone can see red eyes, eyes with discharge, little short legs trying to move the dog about, dogs over long in the back, "furnishings" AKA loads of baggy skin hanging down from the face body and legs. Snuffling and snorting and panting as they move around, or in somecases just when it gets that bit too warm and they are doing nothing. This is the reason why people get angry and frustrated. That and the fact that some Breeders wont do anything about it and still continue to make excuses.


I agree, and having attended a breed seminar where I was the only one with working bred dogs, it *is* frustrating hearing the talk. But I do think this is because they simply cannot see the wood for the trees rather than a blatent disregard for health, after all, all these breeders will be using health tests. I think this is one of the reasons why the KC took a sledge hammer to it and made it so public. It is not an easy thing to change such deeply held perceptions.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Sled dog hotel said:


> When people try though to stand up and say its not right in my breed, this that or the other needs to be adressed they are the ones that are ostracised and treated like dirt.


Which, ironically, is the reaction of many here to the Canine Alliance when they try and stand up for what's right.

Latest post by Andrew Brace:

"Speaking as an individual, my fervent wish is for the day when all purebred companion dogs come from recognised breeders who health-test all their dogs and commercial breeders do not exist."


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> Which, ironically, is the reaction of many here to the Canine Alliance when they try and stand up for what's right.
> 
> Latest post by Andrew Brace:
> 
> "Speaking as an individual, my fervent wish is for the day when all purebred companion dogs come from recognised breeders who health-test all their dogs and commercial breeders do not exist."


Just goes to show how out of touch he is. 
It's not about health testing now is it? 
Why don't they open their eye and ears?


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Snoringbear said:


> Which, ironically, is the reaction of many here to the Canine Alliance when they try and stand up for what's right.
> 
> Latest post by Andrew Brace:
> 
> "Speaking as an individual, my fervent wish is for the day when all purebred companion dogs come from recognised breeders who health-test all their dogs and commercial breeders do not exist."


The Interview with andrew brace didnt exactly endear the idea to the masses though you have to admit! Ok he has now come out with the above statement
so yes one would hope thats what he and they all are working towards.
Talk can be cheap though, its deed for the Breed that really counts, so lets see if they can and will walk the walk.

Certain breeders dont exactly fill people with endearment though either do they or fill people with confidence they are their own worse enemy. Look at some of the breeders interviewed on PDE you have to admit their responses were pretty bad sometimes. Or the Clumber woman, the copy had been leaked and still she is saying he was failed on a bit of eye redness due to heat and lights, when the report clearly didnt say that. The other ones are still a mystery, I still maintain if it says on that report injury to the eye only,
which I believe is being claimed by the owner then why not show it!! If the other reasons too were thought to be so unjust and irrelevant a reason, then why are they not showing them? I just dont get it.

It might be in theory assumed innocent until proven guilty, but even the defence has to produce evidence to prove that innocence I believe. If you have nothing to hide, or can prove what you are saying then why not prove it and end all the speculation. By evasion they are going to make themselves look guilty.

I dont know what it is I really dont, Is it denile, in which case someone should tell them its not just a river in Egypt, Ignorance the fact that they dont know as much about breeding and genetics as they think and make out,
Or is it that they really dont care and breeding and winning with top dogs are all that matters so they do know exactly what they are doing. TBH I should think that its likely one of the three. Whatever it is they are not doing themselves any favours, and neither are the ones who are good and not pointing out the problems others are making and the less then honest things. Then we are back to the few that do, and look at the treatment they get from everyone. The ones that have stood to be counted in the main havent exactly got knocked over in the rush of fellow breeders offering support and re-inforcement have they.

Is it any wonder in this light people are sceptical about the canine alliance.
Especially after Andrew Braces earlier interview/ opening gambit. Like I say Talk can be cheap.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I tell you what, go back through this thread and show me one person who appears to want to hide or not support proper vet checks for pedigree dogs.


Show me one person in this thread who is saying all breeders should be treated as anti dog. We are talking about 6 breeds out of 15 that failed (and many other different breeds not checked). 9 passed but rather than look at the positive and point towards this 9 passing, *pedigree breeders have rallied around those 6 who failed*. The reasons for these failures have still not been officially released, we only have statements, not copies of the vet report. (Cumber was leaked not released apparently). Step back a second... if people wanted to suspend independent checks on say police shootings how would you react?

Remember the Canine Alliance is what this thread is about. Show me other than one mention of health what actions by the Canine Alliance are for the benefit of generic dog health?

The main fault of the vet check is lack of appeal process. Is this discussed? No. Suspend vet checks, make all checks internal.. How does this look?

By banding together, once again breeders are allowing themselves to be branded together. Why don't any breeders actually stand up for the independent vet checks recognizing their worth? Can't they see that internal policing doesn't work and is open for abuse. By pushing the wrong agenda they are damaging their own cause.

I'll change the subject slightly. How would you want to go about changing public perception of pedigree breeders and repair possible damage from PDE? How about highlighting breeds which passed an independent vet check and how that shows progress has been made. Of course this isn't happening.

Edit:


Sled dog hotel said:


> The thing that is peeing everyone off is the fact is the illusion trying to be given that the Kennel club and, all breeders and exhibitioners and judges, are the be all and end all and all squeaky clean they are not!! The good needs to stand up and be counted and the bad need to be ostracised.


This.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Is Andrew Brace the spokesmen for the Alliance?

God help you


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> Which, ironically, is the reaction of many here to the Canine Alliance when they try and stand up for what's right.
> 
> Latest post by Andrew Brace:
> 
> "Speaking as an individual, my fervent wish is for the day when all purebred companion dogs come from recognised breeders who health-test all their dogs and commercial breeders do not exist."


If I believed their genuine priority was dog health then I would be fully behind the canine alliance. However I'm seeing a group hurriedly set up purely as a reaction to dogs failing vet checks and being prevented from progressing at crufts. They knew full well it could happen and nobody made any noise but I think it came as a shock when it turned out to be more than words by the kennel club. I also see a group with a primary aim of suspending vet checks immediately despite not really giving a convincing reason why. Yes they may say they want checks for all breeds but there is no reason for the current scheme to be suspended before that happens. The cynic in me sees a group trying their best to prevent inevitable change for as long as they can.

They wouldn't have to be very savy to know that spinning a line of being pro-health will gain them alot more credibility than coming out and saying that their priority is to maintain the status quo as long as possible. Of course I may be wrong and i'm more than willing to take the CA seriously if I see them taking positive steps in the future.


----------



## Tollisty (May 27, 2008)

rona said:


> Is Andrew Brace the spokesmen for the Alliance?
> 
> God help you


I know!!

It puts me off taking it seriously :frown2:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Tollisty said:


> I know!!
> 
> It puts me off taking it seriously :frown2:


The guy got fined didn't he, for not judging properly?


----------



## Tollisty (May 27, 2008)

rona said:


> The guy got fined didn't he, for not judging properly?


Yes. If he doesn't like your dog you get ignored.


----------



## Tollisty (May 27, 2008)

Sorry OT

but this is what he was fined for

Blackpool Ch show June 09 Border Collie ring - YouTube


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

So basically, if you're the head of what could potentially be an influential force against the KC and part of your aims are to promote health testing and ending puppy farms then there is absolutely no positive value in that because you are guilty by association by being part of the dog showing world. Understood. It's definitely far better to focus solely on the negatives and deride any positives, because that will really help to improve the lives of pedigree dogs.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> So basically, if you're the head of what could potentially be an influential force against the KC and part of your aims are to promote health testing and ending puppy farms then there is absolutely no positive value in that because you are guilty by association by being part of the dog showing world. Understood. It's definitely far better to focus solely on the negatives and deride any positives, because that will really help to improve the lives of pedigree dogs.


I think that pretty much sums up how I feel as well at the moment with all the negative comments and criticisms aimed at pedigree breeders and those who love their pedigree breeds. I don't think anyone denies that not every single breeder of pedigree dogs does it for the right reasons or even in the right way, rocco33's post earlier was spot on about being too close to see sometimes what's happening as well, it's not always *intentional* when things go astray and an exaggeration creeps in. I have had endless arguments about Labradors with conformation and fitness in the past, about the second thigh and whether a dog is overweight or not. As for halving the gene pool Rona, I'm sorry, but there seems to be a misconception that large numbers equals wide gene pool, that simply isn't always the case. Labradors have several splits in the breed between colour and *type* that means that there are several gene pools within the gene pool; not all of those are as wide as you might think.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> So basically, if you're the head of what could potentially be an influential force against the KC and part of your aims are to promote health testing and ending puppy farms then there is absolutely no positive value in that because you are guilty by association by being part of the dog showing world. Understood. It's definitely far better to focus solely on the negatives and deride any positives, because that will really help to improve the lives of pedigree dogs.


Tend to agree with this although

Promote health test - Great have my support
End Puppy Farming - Great have my support
Where's the fix issues within the current system and make sure health is treated seriously and openly and the number one priority. Health testing is only part of the process not the stopping point.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

rona said:


> Is Andrew Brace the spokesmen for the Alliance?
> 
> God help you


Must admit that did cross my mind too, If the ship was sinking and he was captain, I certainly wouldnt be holding out much hope for living out my natural to its full extent!!


----------



## Emmastace (Feb 11, 2011)

I'm getting really confused and don't understand how some opinions are being misinterpreted. 

Can someone explain how referring or alluding to a 'few' is read by 'some' as meaning 'all'.


----------



## Tollisty (May 27, 2008)

I think this group/club has been brewing for a while! The health testing at Crufts has just given people a shove to do something.

As I see it, it isn't just about the health checks and testing, it is a voice for the average exhibitor. A way of making the KC listen to what people want.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Snoringbear said:


> So basically, if you're the head of what could potentially be an influential force against the KC and part of your aims are to promote health testing and ending puppy farms then there is absolutely no positive value in that because you are guilty by association by being part of the dog showing world. Understood. It's definitely far better to focus solely on the negatives and deride any positives, because that will really help to improve the lives of pedigree dogs.


This is the point though It shouldnt be about being against the KC, It shouldnt be about an Alliance that fosters the Interests of the Breeders,exhibitors and Judges like he said the other day in that interview.
A proper Canine Alliance would be about every one, The KC, Breeders, Exhibitors, Judges, Geneticists, Vets, Absolutely every one working together with knowledge and skill together for one combined cause the Health and welfare and decent lives for the pedigree dog. The clues in the Title The Canine Alliance as in Dog, not breeders Judges and Exhibitors. Its not a representation either I can see it ending up as a we want this and we demand that.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> So basically, if you're the head of what could potentially be an influential force against the KC and part of your aims are to promote health testing and ending puppy farms then there is absolutely no positive value in that because you are guilty by association by being part of the dog showing world. Understood. It's definitely far better to focus solely on the negatives and deride any positives, because that will really help to improve the lives of pedigree dogs.


The kennel club actually acting on the Bateson reports recommendations and using independent vet checks to prevent exagerated dogs being rewarded = positive change.

The canine alliance seem to be the only group deriding this positive change and the fact it's headed by a man who seems to judge dogs only by looking at whether they possess teeth, a spine and a tail only ads to concerns.

People are not critising the canine alliance because they are associated with dog showing. I'm not sure you can get an organisation more associated with pedigree dogs and showing than the kennel club but I and I think many others fully support them on the vet check issue. People are only critising the canine alliance because they seem to want to stand in the way of progress.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

The proposals of the CA are far more progressive and have far greater longterm benefit than the KC. The CA want health testing for all breeds ad infinitum. The KC system is transient. In 2013 they will review the status of each HP Breeds and will be receiving applications from breed clubs to have them removed. Whom will be, as breed clubs don't like the stigma of being on the list. A good way for the KC to demonstrate it has moved forward with health is to remove breeds from the HP list. Once all gone, that's the end of veterinary assessment of show dogs.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sorry Goblin, I've just picked out a few things that you've said (and one other I think, there are quite a few sweeping statements if you look back through) about us pedigree dog breeders, perhaps you don't mean to include *all* of us, not that I am a breeder as such, but I'm lumping myself in with them for the sake of argument.



Goblin said:


> This is the problem... we hear "good breeders" and "doing things" but then we get denials, we get groups form. What we don't hear loudly are the facts. Why haven't the vet reports been released by those disqualified? Instead we get excuses. "They used an illegal instrument !" also known as a torch. This for many is simply an excuse and a poor one.


Ok, if it were me, I'd most likely be honest, and release the results, but I very likely wouldn't do it straight away, as I'd want a bit of time for it to sink in. This dog belongs to someone, it's not yours or mine, and it's unfair to criticise the owner without any evidence at all about why the dog failed under the vet at Crufts. I'd be gutted if my dog had failed under circumstances that were so guffed together as these vet checks seemed to be, if I felt that there wasn't a good reason. Having said that, if there is a problem and it has been picked up on by this vet, then it's only right that the dog should fail, but it's still not easy for an owner to take after their dog has passed various vet checks and done well in the show ring numerous times.



lennythecloud said:


> If these show folk had shown as much outrage each time a disabled dog won a rosette as they are now over these vet checks then some breeds would be in a far better place.


I didn't see a disabled dog win any rosettes, I did see a lame dog withdrawn (thankfully) and I did see a dog that was knuckling over put through but thankfully didn't get placed further. Not all the movement was *nice* either, and I think there's a keen eye on some of the breeds to try and make sure they don't loose focus. I know there are numerous gundog breeds that I'd say are ruined at least partly because of the way they've gone, but then I'd also argue those breeds wouldn't still be here in any form at all if it weren't for many of those who show, as they fell out of popularity with the shooting fraternity years ago. Instead of continually criticising one or both sides, surely now we have better knowledge than ever before, and are committed to a fit for function ideal, the way is to encourage change, not just criticise each other. I get fed up of being criticised for not attending a dog show for peke's just so I can stand at the side of the ring and harangue the ones that can't walk properly (dogs not owners that is) - I do have a job and a business as well as my *hobby* dabbling with the dogs.



Goblin said:


> I would say the pedigree dog fancy should be aware the tide has changed. No longer will Joe Public be content to allow them to accept health issues in their dogs as "normal". If they force changes then what is necessary is to push the legal process as described in Torture Breeding I for one would push and support this as we could no longer trust the pedigree fanciers to do what is best for their own dogs.


And again, this comes across as really patronising to me, I've learnt an awful lot over the last few years, and push for and promote knowing the health status of a dog, and using that in conjunction with other considerations to produce healthy pups that turn out to be a good example of a breed. Why am I suddenly going to have to be aware the tide has changed? Not only am I aware, but I know lots of other pedigree dog breeders/fanciers etc who are also aware, it isn't that unusual, honest.



lennythecloud said:


> The kennel club actually acting on the Bateson reports recommendations and using independent vet checks to prevent exagerated dogs being rewarded = positive change.
> 
> The canine alliance seem to be the only group deriding this positive change and the fact it's headed by a man who seems to judge dogs only by looking at whether they possess teeth, a spine and a tail only ads to concerns.
> 
> People are not critising the canine alliance because they are associated with dog showing. I'm not sure you can get an organisation more associated with pedigree dogs and showing than the kennel club but I and I think many others fully support them on the vet check issue. People are only critising the canine alliance because they seem to want to stand in the way of progress.


What's negative about pushing for proper health checks/tests for all breeds? What's the point of a health test or check, that one vet will pass a dog for and another won't, surely they all have to know what they're looking for rather than just an ad hoc personal choice where an old injury *may* (and I say may as I don't know if that's possibly what DID happen in the instance with one of the dogs that didn't get through) have some sway over a decision?

Also, it's not Professor Ian Bateson you're referring to is it? The same one that started out his report on hunting with dogs with a reference to a Disney film?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> The proposals of the CA are far more progressive and have far greater longterm benefit than the KC. The CA want health testing for all breeds ad infinitum. The KC system is transient. In 2013 they will review the status of each HP Breeds and will be receiving applications from breed clubs to have them removed. Whom will be, as breed clubs don't like the stigma of being on the list. A good way for the KC to demonstrate it has moved forward with health is to remove breeds from the HP list. Once all gone, that's the end of veterinary assessment of show dogs.


But controlled by those very people who have done nothing for decades 

Think I'll support the KC thanks


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Tollisty said:


> I think this group/club has been brewing for a while! The health testing at Crufts has just given people a shove to do something.
> 
> As I see it, it isn't just about the health checks and testing, it is a voice for the average exhibitor. A way of making the KC listen to what people want.


If it was that it would be interesting, but we all know that the influential, Andrew Brace and the like  will take it over and dictate what is to happen.
It's always been that way, and with what s happening and the attitudes we've seen here, I fear it will always be until it implodes


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rona said:


> But controlled by those very people who have done nothing for decades


Thought you were talking about the KC there.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> Thought you were talking about the KC there.


You could think that and it would have been true a few months ago, however the KC are at least admitting there is a problem and trying to sort it out.
Wish the Show fraternity would support them


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Sorry Goblin, I've just picked out a few things that you've said (and one other I think, there are quite a few sweeping statements if you look back through)


Which you need to look at in context about the discussion in hand. Not alone.



Goblin said:


> ... asking for checks across all breeds isn't going to impact the majority of healthy breeds.


How is this attacking all pedigree breeders? How is pushing the fact that 9 breeds passed their vet checks an attack on all pedigree breeders. How is saying recognition for advances is necessary even if a breed fails their vet check? or do you need those specific post where I've said these things.

Even if taken alone however, "good breeders" and "doing things" may come maybe from good breeders but we get denial that problems exist in the first place from others. Erm... notice how incompatible those two viewpoints are?



Goblin said:


> I would say the pedigree dog fancy should be aware the tide has changed. No longer will Joe Public be content to allow them to accept health issues in their dogs as "normal"





Sleeping_Lion said:


> And again, this comes across as really patronising to me


Again take in context. this is a direct response to the Canine Alliance statement of:


Goblin said:


> The pedigree dog fancy is fighting back. The Kennel Club will ignore the bunch at it's peril


It doesn't say some of the pedigree dog fancy so I simply responded in kind.

Think about the following... The Canine Alliance is pushing themselves as spokesman for pedigree breeders as a whole. They claim thousands of members.. If we criticize faults in the Canine Alliance and what they do, is this a personal attack on all or just those who agree with the issues being discussed?



> What's negative about pushing for proper health checks/tests for all breeds?


Nothing it's to be encouraged as is having an independent vet check at crufts to ensure a non-biased view in regards to health without bias from breed standards or issues common with a breed.



> Also, it's not Professor Ian Bateson you're referring to is it? The same one that started out his report on hunting with dogs with a reference to a Disney film?


Oh personal attack, despite the fact you liked Snoringbear's earlier post effectively saying personal attacks are not appropriate or useful to the discussion.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

KC response of Dog World News >Dog World >Dog World Home >Dogworld


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I didn't see a disabled dog win any rosettes, I did see a lame dog withdrawn (thankfully) and I did see a dog that was knuckling over put through but thankfully didn't get placed further.


I'm not just talking about crufts. I'm talking about the years and years of systematic selection for extreme dogs in some breeds and the rewarding of dogs that have medical problems as a result of their conformation. Eye conditions, skin conditions and respiritory issues have all been accepted as 'part of the breed' in some dogs and champions made of them. The canine alliance could have been set up at any point in the last 20 years to force the kc to act of canine health, instead it's set up when the kc actually decides to act - seems a bit backwards.



> Instead of continually criticising one or both sides, surely now we have better knowledge than ever before, and are committed to a fit for function ideal, the way is to encourage change, not just criticise each other. I get fed up of being criticised for not attending a dog show for peke's just so I can stand at the side of the ring and harangue the ones that can't walk properly (dogs not owners that is) - I do have a job and a business as well as my *hobby* dabbling with the dogs.


Somebody needs to harangue people who breed dogs that cannot walk properly. If people within breeds and in the wider show world aren't willing to then it's only right that the kc has introduced the vet checks to bring to task those exhibitors with such dogs.



> What's negative about pushing for proper health checks/tests for all breeds? What's the point of a health test or check, that one vet will pass a dog for and another won't, surely they all have to know what they're looking for rather than just an ad hoc personal choice where an old injury *may* (and I say may as I don't know if that's possibly what DID happen in the instance with one of the dogs that didn't get through) have some sway over a decision?


Nothing wrong with pushing for health checks for all breeds, but you can do that by working with the kennel club and without the need to suspend the ones that are currently taking place.

The vets knew exactly what to look for, the list for each breed is quite specific about what counts as a fault. If things need to be changed then the rules can be reviewed and changed. The vet checks prevented dogs with clear ectropian being rewarded - that is a good thing.



> Also, it's not Professor Ian Bateson you're referring to is it? The same one that started out his report on hunting with dogs with a reference to a Disney film?


I have no idea who Professor Ian Bateson is but if you meant Professor Patrick Bateson then yes it is the same one  . The kennel club obviously thought he was up to the job because they chose and commissioned him to write the report.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

My God I need a glass of wine to decipher all the multi quotes as I'm not that up with the quoting malarky but I'll give it my best, possibly using different coloured text and I apologise now as I have a glass of wine in hand.



Goblin said:


> Which you need to look at in context about the discussion in hand. Not alone.
> 
> How is this attacking all pedigree breeders? How is pushing the fact that 9 breeds passed their vet checks an attack on all pedigree breeders. How is saying recognition for advances is necessary even if a breed fails their vet check? or do you need those specific post where I've said these things.
> 
> ...





lennythecloud said:


> I'm not just talking about crufts. I'm talking about the years and years of systematic selection for extreme dogs in some breeds and the rewarding of dogs that have medical problems as a result of their conformation. Eye conditions, skin conditions and respiritory issues have all been accepted as 'part of the breed' in some dogs and champions made of them. The canine alliance could have been set up at any point in the last 20 years to force the kc to act of canine health, instead it's set up when the kc actually decides to act - seems a bit backwards.
> 
> I agree, I had no idea 20 years ago of the extent of the problem, and it saddens me to see people breeding dogs that are caricatures of what they looked like, we've all seen the pietoro photo albums of dogs from days gone by. It'd be nice though if we had a few nice comments smattered inbetween all the negative stuff just to give some people hope that their efforts are noted, and not all pedigree breeders who show their dogs are busy sweeping stuff under various carpets. I was chatting to the lady who bred my flatcoat bitch, and the vet, and have decided to have her hip scored at two years of age, depending how she turns out. Why? The vet, when I spoke to him, said I had two choices, either hip score early to get the best score I could hope for, or allow her to mature, and get a score that is a true reflection of her hips. Now whilst, as I understand it, a good pair of hips won't deteriorate by much (if at all) of the course of that year, a poor set may well do, so why risk it? Because I care that the information we're putting in about the breeds we love, is as accurate as possible, and I really am not alone, but we are all still learning rapidly as science develops and we know more about our dogs, not just the visible stuff
> 
> ...


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

I can't read red writing it gives me a migraine :crying:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> I can't read red writing it gives me a migraine :crying:


Oh b*gga, hang on, I'll go and edit


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

I think this is just what dogs (did not) need; another faction to promote it's own interests and claim it is righteous.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> Thought you were talking about the KC there.


I think Rona meant the breed clubs who seem to ignore even the KC's rather tame efforts to sort health out.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I think Rona meant the breed clubs who seem to ignore even the KC's rather tame efforts to sort health out.


It was tongue in cheek, I assumed it to mean the members of the CA. I guess the breed clubs could be a viable alternative. That said the introduction of hip and elbow scoring was driven by GSD breed clubs of the day.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

So how will the "alliance" deal with the issue of inbreeding (and before someone makes a joke, I mean amongst the dogs). As this is seen by many exhibitors as a good thing, will the "alliance" dare to come out against inbreeding for the sake of the health of the dogs?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So how will the "alliance" deal with the issue of inbreeding (and before someone makes a joke, I mean amongst the dogs). As this is seen by many exhibitors as a good thing, will the "alliance" dare to come out against inbreeding for the sake of the health of the dogs?


Are you serious? What a joke, what problem with inbreeding, the KC don't allow close matings to be registered now in any case. Gene pools are just that, closed, and the CoI will tell you how close a particular mating might be, or what the individual CoI might be for a dog, and I can tell you the breed clubs are much more accurate than the KC, those pesky people who are to blame for everything.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> It was tongue in cheek, I assumed it to mean the members of the CA. I guess the breed clubs could be a viable alternative. That said the introduction of hip and elbow scoring was driven by GSD breed clubs of the day.


I thought it was the Setter people who first embraced hip scoring in the 70's, didn't the GSDs not get involved until 80s/90s?


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So how will the "alliance" deal with the issue of inbreeding (and before someone makes a joke, I mean amongst the dogs). *As this is seen by many exhibitors as a good thing, will the "alliance" dare to come out against inbreeding for the sake of the health of the dogs?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Sorry, SleepingLion, I've never worked out multi quotes, and as a disclaimer, it's clear you care very much about breeding healthy dogs. But I have to take issue with:
> 
> ...


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Are you serious? What a joke, what problem with inbreeding, the KC don't allow close matings to be registered now in any case. Gene pools are just that, closed, and the CoI will tell you how close a particular mating might be, or what the individual CoI might be for a dog, and I can tell you the breed clubs are much more accurate than the KC, those pesky people who are to blame for everything.


Isn't it just very close, as in mother/son, father/daughter not accepted so for example grandfather/grandaughter is still acceptable ie able to be registered?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So how will the "alliance" deal with the issue of inbreeding (and before someone makes a joke, I mean amongst the dogs). As this is seen by many exhibitors as a good thing, will the "alliance" dare to come out against inbreeding for the sake of the health of the dogs?


You would have to ask them. I haven't read all the posts on FB and haven't encountered anything regarding this. As SL says the very close matings that produce 25% minimum COI have been banned. I can't speak for all breeds, but in my own, close matings haven't been prevalent. My dogs are between 0% and 1.9% and the most winning dog was also 0%.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

rona said:


> I thought it was the Setter people who first embraced hip scoring in the 70's, didn't the GSDs not get involved until 80s/90s?



Think I may have muddled this with eye testing.
It was a long long time ago 

I know I admired them at the time. When all others were making excuses, they just got on and did


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Please stop quoting SL... it makes all that work I did with the ignore button pointless


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rona said:


> I thought it was the Setter people who first embraced hip scoring in the 70's, didn't the GSDs not get involved until 80s/90s?


The official BVA/KC scheme began in 1984 and the GSD fraternity seem to be very vocal of their involvement in it. I'm unaware of a unofficial scheme prior to that and which breeds adopted it but it seems plausible.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

myshkin said:


> Elmo the Bear said:
> 
> 
> > So how will the "alliance" deal with the issue of inbreeding (and before someone makes a joke, I mean amongst the dogs). *As this is seen by many exhibitors as a good thing, will the "alliance" dare to come out against inbreeding for the sake of the health of the dogs?[/*QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> You would have to ask them. I haven't read all the posts on FB and haven't encountered anything regarding this. As SL says the very close matings that produce 25% minimum COI have been banned. I can't speak for all breeds, but in my own, close matings haven't been prevalent. My dogs are between 0% and 1.9% and the most winning dog was also 0%.


So they should definitely come out against inbreeding ?


----------



## Ewan (Mar 1, 2012)

There is show kennels still producing litters of puppies with COI between 25 - 35 % from non close sibling matings, these are from people on the Breed Council and health sub committees. The same type of people involved with the CA telling us all how invested they are all in the health of the dogs. Doesn't quite ring true.

I see the in fighting has started all ready with people leaving the group. Then you have the Americans raving about AR and the big conspiracy. If they aren;t careful they will tear themselves apart before it truly gets off the ground.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Ewan said:


> There is show kennels still producing litters of puppies with COI between 25 - 35 % from non close sibling matings, these are from people on the Breed Council and health sub committees. The same type of people involved with the CA telling us all how invested they are all in the health of the dogs. Doesn't quite ring true.
> 
> I see the in fighting has started all ready with people leaving the group. Then you have the Americans raving about AR and the big conspiracy. If they aren;t careful they will tear themselves apart before it truly gets off the ground.


Why the fixation on the CoI, which, you cannot guarantee will be under a certain level even from matings that are allowed by the KC? CoI on it's own is a tool, the same as health test results are a tool, the same as you should consider conformation, temperament and ability.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Ewan said:


> If they aren;t careful they will tear themselves apart before it truly gets off the ground.


I can feel a tear welling up... no... sorry, just wind


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> *Why the fixation on the CoI*, which, you cannot guarantee will be under a certain level even from matings that are allowed by the KC? CoI on it's own is a tool, the same as health test results are a tool, the same as you should consider conformation, temperament and ability.


My only interest in the coefficient of inbreeding is that it exists at all - the very fact that there is a measurement of it shows there is a problem. Likewise with many health tests, to be honest. If I went to my GP to say I was considering getting pregnant, there would be no health tests expected, because the probability is heavily in favour of the average healthy woman giving birth to an averagely healthy child.....unless I told him I was planning to reproduce with my cousin, in which case he'd refer me to a genetic counsellor, to make sure I understood the risks.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

myshkin said:


> My only interest in the coefficient of inbreeding is that it exists at all - the very fact that there is a measurement of it shows there is a problem. Likewise with many health tests, to be honest. If I went to my GP to say I was considering getting pregnant, there would be no health tests expected, because the probability is heavily in favour of the average healthy woman giving birth to an averagely healthy child.....unless I told him I was planning to reproduce with my cousin, in which case he'd refer me to a genetic counsellor, to make sure I understood the risks.


Quite so. 
It only needs to exist really in the larger breeds because of the "line" breeding of the last couple of decades or so 
And the over use of "the best" stud dogs


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

myshkin said:


> My only interest in the coefficient of inbreeding is that it exists at all - the very fact that there is a measurement of it shows there is a problem. Likewise with many health tests, to be honest. If I went to my GP to say I was considering getting pregnant, there would be no health tests expected, because the probability is heavily in favour of the average healthy woman giving birth to an averagely healthy child.....unless I told him I was planning to reproduce with my cousin, in which case he'd refer me to a genetic counsellor, to make sure I understood the risks.


I'm adopted, I was never referred to a specialist when I was pregnant just in case I'd managed to cop off with my cousin.

The CoI is a bit of a red herring, yes, it's useful information, but what about the mongrel that's related to the mongrel down the road that produces mongrels? What about the shared heritage of many breeds that means that lots of them can and do carry the same genetic defects. However all that's lost simply because people believe the closed gene pools are the ONLY ones with faults, and non-closed gene pools are therefore healthier, which is far too simplistic and just isn't the case.

Edited to add link, it's an interesting read if you have the time:

http://cynologist.com/index.php/breeding-dogs/the-importance-and-development-of-the-prepotent-sire


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm adopted, I was never referred to a specialist when I was pregnant just in case I'd managed to cop off with my cousin.
> 
> The CoI is a bit of a red herring, yes, it's useful information, but what about the mongrel that's related to the mongrel down the road that produces mongrels? What about the shared heritage of many breeds that means that lots of them can and do carry the same genetic defects. However all that's lost simply because people believe the closed gene pools are the ONLY ones with faults, and non-closed gene pools are therefore healthier, which is far too simplistic and just isn't the case.
> 
> ...


How very condescending of you.
Weren't you complaining about that earlier?


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm adopted, I was never referred to a specialist when I was pregnant just in case I'd managed to cop off with my cousin.
> 
> The CoI is a bit of a red herring, yes, it's useful information, but what about the mongrel that's related to the mongrel down the road that produces mongrels? What about the shared heritage of many breeds that means that lots of them can and do carry the same genetic defects. *However all that's lost simply because people believe the closed gene pools are the ONLY ones with faults*, and non-closed gene pools are therefore healthier, which is far too simplistic and just isn't the case.
> 
> ...


I agree this far, there is always risk, and there will always be inheritable diseases. But where I really disagree is with the argument that they aren't less risky and free of problems - the only time I ever see that argument is in defence of (I've rewritten this sentence a few times, because I genuinely respect your ethics and knowledge, but the only way I can express it is this) breeding practices that have led to suffering. Every branch of related science accepts that closed gene pools lead to health problems. And there is the blind spot in this debate that makes me despair.

ETA: I'll read the link tomorrow, without the enhancement of a few glasses of tasty red!


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So they should definitely come out against inbreeding ?


I would hope so.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> How very condescending of you.
> Weren't you complaining about that earlier?


I really haven't got a clue what you're talking about.



myshkin said:


> I agree this far, there is always risk, and there will always be inheritable diseases. But where I really disagree is with the argument that they aren't less risky and free of problems - the only time I ever see that argument is in defence of (I've rewritten this sentence a few times, because I genuinely respect your ethics and knowledge, but the only way I can express it is this) breeding practices that have led to suffering. Every branch of related science accepts that closed gene pools lead to health problems. And there is the blind spot in this debate that makes me despair.


I agree, but I think I'd edit your sentence to say *can* lead to suffering, dogs are not the only closed gene pools, and they're certainly not the only animal where problems have occurred because of exaggerations. Is it a blind spot? I'm agreeing and acknowleding, ok, I'm not much of anyone really, but if I can agree and acknowledge, and I know a fair few more with lots more knowledge and experience who also acknowledge that there is, and possibly could be more problems for pedigree dogs on the horizon, surely there's not a *total* blind spot, it's just the die hards that *we* are still trying to persuade.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion, firstly RESPECT! I'm sorry if you have felt under attack, because you are the last person who needs "attack". Everything you've ever posted screams that you care about dogs and good dog breeding. I'm certainly NOT so unsophisticated that I think all (or even most) pedigree dog breeders are bad, incompetant or uncaring or stupid or cruel or.........

If only (!) people like you bred dogs they'd be a happier animal. I honestly think most dog people are like you.

We all know that there are some dozy b*ggers who should not be breeding anything more advanced than earwigs. Puppy farms, the careless (my Rex) the greedy and the cruel. They'll never change. We can only hope to legislate and penalise.

However, we all know that there are some good breeders who simply cannot see what is painfully obvious to others. People so caught up in their breed that they see deformity as desirable. They are NOT going to change because *other *people see the dogs' deformities. Horrid as it may be, I think some have had enough of a shock to - at least - recognise that other views exist. The brave may do the "long hard look". The cowards will deny and blame everyone else for their pain.

What makes a breeder a "you" type of breeder? How can the people who are in denial be helped? Do you have any ideas? Leaving them alone and allowing self-regulation hasn't worked.

Please don't think that I (for one) am against pedigrees, pedigree dog breeders or anyone else but I do (as you do) see a problem. I'm following this thread with great attention. Thank you one and all.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Well i'm getting vertigo from going around in ever decreasing circles on this one - just one snippet form the Kc's rather garbled response



> *We can say that where these are exhibited in a minor way they are less serious than more overt cases but even if the dog is otherwise outstanding, is it right to put it forward with a clinical problem even if this is transitory? This is clearly a question for debate. Can we expect a judge to notice the same level of eye disease as a vet? This is a question that needs to be considered. [B*]*Equally can we continue to accept 'some haw showing' or descriptors in breed standards that suggest triangular shaped eyes? *[/B]These are all divergent from the normal eyelid that dogs need to maintain good ocular health. Blame is not relevant at this stage for haws have been with us in some breeds for more than a century and even the veterinary profession have only recently made moves to pay more attention to adnexal eye conditions. What about other inherited diseases - There are health schemes to deal with many inherited diseases and these will be considered in the show ring only if they produce observable clinical signs (eg lameness due to hip or elbow dysplasia). There are no plans to demand health certificates or health test results at dog shows. Other breeds - It has been suggested there are other breeds with conformational exaggerations and a policy is being developed on how other breeds may be added to the HPB listing. However, the KC would encourage other breeds to follow the trend to improve conformation, particularly in terms of eyelid conformation. *There will be other questions that some will want answered and we will endeavour to address as many of them as possible in due course. *


Do you not think that these questions should have been answered BEFORE Crufts ?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Bijou said:


> Well i'm getting vertigo from going around in ever decreasing circles on this one - just one snippet form the Kc's rather garbled response
> 
> Do you not think that these questions should have been answered BEFORE Crufts ?


When would have been a good time?

I'm disappointed that health screening certificates still aren't going to be part of the entry system for shows.
I really can't understand that if the health of a breed is more important than a ribbon or the KC coffers


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

..or indeed that health testing made a prerequisite of Kc registration ...this has been pushed for by the majority of those of us who breed and show....and the Kc are hoist on their own petard over it - what a nonsense to single out a handful of dogs of a particular breed when allowing the majority to be registered with *No* testing whatsoever ...they must surely bite the bullet over this !

Don't you find it interesting that those of us who do breed are largely in favour of the Alliance ? - could this be because we are ALL money grabbing, ribbon chasing, uncaring individuals ?..or could it possibly be that we have to deal with the* realities* of breeding and maintaining individual breeds ?

For example the KC's own breed standard for Clumbers allows for the haw to show and the Crufts vet interpreted this as ectropian - if this is the view of the BVA then the standard needs to be changed and breeders allowed time to breed away from this -it takes at least 3-4 generations for any changes to be fixed and would need to be done across the whole breed with care that those dogs that carry tight eyes are not overused and do not carry other faults that may be worse....but i've already said all this ....of course if *you *know of an instant solution then do share it !!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> We all know there are good and bad people in the world who are involved with dogs, it's not rocket science, but the continual phrases referring to all pedigree breeders and dog people does appear to lump *us* all in together, and does give the impression we've all sneakily sweeping stuff under the carpet whilst people are busy posting on here, which is blatantly not the case.


Ask yourself why do people lump *you* all together.. could it be people don't criticise the "organisation" when they've got it wrong? Going back to the main thread topic.. People at present, if they look at the Kennel Club, will have to admit, they are pushing progress. Ignore the reasoning of whats behind that... things are happening and obvious progress is being made. What's the response.. New group with thousands of "pedigree breeders" as members, pushing an agenda to stop or at least slow down the positive change. What does that say to you?



> As far as I'm concerned, no organisation is beyond reproach, nor any person within an organisation or as a separate entity. But that doesn't mean that progress will be made by constant barracking, and negative comments


No but people have the right to criticize rather than just clap and applause. Get some things right and maybe people could make positive as well as negative comments. All we've seen is lip service in regards to health from the canine alliance which to most is the only topic of concern.



> there's a huge negative *feel* towards pedigree breeds and breeders coming across in waves


Which only shows the depth of feeling which has been building up over the years. Years of denial which is still going on. Ask yourself.. why do people feel like this? It's certainly not a personal dislike as lets face it, most people do not know each other on here. Those who do and frequently support each other are normally show people or breeders.



> I think people have an unrealistic expectation with pedigree breeds because they are traceable to have them 100% healthy, where as in reality, all dogs whether pedigree or not will carry and possibly develop health problems, it's part and parcel of owning a living organism.


What people expect is those who claim to be "better"/more knowledgeable/caring than others to avoid obvious health issues where possible, not claim health issues are "part of the breed standard".

Edit:


Bijou said:


> For example the KC's own breed standard for Clumbers allows for the haw to show and the Crufts vet interpreted this as ectropian


Who writes the breed standard... already been answered in a previous post. It's not the KC.


----------



## Ewan (Mar 1, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Why the fixation on the CoI, which, you cannot guarantee will be under a certain level even from matings that are allowed by the KC? CoI on it's own is a tool, the same as health test results are a tool, the same as you should consider conformation, temperament and ability.


Well it is a problem, as long as people continue to breed with such a high COI they damage the genetic diversity of the breed harming fertility, smaller litter sizes and ultimately weakening the immune system. I know that you can have a perfectly healthy litter with COI of 30% plus. That a low COI doesn't guarantee a healthy pup. Yet we have to listen to them talk about breeding for the good of breed, to improve it. Damaging the genetic diversity of the breed is doing just the opposite.

It's simply irresponsible to constantly breed litters with such high COI. The same way it's irresponsible to ignore the other things you mentioned. If someone that is on various breed club committees and health sub committees, plus is a vet can produce 5 litters in a year(last) that have COI's at least as high as a close sibling mating then yes it is a real worry and shouldn't be ignored.

I know it's only one issue of many but shouldnt be ignored.

Just like breeders that cause harm to the welfare of the dogs to meet the latest fads in the show ring shouldn't be ignored to concentrate on solely on puppy farms. All the issues to do with dog welfare need address.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Bijou said:


> ..
> 
> Don't you find it interesting that those of us who do breed are largely in favour of the Alliance ? - could this be because we are ALL money grabbing, ribbon chasing, uncaring individuals ?..or could it possibly be that we have to deal with the* realities* of breeding and maintaining individual breeds ?


How about covering up a deformed puppy so that the sire could win at Crufts2012?
I don't know how many are involved but one person at least who professes to be a paragon knows 
How much of this goes on?

The breeder who knew they had PRA in their line but continued to pump out puppies for decades. Did no one in the show world know?
I did so I can't imagine they didn't 
They were a pretty high profile kennel for a while :cursing:

It's not just what a breeder does but what they are willing to cover up 
Sorry but personal experience has made me realise that words do not make a good ethical breeder, deeds do


----------



## Ewan (Mar 1, 2012)

Here is a thought...

Today I heard that C.A.R.I.A.D. had to cancel their conference on puppy farming due to lack of interest. Within almost every thread on Exhibitors Voice & Choice there is numerous people blaming all the problems with pedigree dogs squarely at the feet of puppy farms. So where is there 6000 plus members when this is going on? Where is all the people that donated money to The Canine Alliance? They can scream and shout, go to meetings, form organisation, give money when it's to stop the KC interfering with their "sport" but they come up short when it comes to helping fight puppy farms who as they repeatedly keep telling us all are the root of all the problems.

"Responsible for Pedigree Dogs"

If they are responsible for pedigree dogs like they claim why didn't they put their support behind this? Why if puppy farms are the cause of all the problems aren't they doing something about it?

_1)To suspend the high-profile breed veterinary checks.

2)To agree that, on the available evidence from Crufts, the existing system is flawed.

3)Not to re-introduce the checks until they are transparent, there is clarity and fairness, and they are non-discriminatory._

That is all the care about, someone tried to interfere with their "sport"

cariadcampaign


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Bijou said:


> Don't you find it interesting that those of us who do breed are largely in favour of the Alliance ? - could this be because we are ALL money grabbing, ribbon chasing, uncaring individuals ?..or could it possibly be that we *have* to deal with the* realities* of breeding and maintaining individual breeds ?


It could be the first reason but it can't be the second. You don't "have" to maintain the individual breeds, you choose to (for your own personal enjoyment); in fact some of them would be best left to fade out. Had they been developed with health in mind to begin with then we wouldn't have the problems we have now. The continued failure by the KC to stand up and enforce health (under pressure from breeders and exhibitors) as the number one issue, is not the reason the "alliance" was formed. It was formed because the KC (finally) tried something that actually showed up some health problems in public and outside of a documentary you could rubbish by a process of character assassination. The KC attempt and checks showed up the exhibitors in their true light (having the matter of exhibition as number one and health a lot further down the list).

Please don't try to fool us into thinking the "alliance" will succeed to put right all the health problems where the KC has failed (or not tried), because it will not even try, because it is occupied by the neigh sayers and Purvisettes of this world. It may do a better job of covering up the health issues than the KC; what was the phrase "obvious" health issues... what about the not so obvious diseases caused by deliberate poor breeding and inbreeding? And what about the health issues that are not obvious to (unqualified) judges and the public... they won't matter because you can't see them?


----------



## Tollisty (May 27, 2008)

Ewan said:


> Here is a thought...
> 
> Today I heard that C.A.R.I.A.D. had to cancel their conference on puppy farming due to lack of interest. Within almost every thread on Exhibitors Voice & Choice there is numerous people blaming all the problems with pedigree dogs squarely at the feet of puppy farms. So where is there 6000 plus members when this is going on? Where is all the people that donated money to The Canine Alliance? They can scream and shout, go to meetings, form organisation, give money when it's to stop the KC interfering with their "sport" but they come up short when it comes to helping fight puppy farms who as they repeatedly keep telling us all are the root of all the problems.
> 
> ...


I had never heard of it. Does it have a facebook page? and has anyone posted a link to it on the CA page?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

I'm sure if the Cariad Campaign was advertised better and people were aware of it they would have a lot of interest. Okay, admittingly I'm in another country but I had never heard of it. It wouldn't be a bad idea for a seperate thread to be started so people can keep track of it.


----------



## Tollisty (May 27, 2008)

I found the facebook group, it has 54 members.


----------



## Ewan (Mar 1, 2012)

Maybe it could have been advertised better but it was advertise through the various welfare organisations that are involved with it, as well as various dog related sites.

Point being the CA are pointing the blame else where but there is no effort on their behalf to actually do anything about it.

Why not use their members and money to get involved with the Welsh consultation on dog breeding? If they don't know it's happening well that's pretty pathetic...

Welsh Government | Consultation on the breeding of dogs

This could have a massive impact on puppy farms ability to operate in Wales. So why is it not even mentioned. If they are "Responsible for Pedigree Dogs" why aren't they making this a priority? There isn't a single mention of this consultation on there. Yet they are all saying that the real problem with dog breeding is Welsh and Irish puppy farms.

If they are going to saying stuff like "Responsible for Pedigree Dogs" there is a hell of a lot of bigger issues and things happening in the world of pedigree dogs other than the KC interfering with their "sport"


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Some limited info from the second meeting here: News >Dog World >Dog World Home >Dogworld


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

myshkin said:


> I agree this far, there is always risk, and there will always be inheritable diseases. But where I really disagree is with the argument that they aren't less risky and free of problems - the only time I ever see that argument is in defence of (I've rewritten this sentence a few times, because I genuinely respect your ethics and knowledge, but the only way I can express it is this) breeding practices that have led to suffering. Every branch of related science accepts that closed gene pools lead to health problems. And there is the blind spot in this debate that makes me despair.
> 
> ETA: I'll read the link tomorrow, without the enhancement of a few glasses of tasty red!


Just another thought whilst I'm shovelling my lunch down my face, but if you open up gene pools, you simply end up with a larger closed gene pool effectively. So surely, you're still working within a closed gene pool, and it's how the information you know about individual dogs is used within a breeding programme that's important, not the number of dogs overall as it were?



ozrex said:


> Sleeping_Lion, firstly RESPECT! I'm sorry if you have felt under attack, because you are the last person who needs "attack". Everything you've ever posted screams that you care about dogs and good dog breeding. I'm certainly NOT so unsophisticated that I think all (or even most) pedigree dog breeders are bad, incompetant or uncaring or stupid or cruel or.........
> 
> If only (!) people like you bred dogs they'd be a happier animal. I honestly think most dog people are like you.
> 
> ...


Thank you, what a lovely compliment 

As for those who are in denial, I don't know, it beggars belief for me that people honestly believe their version of a breed, like a basset, where the dog is well beyond any working form, is in any way an improvement on the original blueprint of a dog. It just doesn't make sense to me, but I do think they honestly believe themselves when they start talking about *furnishings* etc, why not just say *excessive wrinkling* and then it might actually start to hit home to them what they've done?



Goblin said:


> Ask yourself why do people lump *you* all together.. could it be people don't criticise the "organisation" when they've got it wrong? Going back to the main thread topic.. People at present, if they look at the Kennel Club, will have to admit, they are pushing progress. Ignore the reasoning of whats behind that... things are happening and obvious progress is being made. What's the response.. New group with thousands of "pedigree breeders" as members, pushing an agenda to stop or at least slow down the positive change. What does that say to you?
> 
> No but people have the right to criticize rather than just clap and applause. Get some things right and maybe people could make positive as well as negative comments. All we've seen is lip service in regards to health from the canine alliance which to most is the only topic of concern.
> 
> ...


Who's pushing against positive change? That's YOUR interpretation of what's happening, there's a fair few pushing for better health checks rather than just a cursory glance over a few suspect breeds.

*We* are getting lots of things right thank you, take a look at Labradors and flatcoats, where progress is being made with health testing, and where more and more folk are interested in dogs that are right both for the show ring, and for working, as they originally did.

You seem to insist on phrasing things as though I'm some sort of opposition, when I'm blatantly not, I want what's right for pedigree dogs too, just because I don't agree with you doesn't make either one of us more right or more wrong, we both have different opinions of how we think things are best tackled to make improvements for dogs. Wow, I'm a show person and a breeder, having exhibited one of my dogs once, and not quite (as far as I know) managed to breed a litter of pups.

Where have I said I agree with health problems written in to the breed standard? I think I've stated at least once on this thread that as I understand it, it's not, in any case, the wording of any BS, it's the interpretation of that wording. If something says wrinkled for example, and a very wrinkley dog is rewarded, then a wrinklier one, and a wrinklier one, the problem is not the wrinkles, it's the misinterpretation and the rewarding for more and more of them.

Just for interest, the Clumber BS from the early 30's does state for the Head, "this should be massive, the skin covering it loose and muzzle deep and square with well developed flews, the eyes should be hazel in colour, and never light coloured, nor set too full. The ears not so long as those of other spaniels, nor set sos low. They are also different in shape, being vine-leafed in shape and not lobular, and clothed with fine silky hair that should not extend much beyond the leather."

I haven't got my scanner hooked up yet, but the photograph does appear to show a slightly droopy lower eyelid on the bitch. The book this is from also states that the show Clumber of that day differed from the working strain, and goes on to say "these earlier ones (referring to workers) are considerably less in size, and of a more active build, their muzzles appear to be longer, and not as square or deep, ......."


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> Some limited info from the second meeting here: News >Dog World >Dog World Home >Dogworld


Well well well. It's now a company!!!


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

To be honest - I at the moment am all for it, I dont know (like everyone else) where it will end up, what good it will do if any but its something. 

Its about time us involved in the breeding, and showing of pedigree dogs themselves had a say in what goes on. - After all its our time, love, money and damn right hard work that goes into raising these dogs, entering shows, and anything else the KC will gain money from.

I've already said that I am also all for health testing, and health checks yet I still feel the way it went about was so wrong, misleading and to some degree unfair.

I dont feel any dog that is suffering should be allowed to enter the show doors, let alone be placed. The fact is some illnesses are not discovered unless looked for by those in the know, owners and judges are simply not qualified to diagnosed such illnesses. This is why it was first thought that vets were only going over the dogs in the same way the judge was. - Of course there are NO excuses for owners, and judges placing dogs that are clearly suffering for all to see. 

15 breeds were selected, these were checked some passed some failed. - Im not arguing about that if the vet felt the need to fail a certain dog that is there choice, I wasnt there I didnt go over the dogs. what my bug bare is the vets were meant to be failing these dogs for health issues that would make the dogs, breed and puppies from these dogs suffer. Resulting in them not being worth of breeding, no how can a illness that isnt permant, or genetic or a skin scrape for example effect the health of puppies.  Beyond me. The Chinese Crested, a super dog passed his check and I couldnt see why none wouldnt - however their looking for skin rashes, why - whats this achieving? what about poodles, lowchens and the like also trimmed/clipped for preperation reasons.

Its all breeds or none for me. - 15 breeds are nit picked while other dogs (who could be suffering) take top honors without a second glance, why? Because JH didnt feel the other breeds needed so much attention. 

well its about time the KC listened to its direct supports, insteadof backing down to the likes of folk who play no part in pedigree dogs. Im hoping those selected people on the CA will speak up for all us members, and get our voices heard.

Lets not forget its us pedigree dog owners, breeders and us that show who want healthy dogs. what use is a ill dog for someone breeding and showing, top quality dogs.

Only time will tell what will come of the CA but for us that are truely passionate, we want change just as much as others - just done in the right way for the right reasons, for the right people... the dogs are most important in all this not folks egos.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rona said:


> Well well well. It's now a company!!!


No it isn't, they will be when incorporated. It is something they will pursue, exactly the same as the Kennel Club currently are. Charities and rescues such as the Blue Cross and Many Tears are already limited companies. What's your point?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

rona said:


> When would have been a good time?
> 
> I'm disappointed that health screening certificates still aren't going to be part of the entry system for shows.
> I really can't understand that if the health of a breed is more important than a ribbon or the KC coffers


But tests for what Rona, each breed suffers different things, some tests cant be done till a certain age, meaning you lose certain classes. Ok health is more important than that but where do you draw the line. A dog thats a carrier cant enter? Because its seen as bad, a dog that hasnt had its tests cant because thats seen as bad, yet the dog might never go on to be bred from.

If I showed my BC I doubt I would have his tests done...I wouldnt need to I wouldnt be breeding him. Next people will want all working dogs, guide dogs, agility dogs and such health tested before they can take part. -

*The overall health of a breed goes much wider than the show ring lets not forget that!*


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

rona said:


> Well well well. It's now a company!!!


Yes I noticed it too. They will be a Limited Company.

They also say they will Represent everyone involved with Pedigree Dogs. So I assume as per Andrew Braces Interview previously that means Breeders, Exhibitors and Judges.

I notice they say they are going to be fair and totally transparent always working for the benefit of pedigree dogs. They are also going to encourage health checking of all dogs, and allow the exhibition of pedigree dogs without bias of descrimination.

Then they say they are still asking the Kc for vet checks to be suspended that are scheduled, and not re-introduced until transparent and there is clarity and fairness and they are not descrimatory.

Bit confused on one hand they say they are for health testing and going to be totally transparent, then they are asking the KC not to vet check, and not introduce it until it is transparent and there is clarity and fairness. I thought they were going to be the transparent and fair ones proteting pedigree dogs.

Maybe it should have read, Represents everyone involved with Pedigree Dogs,
Demanding everyone else to have transparency, clarity and fairness, allowing the exhibition of pedigree dogs without bias and descrinination so we can go on as we have always done.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

rona said:


> Well well well. It's now a company!!!


Nope... it just thinks it is. If we have a whip-round for £79, we can register the company name "Canine Alliance Ltd" before the "alliance" stops tripping over their own self-importance and realises they forgot to let the person with the organising and legal skills into the meeting


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

I've put in my application already; sound like a really worthwhile group

K9 Alliance - Canine Companies you can Trust


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Just another thought whilst I'm shovelling my lunch down my face, but if you open up gene pools, you simply end up with a larger closed gene pool effectively. So surely, you're still working within a closed gene pool, and it's how the information you know about individual dogs is used within a breeding programme that's important, not the number of dogs overall as it were?


The number of dogs overall in a gene pool is terribly important. A larger closed gene pool IS better than a smaller closed gene pool. Have you read up of effective population sizes previously? Minimum viable population is another google term to check for info on this topic.

_". . . The greater the effective breed population size, the smaller the number of allele types lost or fixed in that way, the less the risk of a substantial deleterious change of the genetic situation. Effective population size means that a breed population may consist of many thousand dogs but if the breed was founded by a handful dogs and/or has been heavily inbred, it contains relatively few different alleles, so in effect a breed of several million dogs like the German Shepherd Dog may have an effective genetic population of just 500. In such a breed, the inbreeding advance because of breed size is minimal, but the inbreeding level resulting of the few founders and subsequent inbreeding or stud over-use will be relatively high. Thus, genetically seen, even the world's most popular breed is a "rare breed", and so are all the rest. Natural animal populations, by contrast, mostly have effective sizes of many thousands or even millions. . ."

http://www.farmcollie.com/breedingdogs.htm_​-----------------------------------------------










_"FIG. 3.-
The effect of effective population size on the fixation probability of weakly deleterious alleles. Each line shows the relative probability of fixation of a new deleterious allele (selective coefficients shown) relative to the probability of fixation of a neutral allele. The probability of fixation of neutral and slightly deleterious is similar at low effective population sizes."_

The Legacy of Domestication: Accumulation of Deleterious Mutations in the Dog Genome​
The above graph is a visual that shows that the probability of fixating deleterious alleles in a gene pool decreases with higher effective population sizes (Ne). Conversely the probability increases as effective population sizes decrease.

Also to be considered is the need for variation on the MHC, which when unvaried predisposed to difficulties with the immune system - allergies, digestive issues, cancers etc.

CC


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Its about time us involved in the breeding, and showing of pedigree dogs themselves had a say in what goes on. - After all its our time, love, money and damn right hard work that goes into raising these dogs, entering shows, and anything else the KC will gain money from.
> 
> 15 breeds were selected, these were checked some passed some failed. - Im not arguing about that if the vet felt the need to fail a certain dog that is there choice, I wasnt there I didnt go over the dogs. what my bug bare is the vets were meant to be failing these dogs for health issues that would make the dogs, breed and puppies from these dogs suffer. Resulting in them not being worth of breeding, no how can a illness that isnt permant, or genetic or a skin scrape for example effect the health of puppies.  Beyond me. The Chinese Crested, a super dog passed his check and I couldnt see why none wouldnt - however their looking for skin rashes, why - whats this achieving? what about poodles, lowchens and the like also trimmed/clipped for preperation reasons.


You have said previously on a number of occasions that you are not a breeder, has that changed?

Not sure what you are getting at on Chinese Crested - from what I read they are checked for irritated skin caused by shaving/the use of hair removal cream, whilst not life threating this is surely an unnecessary discomfort to force onto any dog when it is done purely for showing reasons (and I would have though rather dishonest, its not an hairless if you have to take such measures). I can only infer by your comments that you find that acceptable.

Having read reasons for the health checks I can see no official statement relating to breeding, the aim I believe was to stop unhealthy dogs receiving accolades in the show ring. Obviously correct me if I am wrong as you may know more about it with you working for the KC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> The number of dogs overall in a gene pool is terribly important. A larger closed gene pool IS better than a smaller closed gene pool. Have you read up of effective population sizes previously? Minimum viable population is another google term to check for info on this topic.
> 
> _". . . The greater the effective breed population size, the smaller the number of allele types lost or fixed in that way, the less the risk of a substantial deleterious change of the genetic situation. Effective population size means that a breed population may consist of many thousand dogs but if the breed was founded by a handful dogs and/or has been heavily inbred, it contains relatively few different alleles, so in effect a breed of several million dogs like the German Shepherd Dog may have an effective genetic population of just 500. In such a breed, the inbreeding advance because of breed size is minimal, but the inbreeding level resulting of the few founders and subsequent inbreeding or stud over-use will be relatively high. Thus, genetically seen, even the world's most popular breed is a "rare breed", and so are all the rest. Natural animal populations, by contrast, mostly have effective sizes of many thousands or even millions. . ."
> 
> ...


Possibly worded badly, and I will freely admit with genetics it's something I just do not grasp and have to read up every single time; what always puzzles me, is that before we had pedigrees, we bred to type and included other breed types, and so many pedigree breeds are from a much broader gene pool initially. There is somewhere in the background of Labradors, a pedigree greyhound listed. So why, if we have these broad historic backgrounds, are closed gene pools now a bad thing? Put in the simplest terms I can muster to try and show where I'm coming from, if I mated Tau to a greyhound, surely, with the shared ancestry, they will share some genes? Or if I mated Rhuna with a Labrador, I would most likely be sharing some genes again, as flatcoats were outcrossed during/after the war to preserve them, when numbers were very low. This is what I don't understand about the constant cry with closed gene pools, they never were, they were bred to type, have we lost genes, is that possible?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

I think the wish by posters to restrict what the vet can check for is my biggest concern. This fascination that certain breeds are only affected by certain health problems is the cause of the issue. If the group is really saying that a vet can only check a dog by looking at the dog, using their hands and using no other instruments etc, how exactly does that help? The dog should be checked for poor health, not just a list of things the 'canine compliance' think the dog should be checked for. 

I also don't get this "but that's what the judge uses"... but a judge is not a vet; a judge looks at the breed standard (the root cause of the problem in the first place) and judges whether the the dog in question matches the breed standard and are expected to "know a good dog" (it's all science this y'know).

So the 'canine domestic appliance' is clearly pro exhibitor and pro breeder so will be pro breed standard. Very (very, very) limited health requirements in the breed standards (if at all) and the conditions to be checked for are now (according to those supporting the 'canine defiance') limited to those known for the breed....If that's the case, then it's all a big pack of old cock.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Devil-Dogz said:


> But tests for what Rona, each breed suffers different things, some tests cant be done till a certain age, meaning you lose certain classes. Ok health is more important than that but where do you draw the line. A dog thats a carrier cant enter? Because its seen as bad, a dog that hasnt had its tests cant because thats seen as bad, yet the dog might never go on to be bred from.
> 
> If I showed my BC I doubt I would have his tests done...I wouldnt need to I wouldnt be breeding him. Next people will want all working dogs, guide dogs, agility dogs and such health tested before they can take part. -
> 
> *The overall health of a breed goes much wider than the show ring lets not forget that!*


good points made DD!

especially the point youve made about your BC because its relevant to me, my 3 youngest dogs havent had any health tests because i never had any intention of breeding them however well they did in the ring.... and its the same for quite a lot of my friends with their dogs, they enjoy showing but havent done health tests because in some cases the have no interest in breeding and in other cases they want to see how well they do 1st..its not going to be simple and straight forward to get everything right..nope!


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Possibly worded badly, and I will freely admit with genetics it's something I just do not grasp and have to read up every single time; what always puzzles me, is that before we had pedigrees, we bred to type and included other breed types, and so many pedigree breeds are from a much broader gene pool initially. There is somewhere in the background of Labradors, a pedigree greyhound listed. So why, if we have these broad historic backgrounds, are closed gene pools now a bad thing? Put in the simplest terms I can muster to try and show where I'm coming from, if I mated Tau to a greyhound, surely, with the shared ancestry, they will share some genes? Or if I mated Rhuna with a Labrador, I would most likely be sharing some genes again, as flatcoats were outcrossed during/after the war to preserve them, when numbers were very low. This is what I don't understand about the constant cry with closed gene pools, they never were, they were bred to type, have we lost genes, is that possible?


Sleeping Lion, with every breeding you lose alleles. You can never gain those lost alleles back if, in the gene pool your dog is from, they have not been retained elsewhere. Most often in closed gene pools the selection for traits is such that across the board, within breeds, the same alleles have been lost, or favored.

So while Labradors and Salukis share SOME genes, there are many that they do not. All dogs share some genes.

However Salukis will have many, many alleles in their gene pool that are completely absent in the Labrador gene pool, and likewise the other way around.

Does that make sense?

As an example I can use the agouti locus, on which there are A'y', a'w',a't' and a alleles. Any single dog can only have two of those alleles at his agouti locus. If everyone picks dogs that are a/a (recessive black - like in Shepherds) to breed from then all the dogs in the gene pool will be a/a indefinately. There is no way a'y' or a'w' or a't' can be acquired without going out of the gene pool. Remember at the same time that these alleles are linked on a chromosome to many others and inherited in groups with others that might affect - temperament or length of leg or stomach issues etc.

CC


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

See that's a nice thought but, the Westminster Kennel Club states that the sole purpose of a dog show is to select the best specimens of each breed (by breed standard) to go on to be bred for the continuance of that breed.

I know (oddly) that the Westminster is from the US, but what is the stated purpose of a dog show in the UK ? Is it not for the same reason and if it is, why would you want to restrict the health tests on any dog (as how would you know if it was the best specimen) and what would that have to do with working dogs? The "whatever next" argument is a bit (very) thin (very thin).

So if the purpose of the dog show is to select the very best of the best, should they not be subjected to the most rigours of health checks? In fact, should the "exhibitors alliance" not be saying more health checks... more tests.. not less?


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Devil-Dogz said:


> But tests for what Rona, each breed suffers different things, some tests cant be done till a certain age, meaning you lose certain classes. Ok health is more important than that but where do you draw the line. A dog thats a carrier cant enter? Because its seen as bad, a dog that hasnt had its tests cant because thats seen as bad, yet the dog might never go on to be bred from.
> 
> If I showed my BC I doubt I would have his tests done...I wouldnt need to I wouldnt be breeding him. Next people will want all working dogs, guide dogs, agility dogs and such health tested before they can take part. -
> 
> *The overall health of a breed goes much wider than the show ring lets not forget that!*


Mine are all rescues except one, and spayed and neutered so will never be bred, but I Had Nanuq hip x-rayed at a year because I though her rear gait was a little odd. There are also bad Hypo Thyroid Problems in Sibes and Malamutes and there is a genetic auto immune form, and I always have mine routine tested. Or the last four was when I found out how bad a problem is. So sometimes It doesnt need to have anything to do with showing and breeding, it can be just for peace of mind.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> Sleeping Lion, with every breeding you lose alleles. You can never gain those lost alleles back if, in the gene pool your dog is from, they have not been retained elsewhere. Most often in closed gene pools the selection for traits is such that across the board, within breeds, the same alleles have been lost, or favored.
> 
> So while Labradors and Salukis share SOME genes, there are many that they do not.
> 
> ...


Yes that does thank you, I'll still most likely pester you with questions about it though, to try and clear up the *bits* that just don't seem to make sense to me.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Mine are all rescues except one, and spayed and neutered so will never be bred, but I Had Nanuq hip x-rayed at a year because I though her rear gait was a little odd. There are also bad Hypo Thyroid Problems in Sibes and Malamutes and there is a genetic auto immune form, and I always have mine routine tested. Or the last four was when I found out how bad a problem is. So sometimes It doesnt need to have anything to do with showing and breeding, it can be just for peace of mind.


As nice a thought as it is to have all that information about the health status of dogs, it's simply not reasonable to expect every single person who shows, or even every person who owns a pedigree dog full stop, to start health testing just for the sake of it. For one thing, I wouldn't put any dog through a GA unless it warranted it, no matter how safe the vets say it now is, Indie still doesn't come round very well from them.

And do we include all dogs with this sweeping health testing scheme, or is it just pedigrees?


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> As nice a thought as it is to have all that information about the health status of dogs, it's simply not reasonable to expect every single person who shows, or even every person who owns a pedigree dog full stop, to start health testing just for the sake of it. For one thing, I wouldn't put any dog through a GA unless it warranted it, no matter how safe the vets say it now is, Indie still doesn't come round very well from them.
> 
> And do we include all dogs with this sweeping health testing scheme, or is it just pedigrees?


Well Nanuqs a Mal/Sibe mix and shes copped the Auto immune genetic Thyroid problem, Plus although her hips were xrayed at a year and looked healthy thakfully she just has an awful gait hence getting them done.

Interestingly enough, after Nan was tested and found to have auto immune thyroid 2 of her brothers were done and they have it too. at I heard the last sibling was going to as well. Ones got it bad like her and already on meds, and the other whilst the levels of thyroxine are Ok at the moment his anti bodies are in the thousands so its only a matter of time and he is being regularly tested so the minute he drops he can have his treatment. One of the brothers had porto systemic shunt as well which appeared at around 15 weeks old. So no its not just confined to pedigrees. Its an illustration though of how important health testing before breeding is. In the states breeders test for the condition before breeding.

Some tests are not just for the sake of it though, if a potential problem is hi-lighted sometimes the effects can be reduced by early medical treatment or medication.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Well Nanuqs a Mal/Sibe mix and shes copped the Auto immune genetic Thyroid problem, Plus although her hips were xrayed at a year and looked healthy thakfully she just has an awful gait hence getting them done.
> 
> Interestingly enough, after Nan was tested and found to have auto immune thyroid 2 of her brothers were done and they have it too. at I heard the last sibling was going to as well. Ones got it bad like her and already on meds, and the other whilst the levels of thyroxine are Ok at the moment his anti bodies are in the thousands so its only a matter of time and he is being regularly tested so the minute he drops he can have his treatment. One of the brothers had porto systemic shunt as well which appeared at around 15 weeks old. So no its not just confined to pedigrees. Its an illustration though of how important health testing before breeding is. In the states breeders test for the condition before breeding.
> 
> Some tests are not just for the sake of it though, if a potential problem is hi-lighted sometimes the effects can be reduced by early medical treatment or medication.


I completely agree about health testing before breeding, and it's so sad your boy's affected because his parents weren't tested; however, if the person who'd bred your dog had tested, you wouldn't ever have needed to test to find out the status, you would have known it, or at least had some inkling of the possible status. In the same way, if you buy a pup from health tested parents, but don't particularly want to breed from them in the future, possibly enjoy showing them or some other activity, why should you have to undertake health tests to do this?

I know if I ever do breed I won't rely on the CBP status of dogs carried forward over several generations, but will retest to confirm the status, either every generation or every other generation, and I know I'm not alone in not trusting the health test results 100%.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Its about time us involved in the breeding, and showing of pedigree dogs themselves had a say in what goes on. - After all its our time, love, money and damn right hard work that goes into raising these dogs, entering shows, and anything else the KC will gain money from.


It's funny, I thought the breed clubs actually were used as the method of communication and lobbying the KC. After all they are the ones writing things like the breed standards. Now the KC has, for once, stood up to the breed clubs another "alliance" is forming to try to do push the same agenda.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

_"sufficiently fit to pass a basic health check"_ - inspirational  hardly the "best of the best"

108 members of the KC assured breeders club were there.

(Wonder how many have had home checks)


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> See that's a nice thought but, the Westminster Kennel Club states that the sole purpose of a dog show is to select the best specimens of each breed (by breed standard) to go on to be bred for the continuance of that breed.
> 
> I know (oddly) that the Westminster is from the US, but what is the stated purpose of a dog show in the UK ? Is it not for the same reason and if it is, why would you want to restrict the health tests on any dog (as how would you know if it was the best specimen) and what would that have to do with working dogs? The "whatever next" argument is a bit (very) thin (very thin).
> 
> So if the purpose of the dog show is to select the very best of the best, should they not be subjected to the most rigours of health checks? In fact, should the "exhibitors alliance" not be saying more health checks... more tests.. not less?


not every dog who does consistently well in shows is bred from, i have a couple of friends who have been showing for years each has a dog with tickets...both have several other dogs that they show...theyve never bred a litter..but they enjoy showing, meeting up with people who have the same passion for the breed.

im 100% for health testing all dogs before breeding and i wouldnt have a problem testing for all relevant conditions in my breed if i was required to do so before entering a show, the only one i would think twice about is hip scoring, i wouldnt like to put them under an aneasthetic when i have no intention of breeding just so i could show them.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> You have said previously on a number of occasions that you are not a breeder, has that changed?
> 
> Not sure what you are getting at on Chinese Crested - from what I read they are checked for irritated skin caused by shaving/the use of hair removal cream, whilst not life threating this is surely an unnecessary discomfort to force onto any dog when it is done purely for showing reasons (and I would have though rather dishonest, its not an hairless if you have to take such measures). I can only infer by your comments that you find that acceptable.
> 
> Having read reasons for the health checks I can see no official statement relating to breeding, the aim I believe was to stop unhealthy dogs receiving accolades in the show ring. Obviously correct me if I am wrong as you may know more about it with you working for the KC


*Its about time us involved in the breeding, and showing of pedigree dogs themselves had a say in what goes on.*

In bold is what I said, where does this say I am a breeder...Just says I am involved in breeding, showing and pedigree dogs. That has NEVER been a secret!! I am due to be added on to mums affix, and hopefully (all being well after 4 years planning!!) I will have my first litter in my name by the end of may!

not sure what I am getting at? - Im getting at the fact that the selected breeds were selected for health reasons, APART from the Chinese Crested...They have been targeted for a PREPERATION issue, and to make it fair if the KC want to test certain dogs/breeds for health/preperation reasons it needs to be across the board for ALL...NO dog is excluded from being able to suffer health or grooming issue IN and OUT of the ring....

I did not mention hair removal, so how you would come to the conclusion I would find it acceptable is WAY beyong me. I mention clipping and trimming, yes something I see NO problem with in the same way I have NO issue with other breeds being clipped, and trimmed into styles and such to present the dogs, and show off their best features.

The reason for showing is judge dogs, that alot of will go on to be bred from. The overall aim was for unhealthy dogs NOT to take top honors, as not to encourage folk to breed on from, and show from dogs with such problems.

and as for working for the KC....MY job couldnt be any further from that!


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Mine are all rescues except one, and spayed and neutered so will never be bred, but I Had Nanuq hip x-rayed at a year because I though her rear gait was a little odd. There are also bad Hypo Thyroid Problems in Sibes and Malamutes and there is a genetic auto immune form, and I always have mine routine tested. Or the last four was when I found out how bad a problem is. So sometimes It doesnt need to have anything to do with showing and breeding, it can be just for peace of mind.


Some tests are for peace of mind I happen to agree - SO with that theory all pet folk should be testing... - Doesnt always work like that though does it.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> _"sufficiently fit to pass a basic health check"_ - inspirational  hardly the "best of the best"
> 
> 108 members of the KC assured breeders club were there.
> 
> (Wonder how many have had home checks)


Let's hope the same schemes follow for cross breeds as well, let's face it, that *market's* in poor shape too, with people making ridiculous and unfounded claims about hybrid vigour and hypoallergenic conditions of their dogs. Surely that's something you would welcome?


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> should the "exhibitors alliance" not be saying more health checks... more tests.. not less?


ummm... thats' exactly what the *Canine Alliance* IS calling for ....

.....getting a bit bored with this now ... I'll tell you what ....if you don't like our ethics then simply don't buy our dogs ..or even better, breed them yourselves !!!

look... I'm a typical small hobby breeder of a single specialist breed - here's my website www.simplesite.com/grondemon

take a look and tell me what it is exactly that I'm doing that's so terrible......or even better take a look and tell me how YOU would do it differently !! - I tell you ...some on here are so self righteous as to be practically walking on water !!


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I must admit I'm with the show people on one point. I don't get why all dogs entered into shows should be health tested, eg hip scored etc.

However, I would understand if all parent dogs should be health tested eg hip scored etc. and that pups couldn't be registered or shown unless they were bred from health tested dogs, or those with a 'hereditary clear' certificate if that was possible instead.

If the KC and breed clubs can write extensive breed standards for each and every breed, I don't really see why they couldn't tack on to the bottom any required tests for the individual breed, along with some recommended tests and that part of the pedigree papers have a copy of the parent test results?

Not immediately of course, the KC and the breed clubs would have to agree on the testing requirements alongside their various experts in these fields before tacking them on, but I don't see why not.

This could be a given before the shows and you could still have basic vet checks at the shows to make sure the dog doesn't have droopy eyes that have caused it to suffer conjunctivitis or wrinkled skin that has infection hidden in the folds.

I don't think the vets were supposed to be looking for wrinkly skin, but for wrinkly skin that was giving the dog an actual problem. So they wouldn't be looking for OMG droopy eyes, this dog is too far removed from the wolf, but droopy eyes that have conjunctivitis, or scarring from previous infections, or cosmetic surgery to hide its eye problems. 

I thought the KC want to try to remove dogs that are suffering from their BOB status. To encourage breeders to think more about what conformational traits they are actually breeding into their dogs and discourage exaggerations that give a higher chance of suffering?

Personally I can't see the problem with it. Surely if the breeder/exhibitor has a problem with their particular breed being singled out, there's already breed clubs who can try to negotiate with the KC over it and could have negotiated long before Crufts.

I don't show and I don't have a KC registered dog so my opinion doesn't count for much.  I don't have a puppy farm dog, or a rescue dog so I suppose I shouldn't get involved with discussions about those ones either.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> No it isn't, they will be when incorporated. It is something they will pursue, exactly the same as the Kennel Club currently are. Charities and rescues such as the Blue Cross and Many Tears are already limited companies. What's your point?


Lets just wait and see how much the expenses turn out to be for those that run this company!!



Devil-Dogz said:


> But tests for what Rona, each breed suffers different things, some tests cant be done till a certain age, meaning you lose certain classes. Ok health is more important than that but where do you draw the line. A dog thats a carrier cant enter? Because its seen as bad, a dog that hasnt had its tests cant because thats seen as bad, yet the dog might never go on to be bred from.
> 
> If I showed my BC I doubt I would have his tests done...I wouldnt need to I wouldnt be breeding him. Next people will want all working dogs, guide dogs, agility dogs and such health tested before they can take part. -
> 
> *The overall health of a breed goes much wider than the show ring lets not forget that!*


But it's the show ring we are talking about, I know it shouldn't be but the Canine Alliance only seems interested in that.
As for not all show dog are bred from, of course they are not but most have the idea in their head when they start showing and if the dog succeeds they virtually all breed them.
You show me a BOB that hasn't been bred from unless it has some obvious health issue. Bet you couldn't find more than a handful and that's if you are lucky.
Of course health tests are age related but if a pup comes from an untested parent then it should not be shown. Why would you want a possibly unhealthy dog to acquire a title?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

rona said:


> Of course health tests are age related but if a pup comes from an untested parent then it should not be shown. Why would you want a possibly unhealthy dog to acquire a title?


Possibly being the main word there. - NO one would want a unhealthy dog to gain a title, to be in a breeding programme and such. Health testing the parents doesnt mean you have a healthy litter/pup anyways. Depends what the test is, and the status of the parents.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Bijou said:


> .....getting a bit bored with this now ... I'll tell you what ....if you don't like our ethics then simply don't buy *our* dogs ..or even better, breed them yourselves !!!


Errr. I don't buy *your* dogs (sorry, didn't actually realise you were some form of deity) and I don't breed myself as the breeding 'world' is full of people who think they "own" a breed.

So your view is we should leave it to you lot who know best? Who have succeeded in getting "your" dogs into such a state that the first sniff of some health testing you're trying to control it to such a point that it becomes as pointless as many of "your" breed standards.

You don't want "more" health testing; you want "your" health testing.

The speaker from the "alliance" said _"The opinion of a judge with years of experience is being questioned by one veterinary surgeon"_ - kind of sums up the disdain in which an actual professional is held by, what appears to be an association of tyre kickers.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Elles said:


> I must admit I'm with the show people on one point. I don't get why all dogs entered into shows should be health tested, eg hip scored etc.


I believe they should because they are being "exhibited" as the best. Problem is, the "best" compared to the breed standard which isn't concerned for health as a priority. If it (the breed standard) isn't, then Crufts et al deserves all the criticism it gets; if "best" really means best then the veterinary profession should be allowed to set a gold standard for checks which, those dogs whose exhibitors claim are the best, must pass.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Possibly being the main word there. - NO one would want a unhealthy dog to gain a title, to be in a breeding programme and such. Health testing the parents doesnt mean you have a healthy litter/pup anyways. Depends what the test is, and the status of the parents.


Oh I know that, the dog that won at crufts 2012 that I assume has health checks but threw a deformed pup.
Not sure if it was that dog or the bitch or just one of those unfortunate things, but no one will ever know because it's been covered up.

Sorry to keep banging on about this but it just sums up what goes on


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

rona said:


> Oh I know that, the dog that won at crufts 2012 that I assume has health checks but threw a deformed pup.
> Not sure if it was that dog or the bitch or just one of those unfortunate things, but no one will ever know because it's been covered up.
> 
> Sorry to keep banging on about this but it just sums up what goes on


sometimes things like that happen, the chances are 1 in every 4 pups doesnt make it. Some breeders have had more luck than that, some not so. Nature can be cruel. In some cases breeders are at fault through their lack of care, and planning other times nothing can be done. - however one thing we can agree on is covering up such issues does noone any good.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rona said:


> Lets just wait and see how much the expenses turn out to be for those that run this company!!
> 
> But it's the show ring we are talking about, I know it shouldn't be but the Canine Alliance only seems interested in that.
> As for not all show dog are bred from, of course they are not but most have the idea in their head when they start showing and if the dog succeeds they virtually all breed them.
> ...


It's already been made clear that the attendees of yesterdays meeting did so entirely at their own cost. If that changes then I'd guess you'd be able to see it on Companies House.

I have no intention of breeding a dog just because it gets BOB. In fact I have got that and the thought never entered my head.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Bijou said:


> ummm... thats' exactly what the *Canine Alliance* IS calling for ....
> 
> .....getting a bit bored with this now ... I'll tell you what ....if you don't like our ethics then simply don't buy our dogs ..or even better, breed them yourselves !!!
> 
> ...


None of this is about breeders like you who do all the right things though. It Never was. It was about breeds there is a problem in and people in those breeds failing to see it and make a difference, and when someone does stand up and try to do something ie Margaret Carter Cavaliers, Fiona the Dalmation, etc then they get ostracised and forced out when they are only trying to do good. Thats what its all about,

I can see why good breeders like yourself are angry and fraustrated, but no one is lumping you all together Im certainly not and I dont think most on here are either.
Everyones aware what a good breeder should be and will support them Im sure.

I just dont think that ALL members of this alliance are really doing it for the right reasons, some are but Im willing to bet not ALL, I should imagine a good portion are just trying to cover their own arses.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

rona said:


> Oh I know that, the dog that won at crufts 2012 that I assume has health checks but threw a deformed pup.
> Not sure if it was that dog or the bitch or just one of those unfortunate things, but no one will ever know because it's been covered up.
> 
> Sorry to keep banging on about this but it just sums up what goes on


I watched the interview on TV following this, the dog is seven (some say thats OK for a small breed) but the owner was saying that she was considering a litter!

there can only be incentive for this and thats money!
Personaly I didnt go a bundle on the dog


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

DT said:


> I watched the interview on TV following this, the dog is seven (some say thats OK for a small breed) but the owner was saying that she was considering a litter!
> 
> there can only be incentive for this and thats money!
> Personaly I didnt go a bundle on the dog


This is cross purposes 
I don't know what you are talking about. Mine isn't say so or tv it's personal knowledge


----------



## majortom (May 7, 2009)

i can imagine the response if all doodles, poos and crossbreeds had to have health tests before they could be bred
oh no i forgot, cos they are crossbreeds, they are heathier, 
wonder how many would form a alliance then


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

majortom said:


> i can imagine the response if all doodles, poos and crossbreeds had to have health tests before they could be bred
> oh no i forgot, cos they are crossbreeds, they are heathier,
> wonder how many would form a alliance then


The same number as would be entered for Crufts with their owners claiming they are the best of the best 

(and crossbreeds are a cross between two........... ??)


----------



## majortom (May 7, 2009)

You show me a BOB that hasn't been bred from unless it has some obvious health issue.

what a load of [email protected]@t
i have had several dogs, cant remember how many BOB,s Or BIS wins they got between then
my youngster has a CC won with BOB win
breeding is the last think on my mind and yes they are all healthy and health tested
some of the replies on here are pathetic ,
i,d love to see your responses if health testing is brought in for all dogs before breeding cross breeds or pedigrees , and cross breeds will require twice the number of tests, because parents are diff breeds,
and it could happen eventually, i would like to see licences for every time a breeder wants a litter, never mind if pedigree or crossbreed,
now that would get rid of the puppy farmers, pet breeders who use joe blogs dog down the road and BYB,s.
most show breeders i know only breed when they want a puppy to keep ,


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

majortom said:


> most show breeders i know only breed when they want a puppy to keep ,


sadly not the breeders in the spotlight!!!


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

I'll make the claim. As evidence shows that mutts - on average - have better health and longevity that purebred dogs.

That phrase there, the one that says 'on average' has meaning. What it means is that there will be exceptions either way, with some pedigrees being of fantastic health and some of exceptionally poor health, and with some crossbreeds being of fantastic health and some of exceptionally poor health.

So yes, there are exceptions.

I'll be back with a list of studies which reflect the reason that most involved in canine health believe that 'ON AVERAGE' mutts are healthier.

". . .Factors affecting the occurrence, duration of hospitalization and final outcome in canine parvovirus infection. . . . The odds to develop CPV enteritis were higher in purebreds compared to mixed-breed puppies". . .- Factors affecting the occurrence, duration of ho... [Res Vet Sci. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

". . .Our results indicated that both Miniature Schnauzers and Shetland sheepdogs in Japan exhibited remarkably high concentrations of plasma TG and total cholesterol, which are considered to be signs of hyperlipidemia, as compared to other purebred and mixed (Mongrel) canine breeds. . ."
Predisposition for primary hyperlipidemia in Min... [Res Vet Sci. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

". . .Results of the present study suggested that Greyhounds, Rottweilers, and Great Danes had an increased risk of developing OSA, compared with mixed-breed dogs.. . ."
Prevalence of and intrinsic risk factors ... [J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI

". . .Thirty-three breeds were significantly more likely to have a diagnosis of CPSS, compared with mixed-breed dogs. . ."
Association of breed with the diagnosis o... [J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI

". . .In comparison with mixed-breed dogs, dogs with the highest risk of acquired MG were Akitas, terrier group, Scottish Terriers, German Shorthaired Pointers, and Chihuahuas. Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers, Dalmatians, and Jack Russell Terriers had low relative risks. Sexually intact males and dogs less than 1 year old had some protection from risk . . ."
Risk factors for acquired myasthenia grav... [J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1997] - PubMed - NCBI

". . .Rottweilers, American Pit Bull Terriers, Doberman Pinschers, and German Shepherd Dogs were at increased risk and Toy Poodles and Cocker Spaniels were at decreased risk for developing CPV enteritis, compared with that for mixed-breed dogs. . ."
Risk factors associated with parvovirus e... [J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI

". . . Sporting dogs and hounds, as defined by the American Kennel Club, were at increased risk for blastomycosis. At highest risk were Bluetick Coonhounds, Treeing-walker Coonhounds, Pointers, and Weimaraners, compared with mixed-breed dogs. . ."
Evaluation of risk factors for blastomyco... [J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1992] - PubMed - NCBI

". . . Most dogs with amyloidosis were greater than 6 years old, and females were affected more often than males. Beagles, Collies, and Walker Hounds were at increased risk, whereas German Shepherd Dogs and mixed-breed dogs were at decreased risk. . ."
Clinicopathologic findings in dogs with r... [J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1989] - PubMed - NCBI

". . .Compared with mixed-breed dogs, 8 breeds were at higher risk (P less than 0.01) of developing glaucoma: Basset Hound, Beagle, Boston Terrier, Cocker Spaniel, Dalmatian, Miniature Poodle, Norwegian Elkhound, and Siberian Husky. . ."
Effects of risk factors and prophylactic ... [J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1986] - PubMed - NCBI

". . .This study investigates the epidemiologic features of 3,206 dogs diagnosed with hypothyroidism (including myxedema) from 1.1 million dogs seen at 15 veterinary teaching hospitals between March, 1964 and June, 1978. Nine breeds found to be at high-risk for hypothyroidism were: golden retrievers, Doberman pinschers, dachshunds, Shetland sheepdogs, Irish setters, Pomeranians, miniature schnauzers, cocker spaniels, and Airedales. Two breed with a significant deficit of risk were German shepherds and mixed breed (mongrel) dogs. . ."
Epidemiologic features of canine hypothyroidism. [Cornell Vet. 1981] - PubMed - NCBI

". . .Among 331 animals with cleft palate in a veterinary clinic-hospital population, cats, mixed breed dogs and German Shepherd Dogs had low risk for cleft palate; high rates were seen in English Bulldogs, some small purebred dogs and Charolais cattle, where cleft palate occurred as part of a syndrome of multiple malformations. . ."
Cleft palate in domestic animals: epidemiologic f... [Teratology. 1980] - PubMed - NCBI​
The above list is curtousy of Jess Ruffner who provided the list in a comment on a Retrieverman blog post.

There is another list here that originated through the original Cangen list, and my memory tells me it came from Dr. Hellmuth Wachtell.

1) B.N. Bonnett, A. Egenvall, P. Olson, . Hedhammar, Mortality in Swedish dogs: rates and causes of death in various breeds, The Veterinary Record, 12/7/1997, S. 40 - 44)
"Mongrels were consistently in the low risk category" (S. 41)

2) P.D. McGreevy & W.F. Nicholas, Some Practical Solutions to Welfare Problems in Pedigree Dog Breeding, Animal Welfare, 1999, Vol 8, 329-331
"Hybrids have a far lower chance of exhibiting the disorders that are common with the parental breeds. Their genetic health will be substantially higher." (P338)

3) A. Egenvall, B.N. Bonnett, P. Olson, . Hedhammar,Gender, age, breed and distribution of morbidity and mortality in insured dogs in Sweden during 1995 and 1996, The Veterinary Record, 29/4/2000, p. 519-57
"Mongrel dogs are less prone to many diseases then the average purebred dog." (S. 524)

4) R. Beythien, Tierarten- und Hunderassenverteilung, Erkrankungshufigkeit und prophylaktische Manahmen bei den hufigsten Hunderassen am Beispiel einer Tierarztpraxis in Bielefeld in den Jahren 1983-1985 und 1990-1992, 1998, Diss., Tierrztl. Hochschule Hannover
Mongrels require less veterinary treatment

5) A. R. Michell, Longevity of British breeds of dog and its relationship with sex, size, cardiovascular variables and disease, Vet. Rec., 27 Nov. 1999, S. 625-629
"There was a significant correlation between body weight and longevity. Crossbreeds lived longer than average but several pure breeds lived longer than cross breeds, notably Jack Russell, miniature poodles and whippets" (S. 627 - thus only small and toy breeds, as to be expected)

6) G.J. Patronek, D.J. Walters, L.T. Glickman, Comparative Longevity of Pet Dogs and Humans: Implications for Gerontology Research, J. Geront., BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 1997, Vol 52A,No.3, B171-B178
"The median age at death was 8,5 years for all mixed breed dogs and 6,7 years for all pure breed dogs For each weight group, the age at death of pure breed dogs was significantly less than for mixed breed dogs." (p. B173)

7) H.F. Proschofsky et al, Mortality of purebred and mixed breed dogs in Denmark, Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 2003, 58, 53-74
Higher average longevity of mixed breed dogs (grouped together). Age at death mixed breeds (Q1 Q2 Q3 mixed breeds 8,11,13, purebreds 6, 10, 12)

http://www.helium.com/items/1265638-mutts-healthier-than-purebreds​


Devil-Dogz said:


> sometimes things like that happen, the chances are 1 in every 4 pups doesnt make it. Some breeders have had more luck than that, some not so. Nature can be cruel. In some cases breeders are at fault through their lack of care, and planning other times nothing can be done. - however one thing we can agree on is covering up such issues does noone any good.


That one in four pup loss number - where do you get it from? In understand it is the case in some breeds but it is far from the case amongst all dogs. . . . not even on average. I have been present for the birthing of 9 litters and the only litter where there was a loss was in one of the two purebred litters. There is a Beagle study from the 60s that has some references to neonatal loss between purebred dogs and crossbred dogs and I'll bring info from that back as well.

This has nothing to do with the taking a hit at purebreds - it has to do with the fact that I really despise denial of what science tells us in these conversations. Personally I like to think breeders would want to understand what they are dealing with in order to breed better.

CC


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> That one in four pup loss number - where do you get it from. It is not the case amongt all dogs.
> 
> CC


a number of breeders, and vets have stated such ( and as vets are are seemingly in the know on breeding pedigree dogs all of a sudden, thought folk may appreciate the comments ). - Hasnt been true for mum, but like you say its not the case among all dogs. Nature, experience, care ' ect all play a apart.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

comfortcreature said:


> I'll make the claim. As evidence shows that mutts - on average - have better health and longevity that purebred dogs.
> 
> That phrase there, the one that says 'on average' has meaning. What it means is that there will be exceptions either way, with some pedigrees being of fantastic health and some of exceptionally poor health, and with some crossbreeds being of fantastic health and some of exceptionally poor health.
> 
> ...


Yeah right!


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> I'll make the claim. As evidence shows that mutts - on average - have better health and longevity that purebred dogs.
> 
> That phrase there, the one that says 'on average' has meaning. What it means is that there will be exceptions either way, with some pedigrees being of fantastic health and some of exceptionally poor health, and with some crossbreeds being of fantastic health and some of exceptionally poor health.
> 
> ...


But these mixed breed dogs, are they 'mixed breed' as in landraces or genetically diverse populations from global populations? As I see these as being a world of difference to a lot of the 'mixed breed' dogs that are currently being bred in the UK for profit, which are advertised as having 'hybrid vigour' with no actual proof



> Seventy dogs from 26 breeds were admitted with primary glaucoma between January 1979 and December 1983. Compared with mixed-breed dogs, 8 breeds were at higher risk


Does this mean that the other 18 breeds were at an equal or lesser risk than the cross breeds.
Also, going by those studies, one of the breeds considered most unhealthy by pedigree dog critics (the GSD) in 3 of the studies has been shown to be at the same level of susceptibility as crossbreeds


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Good job 'most' that actually want to make a difference are not here wasting their time on such a thread...Been an interesting read mind.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Good job 'most' that actually want to make a difference are not here wasting their time on such a thread...Been an interesting read mind.


That's probably true, most that care wouldn't be here or at the alliance in the first place, they'd be too busy looking after their dogs and quietly sorting out the best options show/tests/matings/homes for their dogs.
The best people I usually find are not those that shout about it.
Talking the talk does not mean you actually walk the walk


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

rona said:


> That's probably true, most that care wouldn't be here or at the alliance in the first place, they'd be too busy looking after their dogs and quietly sorting out the best options show/tests/matings/homes for their dogs.
> The best people I usually find are not those that shout about it.
> Talking the talk does not mean you actually walk the walk


Those that want to make a different cant do so keeping quiet, however plenty do the talk and dont follow suit with the walk. I know that only to well..
Of course those that care work on their own dogs, programmes ect' - again not something to keep quiet about, show results, tests results, planned matings, possible homes ect are all something shared....


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

comfortcreature said:


> *I'll make the claim. As evidence shows that mutts - on average - have better health and longevity that purebred dogs.*
> 
> ..........
> 
> ...


I've said it before, but this forum is the only place I see this denial - until I watched PDE, then saw lots of flat earthers, denying scientific consensus - and there is a consensus: small gene pool = health problems.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

Closing this now. A lot of unnecessary argument and it needs to be checked through.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

The personal argument from last night has now been deleted. Keep this on track please without the need to make uncalled for comments about other members or their pets.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

lymorelynn said:


> The personal argument from last night has now been deleted. Keep this on track please without the need to make uncalled for comments about other members or their pets.


I think you missed one, which sort of gives the gist of how things went downhill at a rapid pace form the looks of it


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think you missed one, which sort of gives the gist of how things went downhill at a rapid pace form the looks of it


Thank you - feel free to let me know if you think I missed anything else


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

majortom said:


> i can imagine the response if all doodles, poos and crossbreeds had to have health tests before they could be bred
> oh no i forgot, cos they are crossbreeds, they are heathier,
> wonder how many would form a alliance then


I'm not entirely sure what this comment was aiming to achieve considering this thread is to discuss the CA and the showing element of Crufts , both of which are not aimed at Crosses.

However had there been a similar show for crosses sure most of the posters on this thread would agree that the same standards should apply to crosses.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

There seems to be a misconception to *some* people just what showing is about. The actual term is conformation show, as I understand it, it's about the appearance of the dog and the way it moves, not the full health status. Now whilst many (including me) are very pro health testing, and support it with our own dogs we possibly plan to breed from, or in sourcing a pup, the show ring is not about health test results, it never was. There is a grey area because of the way some health problems are exacerbated by conformation and appearance, and that is the issue (as I understand it) vets were on the look out for, as well as any welfare issues. A dog with a better hip score than the one next to it doesn't make one iota of difference if it doesn't appear as good a representative of the breed overall.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> I'm not entirely sure what this comment was aiming to achieve considering this thread is to discuss the CA and the showing element of Crufts , both of which are not aimed at Crosses.


Tthe title of this thread is "Canine Alliance Formed Last Night". As some of the stated aims of the CA are:

_to uphold the ethics of responsible dog breeding
to encourage health checking of *all *dogs_

then surely it is as relevant to the post title to discuss crossbreeds as it is to discuss pedigrees?

And btw, the Canine Alliance are concerned about health testing at *all *Championship shows. Crufts just happens to be the championship show where the KC chose to do it first. (Sorry, I don't mean to single you out on this Cockerpoo Lover - a lot of people seem to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick here and yours was just the most convenient post to quote  ) If the KC had chosen any one of the others, the fact that the majority of exhibitors felt it wasn't working and that the KC needed to rethink how to do it properly (which is all the Canine Alliance are wanting) would have gone as largely unnoticed by the public as many of the other things in the show world.

For example, I read in _Dog World_ (March 25th Edition, p3) that the vet checks were given a trial run at BUBA (The British Utility Breeds Assocation Championship Show). How many members of the public actually knew that?

And very interestingly, according to the article in _Dog World_, the bulldog who failed the independent vet check at Crufts becaue of a scratch on his eye gained during puppy play actually passed the independent vet check at BUBA. When independent vet checks are at odds like this, is it any wonder that exhibitors are wanting the KC to come up with a fairer system of health checking? For the general public, this is a one-off, something that happened at Crufts. For exhibitors, this is something that is going to affect their dogs at every championship show - ie almost every week. That is another reason why they feel it is so important not to accept a flawed system, to ask the KC to get it right.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

I don't mind you quoting me 

Apart from the bit you highlighted in red the rest of their Mission statement is aimed at Pedigrees.

Underneath their logo it says Responsible for Pedigree Dogs so shouldn't it say Responsible for all dogs?

The opening bit says " The canine Alliance was formed to represent everyone involved with pedigree dogs."..........

So if as you say it does include crossbreeds- think they need to change the wording to be more inclusive then, as sure many of us think it is aimed only at people involved with Pedigrees.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> There seems to be a misconception to *some* people just what showing is about. The actual term is conformation show, as I understand it, it's about the appearance of the dog and the way it moves, not the full health status. Now whilst many (including me) are very pro health testing, and support it with our own dogs we possibly plan to breed from, or in sourcing a pup, the show ring is not about health test results, it never was. There is a grey area because of the way some health problems are exacerbated by conformation and appearance, and that is the issue (as I understand it) vets were on the look out for, as well as any welfare issues. A dog with a better hip score than the one next to it doesn't make one iota of difference if it doesn't appear as good a representative of the breed overall.


I don't think it is us that keep banging on about health tests, most of us non show people are talking about breeding dogs that cannot breath/walk/see or are in pain because of the breed clubs choice of breed standard and burying their heads in the sand and opposing the KCs efforts to reverse it.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Tthe title of this thread is "Canine Alliance Formed Last Night". As some of the stated aims of the CA are:
> 
> _to uphold the ethics of responsible dog breeding
> to encourage health checking of *all *dogs_


What like suspending independent health checks...



> then surely it is as relevant to the post title to discuss crossbreeds as it is to discuss pedigrees?


How about the mission statement...








How is it then applicable to crossbreeds yet alone ALL dogs? I do not see anything but pedigree there or have they changed it recently as they realized they were showing their true colours.



> And btw, the Canine Alliance are concerned about health testing at *all *Championship shows. Crufts just happens to be the championship show where the KC chose to do it first. (Sorry, I don't mean to single you out on this Cockerpoo Lover - a lot of people seem to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick here and yours was just the most convenient post to quote  ) If the KC had chosen any one of the others, the fact that the majority of exhibitors felt it wasn't working and that the KC needed to rethink how to do it properly (which is all the Canine Alliance are wanting) would have gone as largely unnoticed by the public as many of the other things in the show world.
> 
> For example, I read in _Dog World_ (March 25th Edition, p3) that the vet checks were given a trial run at BUBA (The British Utility Breeds Assocation Championship Show). How many members of the public actually knew that?


However not independent health checks. The whole reason for the call for vets for Crufts was to have an independent vet check from someone not associated with breed standards, who didn't judge or show. On the flip side neither should they have shown any bias against pedigree dogs.

Lets look at the KC comments News >Dog World >Dog World Home >Dogworld


> Why have veterinary checks  the primary reason was to prevent dogs with clinical problems associated with exaggerated conformation competing in the group ring. *Only healthy dogs should receive high awards*. The *concept of a veterinary check is not new* and was introduced three years ago at Crufts on a basis of referral by ringside observers. Breeds were observed from the ringside and BOB winners were referred to the vet if observers believed there was any sign of health or welfare problems arising from exaggerated conformation. In parallel, the results of judges and observers scoring for health and welfare of the high-profile breed in the show ring are reported in the Dog Health Groups annual reports (2010 and 2011). These show how the ringside and the judge can disagree about a breed's health and welfare status.
> *This system based upon voluntary referral by observers still yielded occasions where dogs entered the group ring without a veterinary check that were subsequently criticised regarding health and welfare*. In part this was because of a lack of referral or the presence of eye conditions that were not easily visible from the ringside but were visible close-up. At this time breeds examined were told where problems were noted but no breeds were excluded at Crufts in 2010 and 2011 following a veterinary check. In part this recognised the ongoing work to rectify some major problems in some breeds at that time. *The General Committee, therefore, considered the recommendation from the Dog Health Group to make veterinary checks compulsory for the high-profile breeds and agreed this would start at Crufts 2012.*


The Cumber Spaniel disqualified at Crufts and the kennel it belongs to is an excellent example as to why reliance on simply health tests does not work (ignoring age of testing issues). Average lifespan of 4-5 years despite passing testing.



> For exhibitors, this is something that is going to affect their dogs at every championship show - ie almost every week. That is another reason why they feel it is so important not to accept a flawed system, to ask the KC to get it right.


Getting it right I can understand. Addition of a possible appeal system, letting the show organizers release the vet report if questioned as owners obviously don't want to for some reason. Maybe if the Canine Alliance were pushing for these more, attitudes may have been different. Why aren't the Canine Alliance asking for those disqualified to release the vet reports to achieve more transparency? Do the ribbons/certificates mean more to people than the overall health of their dogs?

I think there is a difference though between what you would classify as "right" and what others would.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> I don't think it is us that keep banging on about health tests, most of us non show people are talking about breeding dogs that cannot breath/walk/see or are in pain because of the breed clubs choice of breed standard and burying their heads in the sand and opposing the KCs efforts to reverse it.


And who do you imagine is wanting the KC to reverse their efforts?

Not the Canine Alliance. They merely want the present unfair system to be suspended and a fairer one - one that includes all dogs, all breeds - to replace it. Hardly a reversal, Rona 

I'll tell you what I've noticed - whatever else the Canine Alliance does or does not do, they have, on this forum at least, done more for the Kennel Club than anyone or anything I know. I'm sitting here chuckling to myself at all the new supporters of the Kennel Club - supporters who, a week before Crufts, hated the Kennel Club and all it stood for and couldn't decry them loudly enough. :lol:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> I don't think it is us that keep banging on about health tests, most of us non show people are talking about breeding dogs that cannot breath/walk/see or are in pain because of the breed clubs choice of breed standard and burying their heads in the sand and opposing the KCs efforts to reverse it.


So there's no one saying that it should be compulsory for all pedigree show dogs to have mandatory health tests then? Maybe not you, but there are certainly some who *think* that it should be the case.

I'm not sure how many times I have to say it, I don't agree with some of the exaggerations with some breeds either. But unlike others, I don't see the CA opposing changes for the better, but pushing for it in a more effective and plausible way, what's the point in health checks that aren't creditable, where people can pick holes in the method and way it's done? They need to be done properly, and they need to be done across the board, otherwise they're pretty much pointless.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

I thought the dog was judged against the Breed standard and was awarded points on certain aspects and that the Dogs that was most like the breed standard in appearance and conformation etc etc were the ones that were the top winners.

One thing I didnt know was that all registered Breed clubs/councils are required to undertake breed specific training and to progress judges for their own breed by maintaining their own lists of Judges. I must admit I though all Judges and Judging was governed by the Kennel club and they exclusively awarded all judging positions, unless Ive misunderstood it its the Breed Clubs, who I think also write the Breed standards that the dogs are judged against.

I found this too that was quite interesting
Its from the Guide for Judges and Ring Stewards. It is 2009 edition.

2:5 All dogs must be able to see, breathe, walk and be free from pain, irritation
or discomfort. Judges must, in assessing dogs, penalise any features or
exaggerations which they consider would be detrimental to the soundness,
health or well being of the dog. [F.9]
2:6 Judges should never award prizes to dogs which are visibly suffering from any
condition which would adversely affect their health or welfare. For example:
 lameness  including hopping
 inappropriate temperament whether this is excessive timidity or aggression
 a discharge from one or both eyes or any signs of discomfort in
either eye
 obvious breathing difficulty
 obvious skin or ear irritation
 exaggerations that would make the dog unsuited to the breeds
original purpose
 significantly over or under weight
Dogs with such problems are not healthy dogs and should not be awarded prizes.

Interestingly the one and only leaked vet report for the clumber, stated Ectropian and conjuntivitis and also Otis Externa which I believe is an ear infection/redness.
The otis externa from memory was under conditions but I think it said not reason for disqualification.

According to the guide for judges and ring stewards it shouldnt have been put through.

Anyone whos interested in the whole guide see link:-
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/488/guidejudges.pdf

I know the Canine Alliance seem to be fighting for more influence and say in the Order of things, and are there to represent, Breeders, Exhibitors and Judges but from the above (unless I have it wrong which I could have), firstly the breed standards is decided by the Breed Clubs, wich is what the dogs are judged against, and the Judges are decided by the Breed Clubs, from what I can make out fellow breeders and exhibitors, I thought they would have considerable power and say anyway, and have done all this time.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So there's no one saying that it should be compulsory for all pedigree show dogs to have mandatory health tests then? Maybe not you, but there are certainly some who *think* that it should be the case.
> 
> I'm not sure how many times I have to say it, I don't agree with some of the exaggerations with some breeds either. But unlike others, I don't see the CA opposing changes for the better, but pushing for it in a more effective and plausible way, what's the point in health checks that aren't creditable, where people can pick holes in the method and way it's done? They need to be done properly, and they need to be done across the board, otherwise they're pretty much pointless.


And what led up to that comment? Huh, I'm buggered if I can remember, but I do remember starting to be astounded about the alliances attitude 
To be honest I'm losing the will to live. :Yawn: If the show fraternity cannot understand why people are horrified by their reaction and just go on the defensive all the time. What hope is there?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> However not independent health checks. The whole reason for the call for vets for Crufts was to have an independent vet check from someone not associated with breed standards, who didn't judge or show. On the flip side neither should they have shown any bias against pedigree dogs.


Goodness knows why you were quoting a piece about ringside observers. This has nothing to do with the trial run at BUBA, which was done by an independent vet according to _Dog World_ (March 23rd edition p3) - ie "an independent vet check from someone not associated with breed standards, who didn't judge or show" to quote your own words back at you. Perhaps you did not notice the words "trial run", or understand that this was a different process to the process of ringside observing that went on during the assessment period, and which you quoted in your reply. This trial run is also quoted on the Bulldog Breed Council site:

_This bulldog also went through this very same veterinary check as a volunteer at the trial run held by the BUBA [British Utility Breeds Association] in December 2011 which was witnessed and watched by two independent Show officials of the society. With this passed obviously there was no warning that this failure was going to happen at such a high profile show in front of the world just a few months later_

Bulldog Breed Council

If you had already looked at the BBC site, perhaps you were confused about them mentioning that the independent vet checks were witnessed by two show officials? Perhaps you have mixed that up with what you quoted about the KC Chairman as saying? I suppose it is an easy mistake to make if all you are doing is reading about things instead of actually being a part of things and hence knowing what you are actually talking about 



Goblin said:


> I think there is a difference though between what you would classify as "right" and what others would.


I realise you meant the above comment nastily, but I'm going to rise above that. Nor am I going to report your post for a personal attack.

You see, I classify as "right" a system of health checks that applies to all dogs at all shows and that ensures no healthy dog is unfairly penalised.

If others don't classify that as right, then they obviously do not have the health of dogs at heart.

And whilst you may continue to whip up supporters who don't know any better with your rhetoric about "caring for ribbons more than dogs' health", that is all it is - rhetoric. If exhibitors cared more about ribbons than the health of their dogs, they would be going quietly about their business, laughing to themsleves because _their_ breed, _their _dogs were not in the spotlight and were ok. If all they cared about was their own ribbons etc, they would be delighted that only one dog in six breeds out of the 200+ breeds had been highlighted as unhealthy. If all they cared about was their own ribbons, they would be shouting from the rooftops, "Look how this proves that all the rest of the dogs at Crufts are healthy!". If all they cared about was their own ribbons, they would certainly not be forming an alliance to try to make sure that ALL dogs are to be tested. Logic isn't your strong point, is it?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> If the show fraternity cannot understand why people are horrified by their reaction and just go on the defensive all the time. What hope is there?


So you think the show fraternity should just shut up and not defend themsleves when they are attacked? If they did, you would be saying something along the lines of "they must know what people are saying is right because they are not defending themsleves".

I am a member of the show fraternity, and I don't understand why you are horrified that I want the present unfair system to be suspended and a fairer one - one that includes all dogs, all breeds - to replace it. So can you explain to me why you are horrified by this, Rona?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> So you think the show fraternity should just shut up and not defend themsleves when they are attacked? If they did, you would be saying something along the lines of "they must know what people are saying is right because they are not defending themsleves".
> 
> I am a member of the show fraternity, and I don't understand why you are horrified that I want the present unfair system to be suspended and a fairer one - one that includes all dogs, all breeds - to replace it. So can you explain to me why you are horrified by this, Rona?


Because of you and some of your counterparts inability to even grasp the point most of us are making.

Also, if you think that Goblin was being nasty rather than just making a point, I despair


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> Because of you and some of your counterparts inability to even grasp the point most of us are making.


OK, so tell me so that I can understand - what is the point that you are making? Why do you feel that it is wrong to want the present unfair system to be suspended and a fairer one - one that includes all dogs, all breeds - to replace it? This is the third time I have asked you this and you haven't answered me yet, so you can hardly complain if I don't understand the point you are making.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> And who do you imagine is wanting the KC to reverse their efforts?
> 
> Not the Canine Alliance. They merely want the present unfair system to be suspended and a fairer one - one that includes all dogs, all breeds - to replace it.


Can I just ask, why does the CA feel that the present system is such an unfair one?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Can I just ask, why does the CA feel that the present system is such an unfair one?


You would have to ask a member of the CA that question.

My own view is this:

One reason is that the bulldog was disqualified for a scratch on its eye that it probably got when playing as a pup - if that is a disqualifying feature not only is it unfair (because it does not affect the dog's health in any way), then just imagine how many other dogs of all breeds would need to be disqualified too.

Another reason is the inconsistency of the vet checks - the bulldog that failed the vet check at Crufts passed the trial vet check at BUBA - surely a system that can pass a dog at one show and fail it at the next cannot be right? The scratch on the eye must have been there at BUBA - so either the dog should have been failed there, or it should have passed at Crufts. These checks are going to take place at every champ show from now on - a system that will pass a dog at once show and fail it at the next cannot be either fair or right. (Of course, there are things that can alter between shows such as lameness, conjunctivitis etc, and in those cases it would be right to pass at once show but not another, but I'm not talking about those here)


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> OK, so tell me so that I can understand - what is the point that you are making? Why do you feel that it is wrong to want the present unfair system to be suspended and a fairer one - one that includes all dogs, all breeds - to replace it? This is the third time I have asked you this and you haven't answered me yet, so you can hardly complain if I don't understand the point you are making.


All you have to do is read this thread with an open mind and you will get the answer to your question.
I'm out of this thread now, I've spent the last three days with a sister who may have lost the sight in one eye and my concentration on this important thread hasn't been all it could have been and I've lost the plot.
I do hope that someone else who has managed to follow it tries to get through to you all


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> All you have to do is read this thread with an open mind and you will get the answer to your question.
> I'm out of this thread now, I've spent the last three days with a sister who may have lost the sight in one eye and my concentration on this important thread hasn't been all it could have been and I've lost the plot.
> I do hope that someone else who has managed to follow it tries to get through to you all


Oh no - hope your sister is going to be ok Rona. Fingers crossed that she doesn't lose her sight.

I'll spare you the huge reply you would have got about the kind of posts on this thread because I can see your priorities are rightly with your sister.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Goodness knows why you were quoting a piece about ringside observers.


The piece quoted wasn't simply about ringside observers. Read the piece.


> Only healthy dogs should receive high awards. *The concept of a veterinary check is not new* and was introduced three years ago at Crufts on a basis of referral by ringside observers. Breeds were observed from the ringside and *BOB winners were referred to the vet if observers believed there was any sign of health or welfare problems* arising from exaggerated conformation.


It wasn't working. So something else was needed.



> This has nothing to do with the trial run at BUBA, which was done by an independent vet according to _Dog World_ (March 23rd edition p3)


How were they chosen? The open letter asking for veterinary surgeons to volunteer to carry out vet checks appeared in Veterinary Record on 4 February 2012 (Volume 170, Issue 5). 
Veterinary checks on best of breed winners at Crufts -- Padgett 170 (5): 131 -- Veterinary Record


> COLLEAGUES will be aware that one of the Kennel Club's (KC's) actions towards improving dog health and welfare at dog shows was to announce the introduction of veterinary checks of the best of breed winners in each of the 15 high profile breeds, *to begin at Crufts 2012*.


Funny this was after the trial.



> I suppose it is an easy mistake to make if all you are doing is reading about things instead of actually being a part of things and hence knowing what you are actually talking about


Are you saying the KC and BVA are lying in documentation published prior to crufts? Or are you saying a magazine is more reliable than KC statements or the BVA?

I may even feel sympathy for the bulldog owner if they had released a copy of the vet check report from crufts.



> I realise you meant the above comment nastily, but I'm going to rise above that. Nor am I going to report your post for a personal attack.


If you want to get to the level where difference of opinions are always a personal attack we wouldn't have a forum.



> You see, I classify as "right" a system of health checks that applies to all dogs at all shows and that ensures no healthy dog is unfairly penalised.


How practical would it be to have independent vet checks for all BOB's? It's easy to suggest something which people know is unworkable in practice. Consider this... If a minority of breeds had not failed would you still be shouting it's not fair to limit it to the 15? What's strange is that I didn't hear these cries before the event after the vet checks were announced, only after the disqualifications. I wonder why. Could it be the failures hit a nerve or is it another example of the group mentality to support each other regardless.



> And whilst you may continue to whip up supporters who don't know any better with your rhetoric about "caring for ribbons more than dogs' health", that is all it is - rhetoric.


Unfortunately actions speak larger than words. Are you saying all the dogs were incorrectly judged and disqualified? If not why condone the ill health of these dogs. I notice nobody in the Canine Alliance has pointed these out.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

I can see that inconsistencies that may have occurred in the case of the bulldog but it seems a large step to set up such an organisation for that alone.

Don't get me wrong, if there are inconsistencies, they need to be addressed, but is it only about that?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> How were they chosen? The open letter asking for veterinary surgeons to volunteer to carry out vet checks appeared in Veterinary Record on 4 February 2012 (Volume 170, Issue 5).
> Veterinary checks on best of breed winners at Crufts -- Padgett 170 (5): 131 -- Veterinary Record
> 
> Funny this was after the trial.
> ...


Eh? Where have I said any of that? (Shakes head in disbelief) The more you post, the more you expose that your only knowledge comes from reading about the subject. If you did actually know what you were talking about, you would know that at every champ show there is a vet - usually the local vet - either there or on call. I am guessing that either this vet performed the vet check, or the KC and the BVA arranged a trail - but as I don't know, I can't say for definite. Unlike you, I don't pretend to knowledge I do not have. btw - _Dog World_ is weekly newspaper, not a magazine 



Goblin said:


> If you want to get to the level where difference of opinions are always a personal attack we wouldn't have a forum.


If you don't want people to take things as a personal attack, you should not post statements such as



Goblin said:


> I think there is a difference though between what you would classify as "right" and what others would.


How is that anything other than a personal attack on my views as to what is right?



Goblin said:


> How practical would it be to have independent vet checks for all BOB's? It's easy to suggest something which people know is unworkable in practice.


There are other ways of doing it that are workable - such as every dog has to have a yearly health certificate from an independent vet before it is allowed to enter a show - this certificate could be issued by the show vet at each show (who is usually the local vet and hence an independent vet) - there is already a precedent for this with such things as eye tests etc available at shows.



Goblin said:


> Consider this... If a minority of breeds had not failed would you still be shouting it's not fair to limit it to the 15? What's strange is that I didn't hear these cries before the event after the vet checks were announced, only after the disqualifications. I wonder why. Could it be the failures hit a nerve or is simply the group mentality to support each other.


Or - and more credibly than any of the reasons you mention above -
it could be that it was only after some dogs were disqualified unfairly, and that a dog was passed by one independent vet check yet failed by another, that the problems came to light.



Goblin said:


> Are you saying all the dogs were incorrectly judged and disqualified? If not why condone the ill health of these dogs. I notice nobody in the Canine Alliance has pointed these out.


No I am not saying that all the dogs were incorrectly judged and disqualified - stop trying to pretend I am. So how am I condoning any ill health? What part of wanting fair testing is condoning ill health - either on my part or the alliance's part?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> I can see that inconsistencies that may have occurred in the case of the bulldog but it seems a large step to set up such an organisation for that alone.


Don't forget, this is not just about Crufts. These tests are going to happen at every champ show. Champ shows occur just about every week - and sometimes more often that that - in the summer. So wanting the vet checks to be consistent in that context is not a small thing at all.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Eh? Where have I said any of that?





Spellweaver said:


> I suppose it is an easy mistake to make if all you are doing is reading about things instead of actually being a part of things and hence knowing what you are actually talking about


If I take information from credible sources and say I don't know what I am talking about. Either what I am reading is wrong or not. You continue even in the recent post...



> (Shakes head in disbelief) The more you post, the more you expose that your only knowledge comes from reading about the subject.





> If you did actually know what you were talking about, you would know that at every champ show there is a vet - usually the local vet - either there or on call. I am guessing that either this vet performed the vet check, or the KC and the BVA arranged a trail - but as I don't know, I can't say for definite. Unlike you,* I don't pretend to knowledge I do not have.*


But you already have. By stating that the vet was independent. It could be a local vet that shows/breeds pedigree bulldogs as an extreme example. That's the whole point. We don't know. A lot of the "don't know" could be resolved by the bulldog owner releasing the vet report so we know why it actually failed for, rather than the statement by the breed club. Isn't it shocking... I'm calling for facts to be released.



> There are other ways of doing it that are workable - such as every dog has to have a yearly health certificate from an independent vet before it is allowed to enter a show - this certificate could be issued by the show vet at each show (who is usually the local vet and hence an independent vet) - there is already a precedent for this with such things as eye tests etc available at shows.


Not transparent.. isn't the CA looking for transparency. I've already stated one reason the local vet may not be independent. It's a system open to potential abuse. How many of the 6 disqualified dogs had "health checks" yet were still failed for valid reasons?



> No I am not saying that all the dogs were incorrectly judged and disqualified - stop trying to pretend I am. So how am I condoning any ill health? What part of wanting fair testing is condoning ill health - either on my part


You do not mention at all anything about those who where disqualified "fairly", concentrating on a breed club statement of innocence for one dog. We still do not KNOW what the dog in question was actually disqualified for.

How can removing health checks which disqualify unhealthy dogs not be seen as condoning the use and showing of those dogs?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> But you already have. By stating that the vet was independent.


You are wrong. Read it again. I stated that *according to Dog World the vet was independent*. You see, this is the trouble with your only knowledge coming from what you read rather than from hands on knowledge and experience. Your reading depends upon your comprehension - and this is merely the latest example you have given of not fully comprehending what you read.



Goblin said:


> Not transparent.. isn't the CA looking for transparency. I've already stated one reason the local vet may not be independent. It's a system open to potential abuse.


Given that the present system calls for an independent vet to be present to do the checks at every champ show, what is the difference between employing an independent vet to health check at a dog show and employing an independent vet to do a yearly health screen at a dog show? Surely the potential for abuse of the system is equal in both cases? If, as you seem to be arguing, a vet who is totally independent can be found to do the health checks, why do you think a vet who is totally independent can't be found to do a yearly health check?



Goblin said:


> You do not mention at all anything about those who where disqualified "fairly",


What is there to mention? They were disqualified fairly. The system worked for them, but didn't work in other cases. And that is the whole point. The system is not working properly across the board and hence is unfair. What is the point in sticking to an unfair system? Surely it's much better to replace it with a system which does work.



Goblin said:


> How can removing health checks which disqualify unhealthy dogs not be seen as condoning the use and showing of those dogs?


By replacing them with better health checks which not only disqualify unhealthy dogs but also do not disqualify healthy ones.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

If they went for yearly certificates for all dogs, I would expect the KC to bring in random testing and drug testing tbh. especially for the high risk breeds. To double check without giving notice. As exhibitors already choose to attend shows where they feel the judge will be sympathetic, or like their dog and avoid where they know the judge won't like them, I would expect them to pick and choose the shows they attend for their vet test too.

Miserable, distrustful cow that I am.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> If they went for yearly certificates for all dogs, I would expect the KC to bring in random testing and drug testing tbh. especially for the high risk breeds. To double check without giving notice. As exhibitors already choose to attend shows where they feel the judge will be sympathetic, or like their dog and avoid where they know the judge won't like them, I would expect them to pick and choose the shows they attend for their vet test too.
> 
> Miserable, distrustful cow that I am.


You may be right - but wouldn't that also apply to the vet checks that are going to take place at the moment? If things stay as they are, won't people still be picking and chosing shows in order to avoid vets who are seen as stricter than others?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Surely the potential for abuse of the system is equal in both cases? If, as you seem to be arguing, a vet who is totally independent can be found to do the health checks, why do you think a vet who is totally independent can't be found to do a yearly health check?


Yes, potential abuse (or even personal opinion) is possible in both cases, but I don't think this is the problem.

An annual health check could not replace the vet check at a show. Firstly, the show vet will (or should) be working to a very specific remit. To expect every vet in the country to know what this is would be too time consuming and unnecessary. Goodness, how many vets know about health tests, much less what health tests are required for each breed. I'm not surprised that there are conflicts between different vets. It would be better to have an appointed panel (even if they are GP vets) rather like the specialist panels that can eye test /hips score etc.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> but also do not disqualify healthy ones


where has this happened? Have both vet checks for the bulldog been released now?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

You're probably right too. Though it would probably be easier if they only had to find a sympathetic vet once a year and could dose their dog up with antibiotics, painkillers etc once a year. 

With the current system, finding out who the vet is for each weekly show and avoiding the ones they think will be too strict, might at least restrict their show career a bit and they may well have to avoid Crufts altogether. Plus people might start to notice when Mr Smith is absent from any show that has a strict vet, which wouldn't look good for Mr Smith, but would look very good for Mrs Jones who attends any show and whose dog passes every test. 

I don't think the CA want all general vets to issue certificates at home, I think they want the dogs to be able to get a yearly certificate from the vets at the shows. The same vets at the shows that will be doing the checks for the KC already?

If they did do it, they'd have a lot of dogs to check at the first few shows wouldn't they? Or would they have to stagger it somehow? Don't know how? With some kind of ticket? Would this mean that all the dogs issued vet certs, say at Bath and West in May, would have to get their next cert. at Bath and West in May the following year?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

And while I'm at it.  What about the dogs from abroad? And the dogs that have those lifetime tickets that mean they get to show at Crufts without winning something else. Would they just get checked when they turned up?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Yes, potential abuse (or even personal opinion) is possible in both cases, but I don't think this is the problem.
> 
> An annual health check could not replace the vet check at a show. Firstly, the show vet will (or should) be working to a very specific remit. To expect every vet in the country to know what this is would be too time consuming and unnecessary. Goodness, how many vets know about health tests, much less what health tests are required for each breed. I'm not surprised that there are conflicts between different vets. It would be better to have an appointed panel (even if they are GP vets) rather like the specialist panels that can eye test /hips score etc.


That would be a good idea too - I rather like the idea of a panel rather than it being down to one vet. There would have to be several different panels however in order to cover all the shows.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> And while I'm at it.  What about the dogs from abroad? And the dogs that have those lifetime tickets that mean they get to show at Crufts without winning something else. Would they just get checked when they turned up?


They'd be checked at Crufts just as they would be checked at any other champ show. If Blackpool Champ show (to pick one out of the ether) is the only champ show they attend, then they'd be checked there. If Crufts is the only champ show they attend, then they'd be checked there.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Must admit it sounds like a logistical nightmare to me.

Ensuring that all dogs were vet checked before they could enter a show, but they would have to attend a show to get the vet check and couldn't go into the ring until they had their vet check..

Would those that fail on the day be banned from shows altogether, or allowed to try again?

How many dogs do they get at shows?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> You're probably right too. Though it would probably be easier if they only had to find a sympathetic vet once a year and could dose their dog up with antibiotics, painkillers etc once a year.


If they had to do this, they would have to do it at every show otherwise the dog wouldn't be able to show anyway 



Elles said:


> With the current system, finding out who the vet is for each weekly show and avoiding the ones they think will be too strict, might at least restrict their show career a bit and they may well have to avoid Crufts altogether. Plus people might start to notice when Mr Smith is absent from any show that has a strict vet, which wouldn't look good for Mr Smith, but would look very good for Mrs Jones who attends any show and whose dog passes every test.


But again, wouldn't that be the same with vets doing yearly health checks at shows



Elles said:


> I don't think the CA want all general vets to issue certificates at home, I think they want the dogs to be able to get a yearly certificate from the vets at the shows. The same vets at the shows that will be doing the checks for the KC already?


Yes, I think you are right about this.



Elles said:


> If they did do it, they'd have a lot of dogs to check at the first few shows wouldn't they? Or would they have to stagger it somehow? Don't know how? With some kind of ticket? Would this mean that all the dogs issued vet certs, say at Bath and West in May, would have to get their next cert. at Bath and West in May the following year?


There would probably have to be some kind of staggered period until all dogs get their initial assessment. Most months - certainly the summer months - have several champ shows during the month so exhibitors would not be restricted to going to the same show each time. Most breeds also have breed specific champ shows as well as the general champ shows, and - in border collies at least, and I'm sure it will be the same for most other breeds -at these breed specific champ shows exhibitors are already used to booking in for the vet to do eye testing, for example. Booking in for a general health test is just an extenson of this.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Ah okay. Thanks Spellweaver.

It sounds as though it's something that would take some years to organise and another registry set up for it. An MOT station at shows. 

In the meantime, quick checks for the most at risk breeds, but maybe tweaked a bit by the KC if they aren't quite so, would be okay? Or do the breeders want them banned altogether, whilst they sort out the dogs ready for the MOTs at a later date, when it's sorted out?

As a layman outsider, I can't see the problem with checking a few at risk breeds, it would be seen to be doing something positive and it could help with assessing how to go forward. Whether with vet checks for all, or yearly certs or something entirely different.

I don't think anyone who fails any test is going to be happy about it, especially if they sincerely believe there is nothing wrong with their dog and I think they're going to be really, really unhappy if they fail a yearly test that means they can't show at all. 

A minefield. I'll stick to my horses. :lol:

jmho


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> Ah okay. Thanks Spellweaver.
> 
> It sounds as though it's something that would take some years to organise and another registry set up for it. An MOT station at shows.
> 
> ...


lol - it certainly is a minefield. As someone who shows, I think the main problem is that the tests have proved not to be fair, and that a fair system needs to be found. I think until a fair system is found, it is not fair to check any breeds - but by that I don't mean things should be put on a back burner and allowed to die down. I think a fair system should be proposed and tried pretty damn quickly - I'm talking weeks here rather than months - and using the at risk breeds to trial any new system before rolling it out to all breeds would be a pretty good idea.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sled dog hotel said:


> I thought the dog was judged against the Breed standard and was awarded points on certain aspects and that the Dogs that was most like the breed standard in appearance and conformation etc etc were the ones that were the top winners.
> 
> One thing I didnt know was that all registered Breed clubs/councils are required to undertake breed specific training and to progress judges for their own breed by maintaining their own lists of Judges. I must admit I though all Judges and Judging was governed by the Kennel club and they exclusively awarded all judging positions, unless Ive misunderstood it its the Breed Clubs, who I think also write the Breed standards that the dogs are judged against.
> 
> ...


Right, I've had a curry and a couple of glasses of red so may talk utter rubbish, but here goes!

The breed clubs, as I understand it, in conjunction with the KC produce and ratify breed standards. It's not all one way from what I can make out, and input from both sides can end up in changes, so it's not *just* down to breed clubs, although they are the most appropriate place, all things being equal, for that responsibility to lie.

Just looking at the list of criteria, and a disclaimer here as this is not an excuse, but it would be a harsh judge that excluded a dog that wasn't sure of it's surroundings, having said that, it should also be down to those showing to ensure their dogs are used to events, although I must admit having winged it with Rhuna, I'm glad she just took it all in her stride. It could be a very daunting event particularly for a youngster, Rhuna's first show involved space heaters which she didn't like at all, but we just ignored them and got her past them a few times. I dare anyone with a dog to walk past them for the first ever time without their dog looking petrified.

The key thing for me in that is the exaggerations that prevent the dog unsuited to it's original purpose. Ears and coat so long dogs trip over them, or would get stuck in a slight thicket let alone dense cover. Skin rolling off dogs, none of this can be good, and the list goes on, and yet how many other words can we use to disguise these exaggerations, furnishings, substance, etc, etc. Some people do need to learn to be honest with themselves about the dogs in front of them, definitely.



rona said:


> And what led up to that comment? Huh, I'm buggered if I can remember, but I do remember starting to be astounded about the alliances attitude
> To be honest I'm losing the will to live. :Yawn: If the show fraternity cannot understand why people are horrified by their reaction and just go on the defensive all the time. What hope is there?


And what led to your comment? I've admitted many times on this thread and many others, that *some* show breeds have become exaggerated in my opinion and from what I've seen of them, and are not fit to do the job they would originally have been bred for. But no matter how much those of us who care about pedigrees admit these things, and try to put forward how we'd like to see things changed for the better in the future for the health of pedigree breeds, we're all still apparently burying our heads in the sand according to some.



rocco33 said:


> Can I just ask, why does the CA feel that the present system is such an unfair one?


I think it's the ad hoc way the system seemed to be presented, and to be honest, with the job I do, I can honestly say it wouldn't pass muster for a Quality Assurance scheme, you need something that can't be picked to pieces by one side or the other. And if that's not the CA's gripe it's certainly one of mine.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> You are wrong. Read it again. I stated that *according to Dog World the vet was independent*. You see, this is the trouble with your only knowledge coming from what you read rather than from hands on knowledge and experience. Your reading depends upon your comprehension - and this is merely the latest example you have given of not fully comprehending what you read.


Wait let me get this right.. you are criticizing me and stating I am wrong because I read details from official sources backing your argument with information you have read. That's very logical.



> Given that the present system calls for an independent vet to be present to do the checks at every champ show, what is the difference between employing an independent vet to health check at a dog show and employing an independent vet to do a yearly health screen at a dog show?


The difference is pass one... you've got your get out of issues free card. You only need one sympathetic, non-independent vet to go through the rest of the year. Doesn't take a genius to see this is far more open to abuse.



> What is there to mention? They were disqualified fairly. The system worked for them, but didn't work in other cases. And that is the whole point. The system is not working properly across the board and hence is unfair. What is the point in sticking to an unfair system? Surely it's much better to replace it with a system which does work.


Have you seen the vet report from the check for the bulldog? Are you discounting the 9 breeds that passed their vet checks? I would imagine you agree with their check results. So out of 15 how many are you saying were checked incorrectly? Why is the Canine Alliance not pushing the successes of the system?

What happens if a dog passes your health check one year and not the next year? What happens if it fails one check but succeeds in the next? Who is right? You get exactly what you are saying about the bulldog disqualification.

How about an appeal process, after all I keep hearing it's not about the ribbons/certificates. If a dog fails a vet check they can appeal for another independent vet check assigned by the BVA. This vet (or a couple of vets so you could use majority wins) could recheck the dog specifically and only for what it failed for and in instances such as that claimed by the bulldog "old scar" potentially get an official "excuse note" so vets in future can discount the issue. If they win the appeal the BOB title would be reinstated and published. If the appeals vet/committee decides the original check was justified this would be recorded for future reference. In all cases owners should agree vet check reports may be published by the show organizers if questions arise. Not open to the level of potential abuse. Solves the succeed one check fail another and doesn't need major changes in the majority of instances.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

There most certainly needs to be an appeal process in place ...but there is another fundamental problem with the tests - in some of the disqualified breeds their breed standards specifically states that some haw showing was allowed -( here's the Clumber Spaniels *Eyes:
Clean, dark, amber. Full light eyes highly undesirable. Acceptable to have some haw showing but without excess. Free from obvious eye problems*.

The trouble was that the vets interpreted *any* haw showing as ectropian - which means that even though the BOB's wre bred according to the KC's own approved standrd they could not pass the test - why did the Kc accept the entry fees from exhibitors in whole breeds in the knowledge that if bred to their current breed standrd they could not pass the vet test ?..why did they allow the judge to assess the dogs according to the current Kc breed standard if they knew no matter what dog got BOB it would not pass the test ? ......

Now I'm not saying that the vet was wrong to interpret haw showing as ectropian - I'm not a vet - but the kc was certainly wrong not to have changed the breed standard many years before the vet tests kicked in to state that ONLY tight eyes were acceptable ...and allowed breeders time to breed for them ....and the BVA eye tests that most of the dogs had previously passed should ALSO have clearly stated this ..no wonder breeders, exhibitors and judges within those breeds are in despair -what went on at Crufts was unfair, illogical and discriminatory especially when you remember that the dog that went on to win Res BIS also had haw showing !.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Bijou said:


> There most certainly needs to be an appeal process in place ...but there is another fundamental problem with the tests - in some of the disqualified breeds their breed standards specifically states that some haw showing was allowed -( here's the Clumber Spaniels *Eyes:
> Clean, dark, amber. Full light eyes highly undesirable. Acceptable to have some haw showing but without excess. Free from obvious eye problems*.
> 
> The trouble was that the vets interpreted *any* haw showing as ectropian - which means that even though the BOB's wre bred according to the KC's own approved standrd they could not pass the test - why did the Kc accept the entry fees from exhibitors in whole breeds in the knowledge that if bred to their current breed standrd they could not pass the vet test ?..why did they allow the judge to assess the dogs according to the current Kc breed standard if they knew no matter what dog got BOB it would not pass the test ? ......
> ...


So you are saying, because another dog breeds eyes are being ruined, nothing should have been done about the Clumber?
Why not go and tell the KC that they need to also look at the Newfies?
These protestations are not helping dogs now are they?
That doesn't help the Clumber breed at all now does it?
The KC have

Sod the standards, what matters is the dogs not hurt feelings


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

No Rona ...I'm saying that it was unfair to allow breeders to breed dogs with haw showing with the KC's approval and then punish them for doing so after they'd taken their money and allowed them to qualify for the world most prestigious dog show - and the BVA also need to clarify to breeders that ANY haw showing is diagnosed as ectropian - this would have the effect of 'improving' all such breeds not just picking on a few !.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Canine Alliance - Post Crufts Meeting - Part 1 - YouTube


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I thought just showing haw, or just ectropian wouldn't fail the vet test, even if exaggerated. I thought the dog would have to be suffering problems because of it. ie: the conjunctivitis and ear infection the Clumber was failed on?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Bijou said:


> No Rona ...I'm saying that it was unfair to allow breeders to breed dogs with haw showing with the KC's approval


Which comes back to the point of who actually writes the standards. The KC only approves them. It's the breeders who write them. The KC should not have approved them but it highlights and justifies the need for independent vet checks. How many additional dogs could suffer simply for the excuse of "it's in the standard". After all you are after health rather than ribbons aren't you? What's important is taking things on board and changing the standards where necessary.. not weakening the check itself. May take a while to breed haw out where it impact health and some recognition of breed progress should be given while it's a work in progress but only healthy dog = BOB.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> I'm saying that it was unfair to allow breeders to breed dogs with haw showing with the KC's approval


I think that's what the 'other side' have been trying to say for years. 

:devil:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Bijou said:


> No Rona ...I'm saying that it was unfair to allow breeders to breed dogs with haw showing with the KC's approval and then punish them for doing so after they'd taken their money and allowed them to qualify for the world most prestigious dog show - and the BVA also need to clarify to breeders that ANY haw showing is diagnosed as ectropian - this would have the effect of 'improving' all such breeds not just picking on a few !.


Exactly! Sums it up very succinctly, but I do have the one proviso, and that is why has this sort of *exaggeration* been allowed to continue unchecked for so long with wording that allows for features that can and do cause welfare problems for dogs, I am completely with those who are aghast at the appearance alone of some breeds. How can anyone kid themselves that droopy saggy eyes can be good for a dog, and that's not in any way a direct reference to the Clumber(s), but if you allow for breeding in a defect (if you like) to show 'haw', you will get some dogs who show more than others, what happens to those poor ones that are more severely affected?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> There most certainly needs to be an appeal process in place ...but there is another fundamental problem with the tests - in some of the disqualified breeds their breed standards specifically states that some haw showing was allowed -( here's the Clumber Spaniels Eyes:
> Clean, dark, amber. Full light eyes highly undesirable. Acceptable to have some haw showing but without excess. Free from obvious eye problems.


I don't think these kind of deformities are acceptable in any breed, and playing devils advocate, I can't help but wonder at the people that like breeds that are so exaggerated that they have these problems. The fault is both breeders and puppy buyers who think they look cute.

That aside, my understanding is that the clumber spaniel was showing inflammation due to the 'slight haw'.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Elles if you're going to quote my posts then please quote the whole thing

here's the rest of it !



> and then punish them for doing so after they'd taken their money and allowed them to qualify for the world most prestigious dog show


..or do you agree that the Kc was right to do this ?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> I don't think these kind of deformities are acceptable in any breed, and playing devils advocate, I can't help but wonder at the people that like breeds that are so exaggerated that they have these problems. The fault is both breeders and puppy buyers who think they look cute.
> 
> That aside, my understanding is that the clumber spaniel was showing inflammation *due to the 'slight haw'*.


How could a vet possibly tell that, surely that's only something they could guess at? If a dog has an eye infection, and the haw is also inflammed, you can't say it's because of the slight haw, surely as a one off vet inspection you can only summise it's down to an infection?? If you saw the same dog numerous times and were then suspicious the recurring infection might be down to the exposed haw, you might be able to make more of a case for this causing it?? I just thought it was a mild case of conjunctivitus, but then there's so many rumours flying around.

Completely with you on the first bit.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I don't think they did, I don't think the dog was disqualified for 'haw showing' or 'ectropian'. I think the dog was disqualified because she had conjunctivitis and an ear infection.

If we could see the vet certs for the ones who passed, it might make it clearer? Maybe some of the ones who passed had an exaggeration that the vet noted, but that the vet felt wasn't causing a problem on the day, hence was a pass?

If the vet cert had said 'shows signs of mild ectropian, but no infection or discomfort noted' and the dog passed would that have been okay?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Wait let me get this right.. you are criticizing me and stating I am wrong because I read details from official sources backing your argument with information you have read. That's very logical.


No - I am saying your comprehension of what you read is somewhat lacking - as you have so ably demonstrated here once again. Go back and read the posts properly - they are still all there because no-one has cried to Mummy and taken their ball home this time.

Example #1 - you read that ringside observers had monitored judges over the last three years and mistakenly thought that was the same thing as the trial at BUBA.

Example #2 - You read a quote from me that clearly stated the vet doing the check at BUBA was an independent vet* according to Dog World* and consequently posted that this statement was made by me, not _Dog World_.

Example #3 - as evidenced above, you read that I thought your comprehension was lacking and somehow translated that into criticising you as being wrong because you read information from official sources that back my argument.

Reading is all well and good - I do a lot of it myself, on a lot of subjects - but if you cannot properly understand, assimilate and use what you read, then it is a complete waste of time.



Goblin said:


> The difference is pass one... you've got your get out of issues free card. You only need one sympathetic, non-independent vet to go through the rest of the year. Doesn't take a genius to see this is far more open to abuse.


But if all the vets are independent your argument is blown out of the water and there is no difference in the potential for abuse.



Goblin said:


> Have you seen the vet report from the check for the bulldog? Are you discounting the 9 breeds that passed their vet checks? I would imagine you agree with their check results. So out of 15 how many are you saying were checked incorrectly? Why is the Canine Alliance not pushing the successes of the system?


Sigh. Once again: it doesn't matter that there have been successes. The fact that there have been failures has proved that the system does not work and needs to be changed.

I'll try to explain it another way so that you might be able to understand. Think about the DDA. Would you try to argue that because the system has had some successes and some dogs that _were_ actually dangerous have been pts, that the system is fine and politicians should push the successes and leave the bill as it is instead of working for change?

Of course you wouldn't. You would want a system that is fair, a system that works. No matter how many _dangerous_ dogs the system did pts, you would want a system that ensures no non-dangerous dog was pts. In other words, no matter what the successes, you would want the bill to be suspended and a fairer bill put in its place.

So why do you not apply the same logic to health checks at championship shows?



Goblin said:


> How about an appeal process, after all I keep hearing it's not about the ribbons/certificates. If a dog fails a vet check they can appeal for another independent vet check assigned by the BVA. This vet (or a couple of vets so you could use majority wins) could recheck the dog specifically and only for what it failed for and in instances such as that claimed by the bulldog "old scar" potentially get an official "excuse note" so vets in future can discount the issue. If they win the appeal the BOB title would be reinstated and published. If the appeals vet/committee decides the original check was justified this would be recorded for future reference. In all cases owners should agree vet check reports may be published by the show organizers if questions arise. Not open to the level of potential abuse. Solves the succeed one check fail another and doesn't need major changes in the majority of instances.


What you say above is certainly one way of sorting things out - although as an exhibitor I'm not sure that having the results of a successful appeal published does much to mitigiate the reputation assasination that occurs in the first instance. We've seen a good example of that on this forum. Everyone remembers that Danny the Peke was investigated, and can find quotes from the media at the time to say he was being investigated - but not many remember (or even saw in the first instance) that his appeal was successful and his title reinstated. I am not sure that a system which allowed such a thing would be a good idea. It has an inherent unfairness but is workable if no better alternative can be found - but then so is the present system.

Do you see the above system applying to all dogs (as the Canine Alliance is wanting fairness across all breeds) or just the 15 "at risk" breeds?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> Everyone remembers that Danny the Peke was investigated, and can find quotes from the media at the time to say he was being investigated - but not many remember (or even saw in the first instance) that his appeal was successful and his title reinstated.


I think the controversy continued because the dog had had a palate resection etc. to help it to breath, but that was accepted and the dog reinstated as only ops that alter appearance, ie cosmetic are excluded?

The owner said that his vet said the op was similar to someone having their tonsils out, but that was later interpreted to mean that the dog had an op because of a throat infection.

That's how I understood it anyway.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> How could a vet possibly tell that, surely that's only something they could guess at? If a dog has an eye infection, and the haw is also inflammed, you can't say it's because of the slight haw, surely as a one off vet inspection you can only summise it's down to an infection?? If you saw the same dog numerous times and were then suspicious the recurring infection might be down to the exposed haw, you might be able to make more of a case for this causing it?? I just thought it was a mild case of conjunctivitus, but then there's so many rumours flying around.


Well, yes, I accept that and agree although think it's irrelevant. The point is that the eyes were showing inflammation and while the cause would be difficult to diagnose (and from the photos showed ectropian to me too), but that would have been enough too fail the test. The vets can only go by the remit they are given and that was to fail any dog that was showing clinical signs.

And diverting a bit, I cannot understand why any breed should have a 'droopy' eyelid so yes, maybe the breed standards need to change. I cannot see how anyone can see that as normal, it looks wrong to me and I hate that it is creeping into labradors.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> I think the controversy continued because the dog had had a palate resection etc. to help it to breath, but that was accepted and the dog reinstated as only ops that alter appearance, ie cosmetic are excluded?
> 
> The owner said that his vet said the op was similar to someone having their tonsils out, but that was later interpreted to mean that the dog had an op because of a throat infection.
> 
> That's how I understood it anyway.


Thank you for giving such a good example of what I said in my post. 

You are partly right, and partly wrong. Danny had an operation to relieve a throat infection, not an operation because he could not breathe. It may or may not have been a palate resection - that was never revealed - but was widely speculated on in the media before the results of the appeal. It could just as easily have been something more simple. And the "conformation" bit does not mean cosmetic appearance - it refers to the structure of the dog - internal as well as external.

Our Dogs Newspaper - News, breeders, showdogs, dog breeds, pedigree show dogs, canine clubs, web design, website uk

_"The dog had undergone surgery to alleviate an acquired respiratory tract condition but as this procedure did not alter the natural conformation of the dog permision to show was not required from the Kennel Club"_

See what I mean? If someone as intelligent as yourself can get hold of - well, not exactly the wrong end of the stick, but not the correct story either - what chance does anyone have? All people will remember will be the hype, not the truth - and consequently reputations will suffer. Given that the idea is to introduce a fairer system, why choose a system where potential unfairness is obvious? Why not try to find a system that ensures unhealthy dogs are penalised, healthy dogs are not penalised, and that is also fair to the exhibitors?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

There is a copy of the vet report on the Internet. 

"The dog was presented with a history of respiratory distress manifested by heavy breathing and bringing up froth. From the history and clinical examination I suspected an upper respiratory tract obstruction. Further investigation required general anaesthesia and endoscopy. 
The result of our investigation was to resect everted laryngeal saccules and part of the hypertrophied soft palate to relieve the obstruction. Both these are acquired problems which result in upper airway obstruction."

It is thought by many that the dog's conformation was a contributory factor, (just as ectropian can be a contributory factor to repeated eye infections?)

The controversy continued as having an op to correct something like ectropian where the dog suffered infection and discomfort (conformation being a contributory factor) would be considered cosmetic and would exclude the dog from competition, but having an op to help the dog breathe (conformation being a contributory factor) wouldn't be excluded, so long as it didn't affect the dog's outward physical appearance.

I think it wasn't so much the individual dog, but what the individual dog represented that was the controversy. That a dog with a genetic defect could have an op to correct it, but only if the op didn't alter its physical appearance.

Tbh seems unfair to me. If a dog can have a resection to put right problems caused by a squashed face, why can't it have its eyelids stitched to tighten its eyes? Or if it can't have an op to tighten its eyes, why can it have an op to sort its throat out?

Regardless of what actually happened with Danny the Peke, his problems highlighted something 'the other side' wanted looking at.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Just an added thought. How is a judge supposed to know if the dog has had internal surgery, so maybe corrective surgery that does alter appearance should also be allowed, so long as the owner has a vet cert saying it was necessary for the dog's health and not just to make it 'prettier'?

Otherwise you won't just need vet checks on the day, or a yearly vet cert, you'll need every dog to bring along a folder with it's medical history. 

Unless vets are told they have to email a report every time they treat a pedigree KC registered dog.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Elles said:


> If the vet cert had said 'shows signs of mild ectropian, but no infection or discomfort noted' and the dog passed would that have been okay?


IMO no, but my opinion is not important 
If I remember rightly, I think they were only asked to fail dogs that showed clinical signs of a problem that may be due to a structural problem rather than a conformational one. A conformation problem should be down to the judge surely?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> Just an added thought. How is a judge supposed to know if the dog has had internal surgery, so maybe corrective surgery that does alter appearance should also be allowed, so long as the owner has a vet cert saying it was necessary for the dog's health and not just to make it 'prettier'?
> 
> Otherwise you won't just need vet checks on the day, or a yearly vet cert, you'll need every dog to bring along a folder with it's medical history.
> 
> Unless vets are told they have to email a report every time they treat a pedigree KC registered dog.


Not sure I quite understand this - under the present system (nothing to do with the vet checks that started at Crufts) if you show a dog which has had surgery you have to present a letter from the KC giving permission to show to the judge every time you show it. In order to get that letter of permission from the KC you have to submit a report from your vet which states the operation was done for medical reasons and was not cosmetic. Does that help to answer your question?

btw - could you give a reference for the vet report on Danny so I can look at its source? Thanks in advance


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Not sure I quite understand this - under the present system (nothing to do with the vet checks that started at Crufts) if you show a dog which has had surgery you have to present a letter from the KC giving permission to show to the judge every time you show it. In order to get that letter of permission from the KC you have to submit a report from your vet which states the operation was done for medical reasons and was not cosmetic. Does that help to answer your question?
> 
> btw - could you give a reference for the vet report on Danny so I can look at its source? Thanks in advance


There are actually very few surgeries the KC will permit for showing - I know of dogs that have had arthroscopies - not corrective surgery, done for the dog's health - and made very clear in no uncertain terms by the specialist - not given permission to show.

I contacted them to ask about permission to show if my girl had surgery on her knee - nope - wouldn't be given permission to show.

To my knowledge, the only two surgeries which have been given permission to show are neutering and repaired cruciates.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Part one of the original meeting can be viewed here: YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Ah, then the op or not controversy would be too complicated for me to get into given swarthy's response.

If most ops and investigations result in the dog being excluded, seems odd to me. I wonder who told the press etc. that Danny the Peke had an op. I wonder if it was a disgruntled Peke exhibitor. I presume the report from the vet was the one the KC had in advance, when they agreed to the dog being shown.

The plot thickens. Or not. 

The report (or it might have been a letter in support of the dog) from the vet was published in some of the dog magazines/papers and on JH's blog too I think.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Elles said:


> Ah, then the op or not controversy would be too complicated for me to get into given swarthy's response.
> 
> If most ops and investigations result in the dog being excluded, seems odd to me. I wonder who told the press etc. that Danny the Peke had an op. I wonder if it was a disgruntled Peke exhibitor. I presume the report from the vet was the one the KC had in advance, when they agreed to the dog being shown.
> 
> ...


This is a major issue - ALL surgery should be reported to the KC and permission requested to show.

Neutering no longer requires permission as such - as it will always be granted if accompanied by a statement from the veterinary surgeon - but nevertheless, you still have to report it to the KC and can't show until you get the confirmation letter back.

Only recently a CH was disqualified after it was found the dog had unreported surgery - when this happens, dogs who won RCC's etc get moved up - ANY disqualification (for whatever reason) in the showring is a VERY public whether it be Crufts or your little limit or open show around the corner.

The only shows you can't disqualify winners from are Fun and Companion shows - the only place where dogs who've had any type of surgery can be shown without permission and "pedigrees" don't have to be registered to enter the pedigree classes.

I've judged quite a few companion shows, and have to say I've been pleasantly surprised at the quality of many of the dogs entered.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> Part one of the original meeting can be viewed here: YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

here ;

Canine Alliance - Post Crufts Meeting - Part 1 - YouTube

also for those that want to join here's the membership form to print off :

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...44618010.81415.317996891588062&type=1&theater


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> they are still all there because no-one has cried to Mummy and taken their ball home this time.


Can't get your post across obviously... Only one complaining of "personal attacks or "crying Mummy" to try to discredit someone is you. The thread was cut previously for valid reasons and I would hope the actions of the person responsible is not condoned by either side of the discussion.



> Example #2 - You read a quote from me that clearly stated the vet doing the check at BUBA was an independent vet* according to Dog World* and consequently posted that this statement was made by me, not _Dog World_.


Whilst you dismiss written evidence that the first time independent vets were called were for crufts as simply my inability to read. You simply dismiss any written points put forward unless you want to use it.



> Reading is all well and good - I do a lot of it myself, on a lot of subjects - but if you cannot properly understand, assimilate and use what you read, then it is a complete waste of time.


When you don't accept evidence from other sources and refuse to even consider other viewpoints with an open mind, what does that say? At least this attitude is consistent in some circles.



> But if all the vets are independent your argument is blown out of the water and there is no difference in the potential for abuse.


It's been shown not all vets can be viewed as independent. Where does that leave you.



> Sigh. Once again: it doesn't matter that there have been successes. The fact that there have been failures has proved that the system does not work and needs to be changed.


Nobody has said minor changes shouldn't be made. Doesn't mean you need to throw the toys out of the pram as a reaction. This is what the initial statements from the Canine Alliance amounted to.

Still no answer to the question of having seen the actual vet check reports I notice.



> What you say above is certainly one way of sorting things out - although as an exhibitor I'm not sure that having the results of a successful appeal published does much to mitigiate the reputation assasination that occurs in the first instance.[/qutoe]
> In show circles the Canince Alliance shows how much people band behind someone disqualified even if the reasoning is not 100% known as fact. Are you saying this wouldn't be the case in future. We've seen a good example of that on this forum.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Bijou said:


> here ;
> 
> Canine Alliance - Post Crufts Meeting - Part 1 - YouTube
> 
> ...


Can't see anything in there that changes my opinion. The only references to health were in the opening and closing statements that had obviously been written beforehand.
All the rest were just complaints about how badly they have been treated.
How badly have those poor breeds been treated over many decades?
How much canine suffering?

I know it isn't all the fault of those people who are showing now. Many, many over time are guilty.

What I cannot and will not ever understand is how those people that go to shows week in week out, some even members of the KC, can walk passed those dogs that cannot walk/breath/see, that are in obvious distress and not be sickened by it.
It's just cruelty on a mammoth scale pure and simple


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Whilst you dismiss written evidence that the first time independent vets were called were for crufts as simply my inability to read. You simply dismiss any written points put forward unless you want to use it.


This has only happened in your mind. My remarks upon your comprehension to understand what you were reading were directly talking about the fact that you mixed up the overseeing of judges with the BUBA trial. Again - pretend what you want - the posts, my replies, and your twisitng and turning to try to cover up the fact that you made a mistake and that you didn't actually know what you were were talking about are all there for everyone to see.

As for dismissing evidence that the first time independent vets were called for at Crufts - what evidence have you produced that states this?

If you mean the letter letter you quoted from the BVA stating that vet checks were going to begin at Crufts, you quoted the heading from the article, not the whole article - but please do explain why a heading which states that the KC and the BVA are going to begin vet checks at Crufts precludes the idea of a trial run at BUBA?

If you mean your quote from the KC, again, please explain why a statement that says vet checks are going to begin at Crufts precludes a trial run at BUBA?

I haven't dismissed your "evidence" at all - I am merely intelligent enough to realise that if checks are going to begin in March it does not preclude a trial run in December - especially when this trial run has actually taken place, has been reported in the dog press, and has been talked about on several dog forums and even the Bulldog Breed Council website.

Now you, on the other hand, have read the title of an article and a quote from the KC and - despite my producing evidence to the contrary and despite the fact that the trial actually _did_ take place - for some strange reason that I can't even begin to guess at *you* have decided that the trial _*didn't* _ take place. And you accuse me of having a closed mind!!!??? :lol:



Goblin said:


> It's been shown not all vets can be viewed as independent. Where does that leave you.


In exactly the same place at is leaves you - the same vets will either be doing the health checks on the 15 breeds or the health checks on all breeds. And, incidentlaly, where is your evidence for such a sweeping statement?



Goblin said:


> Ask someone in the street to name the disqualified breeds and name the dogs involved how many could answer the first but not the second.


Ask someone in the street to name the disqualified breeds and the answer you will most likely get is "What disqualified breeds? Were there some breeds disqualified?" I know you like to set yourself up as typical of a member of the public, but the reality is that nothing could be further from the truth. When it comes to showing, the public, sadly, don't really care about it at all. They will know about what the shock horror media has spoon-fed them over the previous few days, but then they forget about it. The only people who do care about it are the people who show, and the odd few members of the public who are members of forums and are against showing. Don't believe me? Even a popular DJ - ie someone totally unconnected with dog showing but at the same time with his pulse on what the public think - believes the "kerwoofle" (Chris Evans' word, not mine) about Crufts has now died down - and that was straight after watching Best in Show on More4!

Crufts: The players see it. The crowds see it. But the ref? Take a wild guess | Mail Online

]


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> What I cannot and will not ever understand is how those people that go to shows week in week out, some even members of the KC, can walk passed those dogs that cannot walk/breath/see, that are in obvious distress and not be sickened by it.
> It's just cruelty on a mammoth scale pure and simple


I've never in all my time during showing walked past a dog who cannot either walk, breathe or see - and if I had, I can assure you I would not have walked past it. I have, however, seen hundreds upon hundreds of happy, healthy dogs. And the only obvious distress I have seen a dog in at a dog show is the kind of distress caued by wanting more treats!


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> I've never in all my time during showing walked past a dog who cannot either walk, breathe or see - and if I had, I can assure you I would not have walked past it. I have, however, seen hundreds upon hundreds of happy, healthy dogs. And the only obvious distress I have seen a dog in at a dog show is the kind of distress caued by wanting more treats!


haha yes - I've had more than one "finger puncture" from treat over-eagerness - usually during critique writing or photo taking 

I can remember once we bought some "Fish 4 Dog" treats at a show - I was in the BIS line-up with my girl - the two dogs in front of me wouldn't do anything because they were more interested in what was in my pocket  first and last time I used them in the ring :lol:

The amazing thing is - those dogs who don't like showing, won't even respond for a treat - this is what so many people fail to realise


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Again - pretend what you want - the posts, my replies, and your twisitng and turning to try to cover up the fact that you..


Don't want to accept other points other than your own. At the end of the day I quote material from multiple sources. You quote from one and say I can't read.



> As for dismissing evidence that the first time independent vets were called for at Crufts - what evidence have you produced that states this?
> 
> If you mean the letter letter you quoted from the BVA stating that vet checks were going to begin at Crufts, you quoted the heading from the article, not the whole article


So an abstract is now simply a heading.. Again finding a reason not to accept it.



> why a heading which states that the KC and the BVA are going to begin vet checks at Crufts precludes the idea of a trial run at BUBA?


Nothing, neither have a said a trial run wasn't run. How independent and what influences the vet may have had is unknown. A local vet is not necessarily independent. This is the reason a single "health check" is not enough.



> In exactly the same place at is leaves you - the same vets will either be doing the health checks on the 15 breeds or the health checks on all breeds. And, incidentlaly, where is your evidence for such a sweeping statement?


Let me ask you then as you know it all.. Why wasn't the vets assigned to the vet checks at crufts those from the KC. Why the need to go outside? Another question. The Basset "but it was all clear" after disqualification was given by which vet.. and I take it they don't breed or show?



> When it comes to showing, the public, sadly, don't really care about it at all.


So your complaint about reputation is even less invalid. There are plenty of people, some on this forum who do have an interest in the health of dogs away from the show circuit.

You never answered the question however. You are good at avoiding those. Put simply more people will remember breeds that fail rather than individual dog or their owners.

As to never walked passed an unhealthy dog... Yet you admit some dogs were justly disqualified. I would guess, like most of your comments you only see what you want to see.

Well I'll leave this thread now. Can't be bothered to continue. Count it as a victory if you like however you've only reinforced my impression of both you and also the type of people in the Canine Alliance. Time will tell if the Canine Alliance will be a force for good but from the present evidence it will be driven by people who do not want faults pointed out instead of accepting them and trying to correct them.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Well I'll leave this thread now. Can't be bothered to continue. Count it as a victory if you like however you've only reinforced my impression of both you and also the type of people in the Canine Alliance. Time will tell if the Canine Alliance will be a force for good but from the present evidence it will be driven by people who do not want faults pointed out instead of accepting them and trying to correct them.


Now why would I count it as a victory? *You* might have thought you were in a war - that certainly exlpains all your evasive manouevers - I thought we were discussing on a forum. Your words, as always, betray you by showing your mind-set.

As for whatever impression you have formed - well, to be honest the impressions of someone who has no practical knowledge of the subject, who merely quotes what he reads and who can't even get that right, who prefers twisting and evasion rather than answering points put to him, don't exactly bother me overmuch.

And as you say, time will tell about the Canine Alliance. I have great hopes for it and its potential achievements for the health and welfare of show dogs.



Goblin said:


> As to never walked passed an unhealthy dog... Yet you admit some dogs were justly disqualified. I would guess, like most of your comments you only see what you want to see.


See what I mean about your comprehension/reading skills? You can't even get this little bit right. What I actually said was that I have never walked passed a dog *who cannot either walk, breathe or see,* and that I have seen hundreds upon hundreds of healthy dogs at a show. And I show pastoral dogs - how many of those are on the "at risk" register and how many pastoral dogs were disqualified  (A clue - the answer to the last one is zero - the one breed to be checked ie the GSD - passed its check)


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> What I cannot and will not ever understand is how those people that go to shows week in week out, some even members of the KC, can walk passed those dogs that cannot walk/breath/see, that are in obvious distress and not be sickened by it.
> It's just cruelty on a mammoth scale pure and simple


 .... sorry but that kind of foaming at the mouth rhetoric is just pure PETA inspired - you've got it all going on in that post hav'nt you ?

" those people " " even members of the KC " dogs that cannot breathe dogs that are blind and lame"..."stepping over dogs in distress " and yes rising to a crescendo we have ( drum roll ) CRUELTY .....on a mammoth scale .....honestly It's worthy of an Oscar -you go for it girl ........ of course don't let the fact that it's a load of bunkum stop you 

now this is* worth* reading :biggrin5:

Time 4 Dogs


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> is just pure PETA inspired


I 'liked' that post. Although I presumed by 'cannot walk/breathe/see' the poster meant properly, or adequately, or normally, rather than literally, I got the sentiments behind it.

I have absolutely no time whatsoever for the fanatics at PETA. I wouldn't give them the time of day, let alone find inspiration in anything they could possibly do. 

However, I agree with Rona. I don't understand how people can deliberately breed defects into their dogs to meet a breed standard they may even have set for themselves and I would find it uncomfortable viewing the dogs with the exaggerated defects at the shows. I would not support them.

If you feel that the dogs don't have defects, they simply meet a breed standard and are lovely breeds, that is your prerogative. We can all have differing opinions, but I think resorting to PETA calling when someone doesn't agree with your opinion is, well, you get the gist.

Extremists at PETA and the various Animal Rights groups can be violent, excessive and would like to see the end of animals I think. They want everyone to be veggie and no-one to have pets. Which is up to them, but don't lump me with them, just as I don't lump all show people or pedigree dog breeders together in one bucket and have even been convinced to accept opposing arguments when the discussion has been fair and reasonable.

Thanks. Rant over. 

Reading your link, I'd say I agree that the dogs should come first and I don't have to be an animal rights fanatic to do so, but why does that mean then that the dog owners and breeders have no importance at all? Of course they do.

Good breeders, handlers, judges and exhibitors should be fully supported and are very, very important. I would hope they agree that their dogs are extremely important to them and that their dogs' needs come before the need for a show attendance or a ribbon?

Putting the dogs' wellbeing first, doesn't do away with a second, an equal, or even a tenth you know.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> Good breeders, handlers, judges and exhibitors should be fully supported and are very, very important.


I agree - and so would the Canine Alliance members! 



Elles said:


> I would hope they agree that their dogs are extremely important to them and that their dogs' needs come before the need for a show attendance or a ribbon?


Exhibitors who do not put their dogs, their needs and their health before _anything_ - never mind before attendance at a show - are very few and far between. It would be silly of me to say there are none - there are bad examples in every walk of life and dog showing is no different - but the truth is far from the kind of hysterical outpourings of Rona's post.

btw - just to be pedantic  - ribbons are few and far between in the show world. "Ribbons" came into this thread only as part of Goblin's rhetoric. If you are placed at a champ show you get a card, and maybe a rosette if you win BOB.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I would have said ribbons regardless of Goblin. It's my horsey side coming out.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> I would have said ribbons regardless of Goblin. It's my horsey side coming out.


I have to hold my hand up and say that I know nothing at all about horses - I used to watch the horse of the year show when I was small (too many years ago to even think about now!) - does that count?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Wow, we use rhetoric and you use truth. :nonod:
Don't forget guys that I have been to dog shows and have shown Afghan hounds. Not in the last few years admittedly but I've been there done that seen it go on.
My twin was also involved in a poodle show kennel for over 20 years. Insider information too see 
The difference is, I didn't get sucked into the system and could see the damage that certain breed clubs were inflicting on their dogs.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Just to make a little point. One of the issues I have slightly changed my view over is that of line-breeding. If you can take it that by line I mean having the same names there going back a bit, not inbreeding which I would mean to be mother/son, sister/brother, grandpappy/granddaughter etc.

When I got Elles I didn't want to buy a pup with any names (or numbers) the same on their paperwork. So if there was any line or inbreeding it would have to be so far back I couldn't see it, or not there at all. COI 0% or lower. 

However, after taking a slight interest in what goes on, my view has changed and I now believe that the use of popular sires is more of an issue.

I have direct experience of the use of a Matador sire in horses and the effects he's having on his offspring. As dogs breed more often and have litters not one at a time, a popular sire must have a huge effect on a breed and if the breed is low in number and he does have a 'bad' gene, the effect could be devastating. Unlike line breeding, where it's still a lottery and the more info that comes out, the more the odds can be weighted in your favour, when trying to 'fix' a breed trait.

This I got from reading here and then researching further, though it's work in progress and more a hobby than of use. 

You can now tell me I'm an idiot and got it all wrong. lol

Inbreeding deliberately to create clones and wipe out all undesirable traits or genetic disorders like they did with the rats, would have to involve the culling and deaths of hundreds if not thousands of dogs though, so I couldn't possibly entertain that as a reason for inbreeding.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> Wow, we use rhetoric and you use truth.


Are you seriously trying to say that we do win ribbons at shows Rona? Becasue if you aren't, then you would have to agree that using a phrase which accuses show people of only being bothered about ribbons is nothing but rhetoric - and, furthermore, rhetoric picked up somewhere by someone who does not know much about showing. As you will know - and as anybody who knows anything about dog showing will know - we win cards, not ribbons.

Now, if you think I've used rhetoric somewhere, as your post seems to imply, then I'd much rather you point it out so that we can discuss it rather than making snide little comments


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I didn't mind you picking me up on it.  In my enthusiasm to get MY important point across, I didn't think.  With horses we get ribbons ie rosettes and people showing their top horse at a local unaffiliated show are called 'pot hunters' even though they don't get pots for their efforts, so it was a simple slip of key.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Are you seriously trying to say that we do win ribbons at shows Rona? Becasue if you aren't, then you would have to agree that using a phrase which accuses show people of only being bothered about ribbons is nothing but rhetoric - and, furthermore, rhetoric picked up somewhere by someone who does not know much about showing. As you will know - and as anybody who knows anything about dog showing will know - we win cards, not ribbons.
> 
> Now, if you think I've used rhetoric somewhere, as your post seems to imply, then I'd much rather you point it out so that we can discuss it rather than making snide little comments


Eh 
Nothing to do with ribbons or cards
I talk about the dogs and their plight, nothing else is of any importance


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> Just to make a little point. One of the issues I have slightly changed my view over is that of line-breeding. If you can take it that by line I mean having the same names there going back a bit, not inbreeding which I would mean to be mother/son, sister/brother, grandpappy/granddaughter etc.
> 
> When I got Elles I didn't want to buy a pup with any names (or numbers) the same on their paperwork. So if there was any line or inbreeding it would have to be so far back I couldn't see it, or not there at all. COI 0% or lower.
> 
> ...


I think line breeding should not be attempted by any other than those who absolutely know what they are doing. I don't class either myself or most other breeders as sufficiently knowledgeable to attempt it. However, done properly, by a someone who really undertands the subject, there can be very beneficial results.

The best example I can give is the bergamasco. The breed nearly died out until an Italian geneticist, Dr Maria Andreoli, decided to revive it. Her available gene pool was very small, and hence the breeding COIs of bergamaschi are very high - but they are a very healthy breed, with no known health issues at all.

Now - and I don't know a great deal about genetics so those of you who do please feel free to enlighten me - it would seem to me that line breeding does not necessarily have to be bad if done by soemone who knows what they are doing. But when it is used indiscriminately, by people who don't know what they are doing (which is probably most breeders) then that is where problems can and do occur.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> Eh
> Nothing to do with ribbons or cards
> I talk about the dogs and their plight, nothing else is of any importance


I said talking about ribbons was using rhetoric; you posted



rona said:


> Wow, we use rhetoric and you use truth.


so I asked you why you thought talking about ribbons wasn't rhetoric.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> I said talking about ribbons was using rhetoric; you posted
> so I asked you why you thought talking about ribbons wasn't rhetoric.


You may have been talking about ribbons but I wasn't. As I said I am only interested in the dogs 
You need to re read a few pages I think. You must have missed something


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> You may have been talking about ribbons but I wasn't. As I said I am only interested in the dogs
> You need to re read a few pages I think. You must have missed something


Now you have totally confused me Rona. I've looked through the last few pages and as the only time I have spoken about rhetoric is in relation to the use of "show people wanting ribbons" I don't see how you can be complaining about my use of the word rhetoric in relation to anything else?  

Why don't you just quote the post you mean? Makes it much easier.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Albera's Bergamasco Sheepdog

Just looking at the pedigrees of the first two champion dogs on this website would have filled me with horror a year ago and I'd have expected them to have 3 legs, one eye and no digestive system. 

This is a more than perfect example of why my views on line-breeding have somewhat mellowed and why I wouldn't now necessarily dismiss a suitable pup out of hand because he had two names the same somewhere on his pedigree and a COI of 3%, when a year ago I wouldn't have even looked at him.

I'd still generally avoid dogs with a pedigree like these though, if it was in a more widespread, popular breed and bred like it to stick to Crufts champions, that sort of thing. I think I would be foolish to risk buying an inbred dog in that case, however much the breeder insisted there was no problems in the lines.

IOW I agree entirely with your post.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> . . . The best example I can give is the bergamasco. The breed nearly died out until an Italian geneticist, Dr Maria Andreoli, decided to revive it. Her available gene pool was very small, and hence the breeding COIs of bergamaschi are very high - but they are a very healthy breed, with no known health issues at all..


OFA says they are a breed that gets CHD. - Orthopedic Foundation for Animals

Orthopedic Foundation for Animals

OFA is for self reporting - and usually the best results are put forward. Of 23 evaluations 26.1% show abnormal.



Spellweaver said:


> Now - and I don't know a great deal about genetics so those of you who do please feel free to enlighten me - it would seem to me that line breeding does not necessarily have to be bad if done by soemone who knows what they are doing. But when it is used indiscriminately, by people who don't know what they are doing (which is probably most breeders) then that is where problems can and do occur.


Line breeding in an open gene pool by those who are gathering information regarding the risks involved and putting deep consideration in should not be a problem if not done repeatedly generation after generation. The room to go out of the gene pool makes a huge difference when errors are made and makes a big difference with regard to allowing genetic drift to take care of some errors for you.

When you are speaking of linebreeding in a closed gene pool, when a dog with higher risk of combinations of deleterious recessive alleles paired is put back in, then the gamble is payed by the full breed in the future especially if that gene pool is small. I understand there are times the gamble pays off, but many times it has been disastrous for full breeds - MVD in Cavaliers is an example. The best explanation I have seen for the harm linebreeding can do is from the Cangen list:

_"It is true that inbreeding alone did not cause the problem. What caused the problem was all the other dogs that did not contribute their genes to the population, and thereby boosted the impact of the Mr. W. infusion. How many males suffered "genetic death" because of Mr. Wonderful? How many sons and daughters of other dogs suffered the same genetic death because of Mr. Wonderful's children? Mr. Wonderful's genome was injected in a walloping dose into the population to the exclusion of many others. Each inbreeding is done to the exclusion of an outcross that might have preserved an important haplotype or rare trait.

In the case of Mr. W., many traits not seen before in any numbers, suddenly appeared. Some of them were welcomed with great enthusiasm by the breeders, but others, not so much! Now the hunt is on for lines not related to him, but how to erase from the population that hefty carrier rate? Not easily accomplished."_​
I understand the Bergamasco breed was largely mongrelized before its restoration by Dr.Maria Andreoli starting in the later 60s. Much in its gene pool is very new, with ties to the ancient but with addition from that time of mongrelization.

Artos Bergamascos - History

Albera's Bergamasco Sheepdog

http://www.pastore-bergamasco.org/maria.htm

Books

http://www.bergamascos.net/standard/

http://www.bergamascos.net/history/

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1514/hsbergamasco.pdf

Polski Owczarek Nizinny

http://www.lunadilana.de/stammbaum/vorfahrenliste.htm

Bergamasco Sheepdog History - The Official Site of the BSCA

Lachis dell'Albera - Looking at the earliest champions, the 4 gen coi on this early Bergamasco pedigree is 10.15625%. This is not a high coi linebred example when foundation dogs of unknown/unrelated heritage are still being welcomed into the gene pool like Giocco Von Dimgod. The unspecified/unknown/unrelated dogs (foundation?) sit right there in the third and fourth generation. I've had a look at a few Albera Kennel earlier (80s) pedigrees and I've yet to see sky-high COIs from continual close breeding, albeit there are a few that are close. I see what appears to be an effort to bring outcross dogs in (Dimgod and Valle Scrivia dogs) through the 70s and 80s to help build numbers on after her early foundation of about 20 dogs.

I am accustomed to seeing much higher linebreeding in long established breeds. I will complain about that for good reason. I can easily find links to linebred pedigrees well over 25% in the Cavalier breed even currently, and in the 50s thru to 70s (and even longer) many tightly linebred generation after generation when the gene pool had already been severely bottlenecked. Those are two very different breeding situations and in one linebreeding confers much more risk to the future gene pool than the other on a couple of fronts. That has to be realized. This is a Ch parented Canadian pup from 2011 with names omitted.










CC


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

rona said:


> Eh
> Nothing to do with ribbons or cards
> I talk about the dogs and their plight, nothing else is of any importance


Do you go to shows every weekend? do you watch the rings and interview owners - do you take breed standards and examine these dogs for seeming conformation to assess the results and to be able to say without question that breed standards are the reason these breeds are affected in the way they are.

If you don't - and thats a general "you" - then you are simply regurgitating what is being spouted by an over-zealous media.

I am NOT saying there are no problems - no-one identifies 15 breeds for spotlighting for no good reason

What is basically being said is that what happened at Crufts was unfair - and that testing should be starting at a level BELOW Crufts and with more dogs -yThere are others calling for checks in ALL breeds.

Now - if any of you can call that not caring about what happens to pedigree dogs, then you are cherry-picking the bits that enable you to criticise.

==========================

In ALL this - some people would also do well to remember that these 15 breeds account for probably around less than 5% of all pedigree dogs bred each year and an even smaller percentage of pedigree dogs shown every weekend.

Yet so many of you spout generically about SHOW Dogs and the people who show.

As for ribbons, it clearly shows how little you do know about showing - at Crufts, unless you get very top honours, if you want a ribbon, you BUY it yourself.

99% of Champ shows you have to BUY ribbons if you want them - and this is happening increasingly at Open shows too.

The ONLY shows you generally are guaranteed to get rosettes at these days are the lowest levels of showing - Limit, Companion and Fun shows - the latter two of which I know more than a few people here have tried their luck at with unregistered pedigrees, pet dogs and crosses.

================================================

Whichever way you chose to look at it, what happened at Crufts was WRONG - not wrong in that it highlighted potential problems with these affected breeds - but in the way it was done and the fact it singled out just ONE dog in each breed.

In fact, the instigator of all this (who incidentally owns pedigree dogs herself) was raving about one of the bitch RCC winners in one of these breeds and saying how fantastic it was.

Did she sit with an independent vet checking that the dog was OK? I doubt it as only the BOB winners were checked - so how does she know close up how fantastic and healthy this dog was - because healthiness has to be assessed close up.

=======================================

There are NOT general problems in the show-world, there are a small number of breeds with issues - and yes - issues that need to be sorted out - but once again they become indicative of a much wider show-world by people the majority of whom have never set foot in a dog show in their life.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

swarthy said:


> Do you go to shows every weekend? do you watch the rings and interview owners - do you take breed standards and examine these dogs for seeming conformation to assess the results and to be able to say without question that breed standards are the reason these breeds are affected in the way they are.
> 
> If you don't - and thats a general "you" - then you are simply regurgitating what is being spouted by an over-zealous media.
> 
> ...


Oh so covering up deformed pups and PRA aren't anything to worry about in the wider show circuit?
By the way, my words, ideas and opinions are actually my own, not anything to do with "that" programme as I didn't watch it or media coverage because I didn't need to, I know the lies that can be told on both sides I also have first hand experience of twisting the truth by the press. I have my own proof of the things that go on. I work on personal experience and truth not say so.
I still say that the show fraternity as a whole has chosen to shut their eyes to the deformities and suffering that some in the show world themselves have caused
Words are just too easy, action is what is needed


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> As for ribbons, it clearly shows how little you do know about showing


Goodness, as I already explained, it's a figure of speech that is commonly used in my particular circle and I wasn't thinking to be worried about controversy over it when I said (posted) it. It means being interested more in competing and prizes than in the animals competed with and needn't be taken literally to prove my ignorance, or even worse someone else's. 

Rona didn't mention ribbons other than in her responses to Spellweaver regarding my mentioning it and has already stated her interest and that she has been involved in the showing world directly.

To be quite honest, I don't believe you need to know anything specific about showing to be involved in the discussion. Many pet owners own pedigree dogs that they purchased from show breeders. We are being encouraged to purchase puppies bred by breeders who have shown their dogs in order to prove their worth as breeding stock.

Hence, many average dog lovers who have never been anywhere near a show ring are interested in what exactly these top breeders are up to.

If there is a question mark over some breeds and some dogs at the shows, then it is bound to raise suspicion over other breeds and other dogs. That the Kennel Club is attempting to address these questions and prove to a skeptical public that the dogs at their shows are the healthiest they could be should be applauded surely?

When calling for all dogs to be checked, skeptics have reason to suspect that it's calling for the unattainable in order to delay or prevent the attainable. People are suspicious and have been for years before PDE. Wasn't the report commissioned to look into health commissioned and reported before PDE? The report the KC say they are basing their checks on and using to choose the highlighted breeds?

Why would the kennel club take any notice of JH who had a dog programme on an unpopular tv channel? I believe they are looking at it for their own reasons, or maybe I'm just naive.

I have been to shows, but mainly to watch the collies and obedience, so only looked at the show dogs in passing. Some I thought were very nice, some I thought looked deformed and uncomfortable and if a vet says they are too, obviously I'd agree with him and think that 'something' should be done about it. 

Are any of the show people happy with the vet checks and agree with the KC singling out the breeds they have for the time being, or does the CA speak for everyone and they are all unhappy about it?


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

I don't know that too many people outside the show-ring are very concerned about whether or not the KC "went about it" in the right way or not. Frankly I have NO interest in whether a vet used a torch or not or whether someone took photos of the vets' room and "proved" that a torch was unnecessary etc. etc. etc.

What worries me is that some people breeding to "breed standards" are showing dogs that are the closest to the breed standards at a major show and those dogs have serious problems.

The most interesting part of the Canine Alliance meeting _to me_ was at the end. Two ladies pointed out that breeding to the Basset and Clumber breed standards would result in dogs that failed basic DOG (NOT BREED) eye tests.

THAT ladies and gentlemen is a PROBLEM.

The Canine Alliance did not discuss this but it *was* said. What do you suppose will happen?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> This is a Ch parented Canadian pup from 2011 with names omitted.




I said my opinions on line-breeding had somewhat mellowed, not that far though.

I'd expect those pups to be born with banjos. 

Sorry, but that breeder is going way too far in my opinion and I doubt has given much thought over what they're doing at all, they are lucky if they do get healthy pups imo. Totally unnecessary risks taken.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> Line breeding in an open gene pool by those who are gathering information regarding the risks involved and putting deep consideration in should not be a problem if not done repeatedly generation after generation. The room to go out of the gene pool makes a huge difference when errors are made and makes a big difference with regard to allowing genetic drift to take care of some errors for you.
> 
> When you are speaking of linebreeding in a closed gene pool, when a dog with higher risk of combinations of deleterious recessive alleles paired is put back in, then the gamble is payed by the full breed in the future especially if that gene pool is small. I understand there are times the gamble pays off, but many times it has been disastrous for full breeds - MVD in Cavaliers is an example. The best explanation I have seen for the harm linebreeding can do is from the Cangen list:
> 
> ...


Thank you for such a detailed reply CC - whilst I have already seen all (and much, much more) of the non-genetic info, the things you wrote about the genetics side were very interesting and very well explained to someone like me who, as I said on my earlier post, does not really understand a great deal about the subject.

It was even more interesting because I understood from telephone conversations with Pupa (Dr Andreoli) when we were looking into buying a bergie that she had not used any of the mongrelised bergies but had made sure she went straight back to the true genetic structure, yet the statistics you have found would seem to contradict that. Am I right in that assumption, or is it my poor understanding of genetics getting in the way again?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> Words are just too easy, action is what is needed


I agree. The Canine Alliance would too!  Over 6000 exhibitors are doing just what you call for here - and yet you are against what they are doing? Just because one personal friend of yours has allegedly covered up the fact that one pup she bred had PRA? Doesn't exactly make sense, does it?


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

rona said:


> Oh so covering up deformed pups and PRA aren't anything to worry about in the wider show circuit?
> By the way, my words, ideas and opinions are actually my own, not anything to do with "that" programme as I didn't watch it or media coverage because I didn't need to, I know the lies that can be told on both sides I also have first hand experience of twisting the truth by the press. I have my own proof of the things that go on. I work on personal experience and truth not say so.
> I still say that the show fraternity as a whole has chosen to shut their eyes to the deformities and suffering that some in the show world themselves have caused
> Words are just too easy, action is what is needed


Wow - please enlighten us then as to how you have got all this mass of experience to be so knowledgeable- most people who breed only ever become so broadly so about a few breeds in an entire lifetime, and even then will admit they are still learning.

Explain how "covering up PRA" aligns with so many breeds having all but erradicated it in show, working and responsible pet breeding circles through testing their dogs at $200 a time when including blood tests, and more if the dogs needed testing before mandatory microchipping came in for health-testing.

Who's "covering up" deformed pups, again you would need to know a HELL of a lot of breeders doing this for it to actually mean something. As you know so many of them, are they having post mortems done to ascertain whether the nature of the deformiity could be genetic?

Just as deformities develop in human babies, they can develop in any animals - it doesn't mean there is a specific genetic cause behind it - there are very many environmental factors that can cause birth defects - cat faeces being one in humans - so could it in dogs?

The amount of experience you have of all these 'dodgy' breeders to have this knowledge also for me would raise questions of the circles you move in to have such an in depth first hand knowledge. 

=========================

Elles - my apologies if I upset you about the ribbon comment - I have not read the whole thread and won't- because as usual, it will be littered with ill-informed opinions which for the majority will be derived from what others are saying.

ABS members may include show breeders, but it is certainly not limited to it - in fact - a lot of show breeders HAVEN'T actually signed up to the scheme.

It also includes Working and pet breeders - I know a lot of responsible pet breeders have signed up to it because it gives them greater credibility - similarly, there are responsible commercial breeders who have probably signed up to the scheme - some may not agree with this - but they meet the requirement.

Whatever people want to call them - commercial breeders are NOT the same as puppy farmers - the latter of which invariably use none of the health test schemes

========================

ozrex, rona and anyone else concerned about problems in the pedigree world - SHOW ME where I have said that problems don't exist.

I NEVER EVER EVER have - so please don't put words in my mouth or quote against me as saying that I have - I object to that.

The very example that Ms PDE herself cited is indicative of what many believe is wrong with what happened at Crufts.

If the top dog was wrong - then it raises questions on every other single dog placed below that dog.

Yet Ms JH herself was raving about one of the lower placed dogs and how fabulous it was.

Testing a SINGLE dog in a breed is NOT the way to go - and this lays at the basis of what started the backlash from the wider community.

But of course, testing more dogs simply cannot be the way to go for all you people who think the Pedigree dog world is ignoring the problems - or can it.

For gods sake wake up and smell the coffee - people are asking for MORE vigorous and comprehensive testing - NOT LESS - but by drawing your own interpretations - as some do about breed standards - it allows you to rant and criticise because these people want to make the pedigree dog world and showing a better place - resulting ultimately in better puppies for pet owners as well - hey ho

Sometimes it seems you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> What is basically being said is that what happened at Crufts was unfair - and that testing should be starting at a level BELOW Crufts and with more dogs -yThere are others calling for checks in ALL breeds


I get that and agree, although I can see why they started with the breeds they did. When you look at the number of breeds, there aren't many that have the degree of health problems due to conformation/exaggeration issues and I suspect the plan was to roll it out to other breeds once they had seen how it worked.

I think what comes across in a negative light is that this has only been objected to when dogs publicly failed. It was known that these tests would be implemented long before Crufts, yet it was only when a number of dogs were publicly failed and humiliated that the objections started. I sympathise, public humilation is never nice, but this shouldn't have come as news and those involved should have been prepared for this.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

swarthy said:


> For gods sake wake up and smell the coffee - people are asking for MORE vigorous and comprehensive testing - NOT LESS - but by drawing your own interpretations - as some do about breed standards - it allows you to rant and criticise because these people want to make the pedigree dog world and showing a better place - resulting ultimately in better puppies for pet owners as well - hey ho
> 
> Sometimes it seems you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't


If I hadn't already just repped you, I would be repping you for this. I only hope people take note - but sadly, I fear the very ones who do the things you speak about above don't want to discuss the truth. All they want to do is go on criticising - and if they can't find anything to criticise, they'll make it up. How else could they criticise a group of people asking for more vigorous and comprehensive testing? How else could they pretend that people who want more vigorous and comprehensive testing are only in it "for the ribbons" (and I'm not talking about you here, Elles, I'm referring to Goblin's rhetoric)


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> I get that and agree, although I can see why they started with the breeds they did. When you look at the number of breeds, there aren't many that have the degree of health problems due to conformation/exaggeration issues and I suspect the plan was to roll it out to other breeds once they had seen how it worked.
> 
> I think what comes across in a negative light is that this has only been objected to when dogs publicly failed. It was known that these tests would be implemented long before Crufts, yet it was only when a number of dogs were publicly failed and humiliated that the objections started. I sympathise, public humilation is never nice, but this shouldn't have come as news and those involved should have been prepared for this.


Rocco - I get what you are saying - and like so many things in life - reality is very different to theory.

This group was started, and it's membership is predominantly people involved in unaffected breeds - it not sitting comfortably with the wider world - as I say - reality and theory are very different.

I've known people who've I've never hear say a word in public speaking up.

And I've seen very little saying there are not problems - just that there are better ways of dealing with it.

Maybe it had to happen for the reality to hit home?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Intersting article from an independent vet.
Crufts: Lost Opportunities | National Animal Interest Alliance


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> I think what comes across in a negative light is that this has only been objected to when dogs publicly failed. It was known that these tests would be implemented long before Crufts, yet it was only when a number of dogs were publicly failed and humiliated that the objections started. I sympathise, public humilation is never nice, but this shouldn't have come as news and those involved should have been prepared for this.


I don't think any of the furore is because dogs publicly failed. Some failed fair and square and no-one has spoken about them. I think exhibitors are up in arms because of the *reasons why *a couple of them failed. Whilst nothing has been officially disclosed (which is enough of a failure in the system in itself to warrant a re-think) exhibitors are worried that a system that can pass a dog (the bulldog) on one independent vet check (the trial at BUBA) and yet fail it on the next has to be inherently unfair. And, of course, this concern could not have surfaced until testing had happened at more than one show, which is why nothing was said until it did happen.

If that kind of thing is happening week after week, passing at one show, failing at the next with exactly the same condition, no-one will know where they are and whether or not their dog is to be deemed healthy - and it will just disintegrate into farce. That is why exhibitors are so up in arms, not because some dogs failed the health test. They are not wanting health checks stopped, they are merely wanting them to be suspended until a fairer solution -whatever that may be - is put into place.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> How else could they criticise a group of people asking for more vigorous and comprehensive testing?


Now if someone who owned a bulldog that failed the test came trotting along complaining about the tests and saying that ALL dogs should be tested, knowing full well there aren't the hours in the day or the manpower to do so, or that if it was doable it could take years to set up, I'd be highly suspicious of their motives.

I would be thinking that they were saying they wanted my Border Collie to undergo a vet check at the shows, knowing full well that my breed doesn't suffer any of the highlighted problems, to make any testing impossible.

If they came trotting along and said they wanted ALL bulldogs at shows to be tested, I'd still be thinking it's a touch of sour grapes, but if it's logical and doable, I'd like to see it too, so I'd go for that one. 

You have to weigh up the pros and cons and logistics. If it were me, I might be a little suspicious of some of my peers if they were calling for comprehensive testing of every breed of dog at every show, even if I owned a breed that would pass every test standing on his head.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> wanting them to be suspended until a fairer solution -whatever that may be - is put into place.


Just wanted to point out for those who haven't read the whole thread, that in an earlier post Spellweaver spoke of urgency and weeks, not suspending and delaying for a few years. Hence I agree with Spellweaver. :thumbup1:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> Now if someone who owned a bulldog that failed the test came trotting along complaining about the tests and saying that ALL dogs should be tested, knowing full well there aren't the hours in the day or the manpower to do so, or that if it was doable it could take years to set up, I'd be highly suspicious of their motives.


And if that was all it was, I'd be agreeing with you straight away. However, 6000 - almost 7000 now - exhibitors are something different. Between them they will cover just about every breed - hell, some champ shows don't get that many exhibitors (although a lot do get more, of course).

I think that the very fact that the Alliance is made up of exhibitors of every breed - every breed when only 15 breeds are in the "at risk" group - is in itself highly indicative that exhibitors feel the problem is much more deeply seated than "a bulldog failed the test".


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Elles said:


> Now if someone who owned a bulldog that failed the test came trotting along complaining about the tests and saying that ALL dogs should be tested, knowing full well there aren't the hours in the day or the manpower to do so, or that if it was doable it could take years to set up, I'd be highly suspicious of their motives.
> 
> I would be thinking that they were saying they wanted my Border Collie to undergo a vet check at the shows, knowing full well that my breed doesn't suffer any of the highlighted problems, to make any testing impossible.
> 
> ...


You make a valid point - I know someone recently was talking about actual health-testing and the showring - yet breeding and showing - contrary to popular belief are not inextricably linked - my passion is showing - occasionally, I breed a litter (although none in the last three years)

But just as there are lots of people who don't show and breed, there are a surprising number who show and don't breed and never have any intention of doing so, happy to buy in from other show kennels when they want a new pup to campaign - I predominantly class myself in that categoey as my health increasingly moves towards telling me it would be insanity to breed any more 

I do hope to have one more litter if I can ever emulate all these "miraculous" unplanned matings between the two dogs in question that doesn't happen in my house even under supervision  but that's a discussion for another day.

But I do hear and predominantly agree with what you are saying - and I also believe that it would be unkind to technically "ban" people from the showring because they do it as a hobby with no intention of ever breeding.


----------



## cavmad (Jan 27, 2009)

Most of the pedigree breeds are mostly healthy but do have tests for HD and elbows it is the minority of breeds that are exagerated. The lady that spoke up for the Pekes at the CA meeting said how far the little dog had to walk She had only done 3 triangles with breaks in between and the rings at crufts arent exactly huge it wasnt like it was in the main ring. Surely this isnt right a dog should be able to move more than that.The Bassets in the ring are nothing like the working ones which i think are nice looking dogs the show ones could never hunt they are over weight and the wrinkles are unhealthy and the eyes must cause them discomfort as they are always so red and sore looking.It is the breeders of the exagerated breeds that really need to open their eyes and do something the Bassets could go to the working ones to try and improve the show dogs but the breeder on the 1st pde was horrified and said that the healthy working ones were wrong and he would leave the breed if the dogs ever got to look like that and the folds in the skin were what gave the breed their caracture.I dont know these breeds and they might have made huge improvements and the ones that i see in the dog press are still the old ones i dont know


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I don't think any of the furore is because dogs publicly failed. Some failed fair and square and no-one has spoken about them. I think exhibitors are up in arms because of the *reasons why *a couple of them failed. Whilst nothing has been officially disclosed (which is enough of a failure in the system in itself to warrant a re-think) exhibitors are worried that a system that can pass a dog (the bulldog) on one independent vet check (the trial at BUBA) and yet fail it on the next has to be inherently unfair. And, of course, this concern could not have surfaced until testing had happened at more than one show, which is why nothing was said until it did happen.
> 
> If that kind of thing is happening week after week, passing at one show, failing at the next with exactly the same condition, no-one will know where they are and whether or not their dog is to be deemed healthy - and it will just disintegrate into farce. That is why exhibitors are so up in arms, not because some dogs failed the health test. They are not wanting health checks stopped, they are merely wanting them to be suspended until a fairer solution -whatever that may be - is put into place.


While I wouldn't see it as a failure to make public the results, there is nothing to stop the owner publishing them. A vet cannot as they are bound by confidentiality. The KC could, but again, I can see why they may not have wanted to for the benefit of the exhibitor.

I have said previously, that I think it may be a good idea to have a panel of vets, but the vets were (as I understand) given a remit and I don't think they need vet experts. These are general health problems that can be picked up by your GP vet, and do nor require specialist tests.

Yes, two vets may not agree, unless a single vet is employed to do the health tests this is inevitable to a certain degree. However, the remit is specific so the variation is not going to be great. I fail to see this as a problem unless a vet is not judging according to the remit (perhaps a right to appeal may be useful), after all, judges do not view dogs in the same way. I know some who will not go under certain judges because they know their dog isn't the sort that the judge favours. Vets have far less margin for difference of opinion than a judge - the symptoms are either there or they are not.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Now if someone who owned a bulldog that failed the test came trotting along complaining about the tests and saying that ALL dogs should be tested, knowing full well there aren't the hours in the day or the manpower to do so, or that if it was doable it could take years to set up, I'd be highly suspicious of their motives.


I think you've hit the nail on the head as far as public perception goes. This combined with the general denial of problems in the past does not come across well and seems like sour grapes.

For what it's worth, I actually cannot see why show folk are SO adamant that ALL dogs should be tested. I don't think it would be a bad thing if they were, but the insistence that they are, when only a small number of these breeds have deep rooted problems does appear to be a bit of a tantrum rather than of any real benefit.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> While I wouldn't see it as a failure to make public the results, there is nothing to stop the owner publishing them. A vet cannot as they are bound by confidentiality. The KC could, but again, I can see why they may not have wanted to for the benefit of the exhibitor.
> 
> I have said previously, that I think it may be a good idea to have a panel of vets, but the vets were (as I understand) given a remit and I don't think they need vet experts. These are general health problems that can be picked up by your GP vet, and do nor require specialist tests.
> 
> Yes, two vets may not agree, unless a single vet is employed to do the health tests this is inevitable to a certain degree. However, the remit is specific so the variation is not going to be great. I fail to see this as a problem unless a vet is not judging according to the remit (perhaps a right to appeal may be useful), after all, judges do not view dogs in the same way. I know some who will not go under certain judges because they know their dog isn't the sort that the judge favours. Vets have far less margin for difference of opinion than a judge - the symptoms are either there or they are not.


I agree a panel of vets with the right to appeal may be the way to go - I prefer a yearly health check scheme but think that a panel of vets with the right to appeal could be implemented more quickly. However, that brings me to another dilemma - I think it is important to do something quickly; but there is a very fine line between putting something into place quickly and putting something else into pace that is not quite right and doesn't exactly do the job it is intended to do. That's the very situation we are in now.

I can only think of two quibbles with a panel of vets and a right of appeal:

1 - the cost - a panel of vets at each champ show will not be cheap; show societies will not be able to afford this and and the cost will inevitably be passed onto the exhibitor. Whilst I see this as a necessary evil in order to ensure dogs are healthy, it will mean that the cost of showing increases yet again and will price some people out of the sport.

2 - and I have already spoken about this - mud sticks and people will remember the disqualification, but not the result of a successful appeal.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I agree a panel of vets with the right to appeal may be the way to go - I prefer a yearly health check scheme but think that a panel of vets with the right to appeal could be implemented more quickly. However, that brings me to another dilemma - I think it is important to do something quickly; but there is a very fine line between putting something into place quickly and putting something else into pace that is not quite right and doesn't exactly do the job it is intended to do. That's the very situation we are in now.
> 
> I can only think of two quibbles with a panel of vets and a right of appeal:
> 
> ...


Of course, the easiest thing would be for those in these breeds to accept the very real exaggerations that have come into their breed and breed away from them  And I think that's is the the main reason why people get frustrated and see the CA as a knee jerk reaction throwing the dummy out of the pram.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I agree with everybody. 

I can quite understand that an exhibitor with a dog with droopy eyes, having bred to the breed standard and having won lots of shows and who genuinely doesn't believe droopy eyes are a problem would be a bit miffed about suddenly being told they are a problem, by the very people who agreed that they weren't and accepted a breed standard that appeared to find droopy eyes acceptable.

If you agree that 'some degree of haw' = droopy eyes.

I can quite understand that many people do believe droopy eyes are a problem and should never have been bred for and that those who did breed for them didn't care about their dog's comfort, but rather more about 'ribbons', closing their ears and eyes to the obvious. 

So, the powers that be, need to agree on what is a problem, what shouldn't be bred for, or exaggerated and do something about it. The KC commissioned a report and acted upon it. Sloooowly if the report was commissioned years ago of course and only a little bit.

I would expect the KC to have contacted the entries that would be affected and told them what the vets would be looking for.

Now we have an argument about whether the vets stuck to their remit, and there is rumour that people are accusing them of having dogs to fail before they even looked at them, and whether the remit was fair and how professional and unbiased they were about it. That's a separate issue imo.

So, is checking dogs when they've already won and preventing them going further fair to the judges and the exhibitors involved. I'd say no, it's not. It's also not fair to the dogs. If a dog has conjunctivitis and a sore ears and his owner hasn't noticed, or thinks it's normal, he shouldn't be walking around a show ring, he should have already been sent home.

So I do agree that dogs that are going to be checked should be checked before they compete, not afterwards as at least one point of contention, hence I do agree that the KC need to look urgently at how they are introducing this and what they want to achieve from it.

I agree that the dog shows are for the people, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that, they do need to be taken into account. Just not at the expense of the dogs. Dogs first, people too, hopefully an answer can be found that will help everyone move forwards, improve the lot of the dog and that people who have bred for exaggeration, creating dogs that have a poor quality of life and various issues, have their eyes opened without major surgery.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Are "droopy eyes" written into breed standards (I somehow doubt it - but off to check)



Elles said:


> I agree that the dog shows are for the people, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that, they do need to be taken into account. Just not at the expense of the dogs.


The only thing I would argue with here is that IME shows are as much for the dogs as the people - my dogs adore showing - they go nuts when the show bag comes out and treat them as a fab social opportunity - they get far more excited than a trip to the beach - and this is GENUINELY all I have ever seen in 7 years of showing across all breeds. My dogs are far happier about getting in the car than we are at 5am 

Where you occasionally see a dog who is clearly unhappy in the ring, they very quickly are not seen again because their owners stop showing them.

Showing a dog who doesn't want to be there is one of the hardest things I've ever done, and withdrawing him from the ring was devastating when conformationally, he was the best dog I'd ever owned - but he wasn't happy - and ultimately my dogs health, happiness and well-being are most important to me. In two instances, that has led to that happiness heartbreakingly being with other families (and completely separate from their ability to show or otherwise - three of my 6 dogs are shown, 2 regularly, 1 occasionally).

I've supported and kept my dogs who have developed health-issues through injury- two of whom have had many thousands in insurance spent on them, because unlike many pet owners, I insure my dogs to cope with the unexpected.

Ultimately, they are my pets, if they can be shown great, if they do well, even better - but I don't love the ones that don't show any less - and they all get their opportunities to roll around in the mud and the sea and chill out on my settee and the patio when the weather is nice, as do many many other show-dogs across the UK and the world.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> Are "droopy eyes" written into breed standards (I somehow doubt it - but off to check)


Lol. I said if you agree that 'some degree of haw' = droopy eyes.

Some degree of haw showing as acceptable is in the breed standard. Apparently, it's only some people who take that to mean droopy eyes and breed for it. Some people think it means something entirely different. Some people would say that 'permitted' or 'accepted' doesn't mean 'must have'. 

Interpretation. Another hot topic.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Elles said:


> Lol. I said if you agree that 'some degree of haw' = droopy eyes.
> 
> Some degree of haw showing as acceptable is in the breed standard. Apparently, it's only some people who take that to mean droopy eyes and breed for it. Some people think it means something entirely different. Some people would say that 'permitted' or 'accepted' doesn't mean 'must have'.
> 
> Interpretation. Another hot topic.


Ah OK - yes - a bit like the "white Flash" in Labs - it's permissable - but you seldom see blacks and chocolates in the ring with them - slightly different with yellows because of the way it blends in.

My youngest chocolate girl has a "white flash" as does one of her litter mates - they seem to go in "phases" - loads of people I spoke to who had litters around the same time had them  She was shown as a puppy and did OK for me, but she really didn't enjoy it


----------



## spaniel04 (Nov 27, 2011)

I posted this link before on this thread. Last week sometime, I think :biggrin5:
Gundog Group Breed Standard amendments - The Kennel Club
This breed standard amendment for clumbers and a few other breeds came out at the beginning of 2009. I understand it was an interim amendment but it was in force for a while. It states that the showing of haw in a clumber's eyes, even a little, was no longer acceptable. When and why did the KC make a u-turn on that decision and revert the breed standard back to its original wording? I wonder if exhibitors of clumber spaniels could not come up with one single individual that had no haw showing? 
I personally have never seen a show clumber without droopy eyes. I have seen quite a few working clumbers with well fitting eye lids but I don't think those dogs are of any interest to show breeders.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Of course, the easiest thing would be for those in these breeds to accept the very real exaggerations that have come into their breed and breed away from them  And I think that's is the the main reason why people get frustrated and see the CA as a knee jerk reaction throwing the dummy out of the pram.


But that is already happening and has been happening for a good number of years (I'm sure I read on here somewhere that even JH said the bulldog who was disqualified was a vast improvement  ) I can't understand why people would see exhibitors wanting a system of vet checks that don't penalise the very people who are improving exaggerations as throwing the dummy out of the pram - unless these people merely thought they knew what the alliance wanted and have jumped to conclusions and closed their minds to what they are really wanting


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Thank you for such a detailed reply CC - whilst I have already seen all (and much, much more) of the non-genetic info, the things you wrote about the genetics side were very interesting and very well explained to someone like me who, as I said on my earlier post, does not really understand a great deal about the subject.
> 
> It was even more interesting because I understood from telephone conversations with Pupa (Dr Andreoli) when we were looking into buying a bergie that she had not used any of the mongrelised bergies but had made sure she went straight back to the true genetic structure, yet the statistics you have found would seem to contradict that. Am I right in that assumption, or is it my poor understanding of genetics getting in the way again?


Spellweaver if you go through and look to the beginnings of the pedigrees provided by Dr. Andreoli you will find these dogs, all without ancestors noted, at the beginning of her initial lines. The bottom four are the grandparents of her initial girl Maira, born in 1966.

Alpino di Valle Imagna 
Mirca dell'Idro
Laurin
Ghita di Valle Imagna
Fiamma di Valle Imagna
Rudy di Valle Imagna
Sakuntala dei Lupercali
Sim dei Lupercali
Liu di Valle Imagna
Brahma Bebo
Brahma Tundra
Brahma Ris
Delia
Feo
Gelsomina di Valle Imagna
Igor
Piru dei Lupercali
Pantula di Valle Imagna
Taratrami

I don't know what can be meant by this phrase _"but had made sure she went straight back to the true genetic structure,"_ because there is no such thing as genetic structure that can be assessed in that matter. I understand from her sight and writings that she was careful to assess structure from the beginning looking for the best representations, but that has nothing to do with the purity of the dogs she is using as many dogs of that central Italian landrace would have had good structure.

I happen to adore landraces and they were the original purebred dogs, but they were not pure by ancestry as is currently guarded by our registries. They absorbed and incorporated new genes as dogs drifted in and the landrace evolved.

CC


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> Spellweaver if you go through and look to the beginnings of the pedigrees provided by Dr. Andreoli you will find these dogs, all without ancestors noted, at the beginning of her initial lines. The bottom four are the grandparents of her initial girl Maira, born in 1966.
> 
> Alpino di Valle Imagna
> Mirca dell'Idro
> ...


It begins to make sense now. I don't know either what she meant by going back to the true genetic structure - I was merely repeating what she had said and because I don't know much about genetics I took it to mean she had gone back to the original bergamasco genes - well, it seemed to make sense to me at the time 

Thank you for taking the time to explain - hope you don't mind my picking your brains like this but you know so much more about genetics than I do.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> It states that the showing of haw in a clumber's eyes, even a little, was no longer acceptable.


 Where?


----------



## spaniel04 (Nov 27, 2011)

It says in the amendment [delete 'slightly sunk, with some haw showing but not to excess'].


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> Intersting article from an independent vet.
> Crufts: Lost Opportunities | National Animal Interest Alliance


Just want to point out about the auther of this article is an active member of the Pembroke Welsh Corgi show community and breeder. I believe she should have made that clear as well as her veterinary qualifications.



Spellweaver said:


> And if that was all it was, I'd be agreeing with you straight away. However, 6000 - almost 7000 now - exhibitors are something different. Between them they will cover just about every breed - hell, some champ shows don't get that many exhibitors (although a lot do get more, of course).
> 
> I think that the very fact that the Alliance is made up of exhibitors of every breed - every breed when only 15 breeds are in the "at risk" group - is in itself highly indicative that exhibitors feel the problem is much more deeply seated than "a bulldog failed the test".


I joined those facebook groups from the beginning. Many of the facebook members are from abroad and are just watching what is going on. The numbers there aren't necessarily showing agreement or disagreement. Many are probably fence sitters looking to make their minds up. I believe the signed members of the CA are now at about 1000?



Spellweaver said:


> . . . Thank you for taking the time to explain - hope you don't mind my picking your brains like this but you know so much more about genetics than I do.


Anytime. 

CC


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

spaniel04 said:


> It says in the amendment [delete 'slightly sunk, with some haw showing but not to excess'].


Thanks. 

So, if say, in the lab breed standard it said

'colour must be yellow'

then they deleted that out of the breed standard and it no longer said what colour, yellow would no longer be acceptable?

I would have taken the amendment to mean that previously the dog *must* have 'slightly sunk..etc' eyes, but could now have eyes that weren't 'slightly sunk.. etc.' not that the former was no longer acceptable?

The new standard doesn't say they *must* have some haw showing, but rather that it's acceptable to have some haw showing, maybe to clear up any confusion raised by the initial change and to take 'sunken' out of it? So to me it would mean pretty much the same thing.

However, I know absolutely nothing about Clumber Spaniels, or about how to interpret breed standards or changes to breed standards, or how other people interpret breed standards, or how the original designer/s of the standards intend them to be interpreted.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

swarthy said:


> ozrex, rona and anyone else concerned about problems in the pedigree world - SHOW ME where I have said that problems don't exist.
> 
> I NEVER EVER EVER have - so please don't put words in my mouth or quote against me as saying that I have - I object to that.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Thank you for that Ozrex - the big question now is where do we go from here ? 

Personally I think that the Kc must work with the BVA to ensure that their breed standards do not conflict with the veterinary world's view of what constitutes things like Ectropian - there should not be this anomoly - then vet testing should stop for 10 years to allow breeders to breed to the new standards ( it takes roughly 3-4 generations to fix changes and then only if it's done in large numbers across a breed )- this may well mean that the Uk Clumber or Bassett for example is 'out of synch' with those bred in the rest of the world which would of course reduce the available gene pool for UK breeders ...but again that's something that the Kc, breed clubs and the BVA must discuss before they make any changes .

The inconsistency of the vet check results also need to be addressed - it simply should not be possible for a dog to pass at one show and then fail at another ( as the Bulldog did ) - I think that there should be a panel of at least 3 vets who must agree with the diagnosis before a dog is disqualified.

The kc also needs to make up it's mind what the checks are for - originally it was to educate judges so that they did not put through dogs with exaggerations of type that could EASILY bee seen in 2 minutes using only their hands and eyes - they have rapidly backpedalled on this and now seem to view them as pretty thorough health checks to discover things that can only be seen by a vet using specialist equipment.

The BVA eye test that most good breeders routinely use should also be amended to make things like haw showing a 'fail' - currently dogs with haw can pass their eye test -no wonder breeders have contunued to breed for this - it's in their breed standards and the vet's prior to Crufts did not seem to view it as a health issue -- at the moment there is no joined up thinking - just knee jerk reaction which cannot make for a fair consistent system.

Finally we must make up our minds what we want - if vets are to write the new breed standards then how will they view the very fine bone of the Italian Greyhound, the coat of the Komodor or the extreme height of the Irish Wolfhound ? - will ANY of the Brachy breeds continue ? .... you may think I'm being alarmist but already other breeds are being added to the 'watch list' - 

We do indeed live in interesting times :mellow:


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

For your interest here are the breeds on the Fit For Function Breed Watch list that include points of concern for special attention by judges

*Hound Group*
the Basset and Bloodhound, Borzoi, Irish Wolfhound and Sloughi

*Gundogs)*
Gordon Setter, Golden and Labrador Retriever, American and Clumber Spaniel
* 
Terrier Group *
Bedlington, Bull, Cesky, Irish, Norwich, Staffordshire and West Highland White Terrier

*Utility Group*
Bulldog, Chow Chow, French Bulldog and Shar Pei

*Working Group*
Dogue De Bordeaux, Great Dane, Mastiff, Neapolitan Mastiff, Newfoundland, Siberian Husky and Saint Bernard

*Pastoral Group*
Bearded, Rough and Smooth Collie, German Shepherd Dog, Old English Sheepdog, Pyrenean Mountain Dog and Shetland Sheepdog

*Toy Group.*
Chinese Crested, Pekingese, Pomeranian and Pug


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Bijou said:


> For your interest here are the breeds on the "Fit For Function Breed Watch" list that include "points of concern for special attention by judges
> 
> *Hound Group*
> the Basset and Bloodhound, Borzoi, Irish Wolfhound and Sloughi
> ...


The only reason i can imagine siberian huskies are being added to the list is because some can look lean?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

rona said:


> Oh I know that, the dog that won at crufts 2012 that I assume has health checks but threw a deformed pup.
> Not sure if it was that dog or the bitch or just one of those unfortunate things, but no one will ever know because it's been covered up.





rona said:


> Mine isn't say so or tv it's personal knowledge





swarthy said:


> Do you go to shows every weekend? do you watch the rings and interview owners - do you take breed standards and examine these dogs for seeming conformation to assess the results and to be able to say without question that breed standards are the reason these breeds are affected in the way they are.
> 
> If you don't - and thats a general "you" - then you are simply regurgitating what is being spouted by an over-zealous media.
> 
> ...


*You keep telling yourself that. Yes there are good breeders but how the hell can anyone tell if things keep getting covered up?*


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> The only reason i can imagine siberian huskies are being added to the list is because some can look lean?


yep - here is the Kc's 'Breed watch page '

The Kennel Club

click on the breed to find out - some seem a bit illogical - why is the OES on the breed watch list for "Excessively long and profuse coat " and the Lhasa Apso or Puli not ? why is the Golden Retriever on there for "Overweight &
Legs too short in proportion to depth of body and to length of back" ? ...I know of many other breeds that this could equally apply to - how is having legs too short a health issue ? ( and if it is then why is it written into the breed standard of breeds like Dachshunds ? )

....and I find it interesting to note the Cavalier entry given that this has to be amongst the unhealthiest breed of all !!


----------



## cavmad (Jan 27, 2009)

I agree about the cavs but unfortunately for them there main problems cant be diagnosed without using some kind of medical instuments I wish they could because then some of the breeders would have to then start breeding for health. Before people jump on me i know some do follow the breed club protocol but many dont especially not breeding before the dog is two and half.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> why is the OES on the breed watch list for "Excessively long and profuse coat "


Because the list was taken after consultation with judges and breed clubs too and "may include features not specifically highlighted in the breed standard"

"Fit for Function" seems to mean the individual breed's actual working function too then, not just health and the list wasn't taken just from vet and health specialist reports.



> ....and I find it interesting to note the Cavalier entry given that this has to be amongst the unhealthiest breed of all !!


Judges can't see if the dog has SM or a heart problem, so there'd be no point in making any of the Cav problems specific points for judges to look out for.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> then vet testing should stop for 10 years to allow breeders to breed to the new standards


To allow exhibitors to continue to exhibit unhealthy dogs?

It didn't say in the clumber spaniel standard that they 'must have saggy eyes, and a touch of conjunctivitis is acceptable' for example, it says 'may' have a degree of haw showing. If it turns out that was wrong and it makes the dogs sore and uncomfortable, then unfortunately the dogs need to be withdrawn and dogs with tight eyes found, or bred to show.

Breeders have already had many years to voluntarily breed the healthiest dogs they can and many, many of them manage it, so sorry, I don't agree with giving the ones who haven't another 10 years before vets are allowed to check their dogs at ringside.

I would agree that a dog could pass one time and fail another. In this instance for example, one week the dog's eyes could be more irritated and swollen than another week, thus making his issues worse one week than another.

I agree it could be done in a more sympathetic manner and before the dogs enter the ring, but I couldn't agree with the testing being stopped altogether and people allowed to continue to exhibit unhealthy dogs, especially now the unhealthiness has been pointed out and accepted as an issue by the KC who run the show.

It's only a very little vet check for a very small number of dogs at the moment. 

Have you read what the vets themselves and the KC have said about it? You are still insisting that specialist equipment was used outside of the remit. The KC have said that a torch was an item they'd agreed to in the remit, if the light was poor, and was used to start with as the area they used to check the dogs in wasn't as well lit as the ring initially. Once the lighting was sorted the vet no longer used the torch and after the controversy about it, I doubt they'll use one again.


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

Bijou said:


> For your interest here are the breeds on the Fit For Function Breed Watch list that include points of concern for special attention by judges
> 
> *Hound Group*
> the Basset and Bloodhound, Borzoi, Irish Wolfhound and Sloughi
> ...


May I ask if you have the link to where you found this? I would love to pass it on.


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

I have only just now found out about Shelties being on the breed watch points of concern list and expected something like the health conditions of the pug or GSD but actually the points of concern in Shetland sheepdogs are;


Misplaced upper canine teeth
Excessively small eyes

Siberian Husky's on the breed watch points of concern list...for;

Significantly underweight or significantly overweight

Labrador.

Overweight
Legs too short in proportion to depth of body and to length of back

Chinese Crested.

Clipper rash or burns caused by shaving

I would much rather see the breed watch list assess hip score and eye certs over the leg length or clipper rash of a dog anyday.

Its a start I guess.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I'd love to hear why these things are points judges should pay particular attention to in these breeds, when they look to me to be normal judging criteria for a conformation show. 

Like your breed shetland lover. When we're watching tv and the judge opens the dog's mouth and pushes the hair back from his eyes what are they looking at? lol

Eyes x2 - check, teeth x at least one - check. :lol:

I'm guessing the breed club or judges consulted have said that too small eyes and misplaced teeth are being missed by some of the less experienced judges. 

Agree with what you say. :yesnod:


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

If these were the points the vets were checking:

	externally visible eye disease 
	lameness 
	dermatological disorders 
	respiratory distress 

Then surely you should know your dog was affected, so why show it?


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> If these were the points the vets were checking:
> 
> 	externally visible eye disease
> 	lameness
> ...


But how is shaver burn a health condition? If it is then my OH has it as a daily health condition. :lol:

I don't get it, you can show a dog with Affected eye's or even hip problems as long as it can't be seen. Yet if your dogs slightly chubby, has small eyes or shaver burn then its a cause for concern.

If your going to have a concern list then it needs to be made that the judge/vet whoever's checking your dog has access to health test results.

Like the bull dog with the eye problem because of a accident, that was OTT. If its to improve the breed then genetic conditions need to be addressed....not shaver burn. :thumbdown:

Just my opinion though. You will have to excuse me, I woke on the rant side of the bed. :lol:


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> The only reason i can imagine siberian huskies are being added to the list is because some can look lean?


If you go into the different breeds, you will see what they are looking for.

All breeds are listed on there, but actually, some when you click on them say "no issues noted for this breed".

For Labs it is weight and length of leg


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

whenever i try to look at it it says service unavailable!


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> I have only just now found out about Shelties being on the breed watch points of concern list and expected something like the health conditions of the pug or GSD but actually the points of concern in Shetland sheepdogs are;
> 
> 
> Misplaced upper canine teeth
> ...


Surely though the correct leg lenth is one of the basics of conformation because it is intrinsic to how the dog is put together and fit for purpose ?

Personally i think if dogs are being judged to be the "best" of their breed then relevant health certifcates for things that cannot be tested in the ring should be required at entry level.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

RAINYBOW said:


> Surely though the correct leg lenth is one of the basics of conformation because it is intrinsic to how the dog is put together and fit for purpose ?
> 
> Personally i think if dogs are being judged to be the "best" of their breed then relevant health certifcates for things that cannot be tested in the ring should be required at entry level.


The problem is, many health tests require a minimum age - for example BVA hips, 12 months, SM MRI not recommended prior to 2.5 years. Also, as a pet owner, I'm not especially keen on the idea putting my dogs under uneccessary anesthesia for the sake of showing them when I have no intention of breeding from them.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> The problem is, many health tests require a minimum age - for example BVA hips, 12 months, SM MRI not recommended prior to 2.5 years. Also, as a pet owner, I'm not especially keen on the idea putting my dogs under uneccessary anesthesia for the sake of showing them when I have no intention of breeding from them.


I see the point but in the case of the minimum ages they could still be adhered to with dogs requiring to have had those tests by a certain age as recommended.

In an attempt to ensure that dogs that are placed are really top of their game i do believe that they should be sound inside and out wether they are bred from or not. Just my personal opinion though.

I also tend to look at this from a "jo public" point of view and just think that when puppies from show breeders tend to go for more than the average pup the public should expect all the t's to be crossed and the i's to be dotted in terms of health, temperament and conformation


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> if it turns out that was wrong and it makes the dogs sore and uncomfortable, then unfortunately the dogs need to be withdrawn and dogs with tight eyes found, or bred to show.


found ?? ....*where* exactly - .... they don't just appear overnight like mushrooms!! .... I challenge you to find any Clumber with a tight eye - they all have loose eyes even the working ones ...if you want them with tight eyes them time must be allowed to breed them that way !

..and how is "legs too short " a health issue in a Goldie ?- it may well be a conformation one but it cannot affect the health of the dog otherwise how would all those Dachsies, Corgis, Vallhunds, Heelers, Griffon Vendeens ,Dandie Dinmonts etc etc manage ..

If a judge puts up dogs with breed specific conformational faults then he/she needs to go back to the drawing board and read their breed standards - but even if they put up a Goldie built like a wardrobe on legs it does not mean that it is an unhealthy specimen of the breed - just not of good breed type !


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> found ?? ....where exactly - .... they don't just appear overnight like mushrooms!! .... I challenge you to find any Clumber with a tight eye - they all have loose eyes even the working ones ...if you want them with tight eyes them time must be allowed to breed them that way !


And I haven't said anything about stopping them breeding for tighter eyes if that is now thought necessary. I haven't said that the breed should be allowed to die out, or that the kennel club should stop registering them. I said they shouldn't be in the show ring if they are suffering discomfort.

If today it's thought that currently all clumber spaniels are uncomfortable because of an issue with their eye conformation, even if yesterday that conformation was considered acceptable, they should now be withdrawn from the show ring until enthusiasts have bred the problem out of them imo. If it's not all the dogs that are suffering, then vet checks need to continue to point out to the owners, breeders and judges which ones are and what is causing their suffering and also point out the dogs which are considered fine.

As a none show person, I wouldn't want to take my dog showing if it was discovered that something in her conformation meant she was suffering. I'd probably hope that something could be done for her individually, such as an op on her eyelids, but that would be more important to me than taking her showing.

I think the 'breed type' issues that are also being pointed out in the lists are probably down to the discussions with judges and breed clubs who maybe are concerned that some judges, maybe those less experienced, are choosing dogs not to type or breed standard over those who are and wanted specific mistakes pointed out. It could be a separate issue to the vet checks. Just guessing though.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> If a judge puts up dogs with breed specific conformational faults then he/she needs to go back to the drawing board and read their breed standards - but even if they put up a Goldie built like a wardrobe on legs it does not mean that it is an unhealthy specimen of the breed - just not of good breed type !


I would agree with this comment. At the end of the day, the shows are conformation shows and the different breeds will have a standard to meet in order to be able to choose one dog over another. It may not matter to the dog whether he's green, blue, purple, or orange, nor to a pet owner, but in showing it should matter. That's *part* of what showing is about.

No point in showing healthy bulldogs if they look like german shepherds and are good at sniffing out bombs. They should still fit the bulldog criteria. No point in focusing on the bulldog's large head and squashed face exaggerations at the expense of his strong back either. 

ETA: Unless they change showing altogether of course and it ends up nothing to do with specifics, but more like companion shows or tests of function.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Bijou said:


> found ?? ....*where* exactly - .... they don't just appear overnight like mushrooms!! .... I challenge you to find any Clumber with a tight eye - they all have loose eyes even the working ones ...if you want them with tight eyes them time must be allowed to breed them that way !
> 
> !


Just one 

Flintwood Snowflake Macgiriaght

Look her up, she's went to Crufts too.

I know there are many many more. Not all but as I said before, the gene pool is very small and not so perfect specimens are having to be used. Those dogs however aren't being held up as the best of their breed


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> I see the point but in the case of the minimum ages they could still be adhered to with dogs requiring to have had those tests by a certain age as recommended.
> 
> In an attempt to ensure that dogs that are placed are really top of their game i do believe that they should be sound inside and out wether they are bred from or not. Just my personal opinion though.


I agree with snoringbear. In an ideal world health tests would be done on all dogs, but while I think it should be compulsory for breeding, I don't think it should for showing.



> I also tend to look at this from a "jo public" point of view and just think that when puppies from show breeders tend to go for more than the average pup the public should expect all the t's to be crossed and the i's to be dotted in terms of health, temperament and conformation


I disagree with this. Prices vary across the board and I have seen puppy farmed puppies costing more than those from show breeders. Unfortunately, price is no indication of anything where puppies are concerned.


----------



## cavmad (Jan 27, 2009)

I looked up the flitwood dogs and there is a picture of a lovely clumber who wouldnt win in the show ring cos she has tight eyes.She is lovely if i wanted a Clumber it would be her i think she was Bodesea


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

cavmad said:


> I looked up the flitwood dogs and there is a picture of a lovely clumber who wouldnt win in the show ring cos she has tight eyes.She is lovely if i wanted a Clumber it would be her i think she was Bodesea


I can't find them for some reason 
Oh sorry, you meant the one at the same kennel!!!!


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

rona said:


> Just one
> 
> Flintwood Snowflake Macgiriaght
> 
> ...


She's lovely. I cringe when I see the drooping lower eyelids, on any dog. I can't understand why anyone would choose that rather than a dog like FSM


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

And so we come full circle. 

Some breeders it is said reject healthier dogs from their breeding programmes in favour of the more exaggerated in order to win at shows. Some judges reject healthier dogs in favour of the more exaggerated and place them at shows. Vets have been brought in by KC to try to force breeders to move away from doing this and make health more of a priority.

I'm someone who can't see the problem with people breeding pet dogs that have never been near the show ring, in order to breed other pet dogs though. :yikes: So long as they breed responsibly, put their dogs through all tests available for their breed, breed only good tempered, healthy dogs, home the pups carefully and offer a lifetime of support, I don't see the show ring as essential. If this has been happening, there would be less exaggerated versions of the breeds (they'd be breeding the less exaggerated versions that were rejected by the judges/breeders) and there'd be some to choose from in many cases. Not being specific though, have no idea how many clumbers there are, though I do believe there's a fair few bulldogs. :scared:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

A picture of my friends working Clumber. Not the tight eye that the Flintwood dogs have, though he is a dog not a bitch so the head is heavier, but I can assure you he can work bramble all day and still see. Never known him to have eye trouble through work and his Dam (who my friend also owns) has hip scores to die for in a breed who's scores have been frighteningly high


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> I agree with snoringbear. In an ideal world health tests would be done on all dogs, but while I think it should be compulsory for breeding, I don't think it should for showing.


I would have thought the easy answer to that would be that if not health tested themselves then show dogs should be from health tested parents?


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Really ? - I can see plenty of haw showing here

Our Clumbers -

and here :

Our Clumbers -

and here :

Our Clumbers -



> Never known him to have eye trouble


funny ....that's EXACTLY what the owner of the Crufts winning bitch said !



> If this has been happening, there would be less exaggerated versions of the breeds (they'd be breeding the less exaggerated versions that were rejected by the judges/breeders)


no there would'nt... who do you think is breeding all those 'tea cup' versions of Yorkies or Chihuahuas - or the over wrinkled pet quality Shar-pei ...how else can you assess what you are producing if you don't compare your dogs with other breeders in the same breed ?



> If today it's thought that currently all clumber spaniels are uncomfortable because of an issue with their eye conformation, even if yesterday that conformation was considered acceptable, they should now be withdrawn from the show ring until enthusiasts have bred the problem out of them imo.


..and also presumably withdrawn form the working arena as well ? ...or is it only haw that show dogs have that causes discomfort ?


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> I would have thought the easy answer to that would be that if not health tested themselves then show dogs should be from health tested parents?


in my opinion *ALL *dogs should be from health tested parents pet working or show


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Yes, withdrawn from working too. If a dog is unhealthy and uncomfortable it needs addressing and the dog shouldn't be being asked to do anything. 

I have no idea whether 'showing a little haw' is uncomfortable for the dog, nor do I know how it should be interpreted, what a little is and what it means for the rest of the dog's eye structure. That would be for the KC, the breed clubs, vets and other specialists to decide.

The breeders of teacup pups (runts) and over wrinkled nothing quality shar-pei are not responsible breeders breeding healthy pets are they?

Healthy, good tempered dogs bred as pets don't need comparing to anything imo, sorry.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Bijou said:


> Really ? - I can see plenty of haw showing here
> 
> Our Clumbers -
> 
> ...


You have obviously never really looked at a Clumber have you?

The Crufts bitch hadn't done a days work had it?


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Elles said:


> Yes, withdrawn from working too. If a dog is unhealthy and uncomfortable it needs addressing and the dog shouldn't be being asked to do anything.
> 
> I have no idea whether 'showing a little haw' is uncomfortable for the dog, nor do I know how it should be interpreted, what a little is and what it means for the rest of the dog's eye structure. That would be for the KC, the breed clubs, vets and other specialists to decide.
> 
> ...


I have never really understood why there was any issue with decent breeders breeding soley for pet owners tbh being as pet owners make up the biggest percentage of dog owners and bringing these types of breeders up to scratch and educating the public really gives the average person a chance at avoiding BYBs and Puppyfarmers.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rona said:


> Just one
> 
> Flintwood Snowflake Macgiriaght
> 
> ...


She does have tight eyes. Its unfortunate that her COI is 24.8%.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> The Crufts bitch hadn't done a days work had it?


what bearing does that have on the reason for her disqualification ?



> She does have tight eyes. Its unfortunate that her COI is 24.8%.


  :yikes:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> She does have tight eyes. Its unfortunate that her COI is 24.8%.


So what's the norm for Clumbers?


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> She does have tight eyes. Its unfortunate that her COI is 24.8%.


Oh dear thats a shame  Do you know what the COI of the crufts one is in comparison? Or is that not available because its not from England


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Bijou said:


> what bearing does that have on the reason for her disqualification ?


Nothing it's you that bought it up.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Oh by the way, please realise that when she was whelped, well under 200 Clumbers were registered in that year.
She does belong to one of the Vulnerable Native Breeds


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rona said:


> So what's the norm for Clumbers?


Not great, 17.7%.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> Oh dear thats a shame  Do you know what the COI of the crufts one is in comparison? Or is that not available because its not from England


Not on the KC database, pedigree only goes back to g.grandparents on their website, too.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> Not great, 17.7%.


Yes I'd just found it myself. She is a very old girl now and the breed has probably doubled since she was whelped

What's her pups?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> A picture of my friends working Clumber. Not the tight eye that the Flintwood dogs have, though he is a dog not a bitch so the head is heavier, but I can assure you he can work bramble all day and still see. Never known him to have eye trouble through work and his Dam (who my friend also owns) has hip scores to die for in a breed who's scores have been frighteningly high


Hang on a minute, how come your mate's clumber dog is allowed to have an eye that isn't *tight* and can work all day without a problem, but dogs you don't know are dismissed out of hand because you've come across some people who are unscrupulous so you trust no one other than anyone you know first hand it would appear? That really is double standards, a good dog is a good dog, and to dismiss dogs you don't know because of a fault you would accept in dogs you do know, is a bit off really. It's either wrong, or it's not, one or the other, or are we now into degrees of droopiness that are allowed?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> funny ....that's EXACTLY what the owner of the Crufts winning bitch said !


But the vet found inflammation.

TBH, I don't think these dogs should be excluded. From some of the reactions anyone would think they had been thrown out of the show. They weren't. They still received their BOB, CC etc, they just weren't allowed to proceed and until such time in the future that these exaggerations have been bred out I can't see the problem with that. Yes, it will take time, yes, they do seem to have made progress and that should be applauded, but it's obviously not enough.

I seem to remember there was some talk of withholding the GSD CC's until improvements were made. This was a much more drastic proposition than not allowing a BOB to go forward. What happened with that?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Hang on a minute, how come your mate's clumber dog is allowed to have an eye that isn't *tight* and can work all day without a problem, but dogs you don't know are dismissed out of hand because you've come across some people who are unscrupulous so you trust no one other than anyone you know first hand it would appear? That really is double standards, a good dog is a good dog, and to dismiss dogs you don't know because of a fault you would accept in dogs you do know, is a bit off really. It's either wrong, or it's not, one or the other, or are we now into degrees of droopiness that are allowed?


He was never held up as the best and was never used to breed


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Hang on a minute, how come your mate's clumber dog is allowed to have an eye that isn't *tight* and can work all day without a problem, but dogs you don't know are dismissed out of hand because you've come across some people who are unscrupulous so you trust no one other than anyone you know first hand it would appear? That really is double standards, a good dog is a good dog, and to dismiss dogs you don't know because of a fault you would accept in dogs you do know, is a bit off really. It's either wrong, or it's not, one or the other, or are we now into degrees of droopiness that are allowed?


Spot on SL :thumbup:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> He was never held up as the best and was never used to breed


I never said he was shown in any way, but your opinion is that this is a good example of the breed, and works as it should do even with a droopy lower eyelid, or are you saying that's not the case?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I never said he was shown in any way, but your opinion is that this is a good example of the breed, and works as it should do even with a droopy lower eyelid, or are you saying that's not the case?


Did I say his eyes are droopy?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> He was never held up as the best and was never used to breed


But you were holding him up as a good example Rona - that's what SL meant. If he were a show dog, you wouldn't be concerned about whether or not he was going to be bred from - you'd be too busy saying how dreadful it was that he had a loose eye


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> Did I say his eyes are droopy?


You said his eyes are not as tight, would you like to expand on that definition? The photo shows an eyelid that lowers slightly along the bottom lid.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> But you were holding him up as a good example Rona - that's what SL meant. If he were a show dog, you wouldn't be concerned about whether or not he was going to be bred from - you'd be too busy saying how dreadful it was that he had a loose eye and a COI way above the breed average


How do you know what his COI is?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> How do you know what his COI is?


Ooops, sorry, many apologies - it wasn't that dog that had the high COI. MY fault for not reading properly. I'll go and delete that from my post in the interests of fairness to your friend - I'd hate to think that someone saw that, thought it was the truth and passed it on.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You said his eyes are not as tight, would you like to expand on that definition? The photo shows an eyelid that lowers slightly along the bottom lid.


As you very well know, spaniels eyes can become red rimed when they have been working hard. In that picture he had already done several hours hard labour. Yes his eye rims aren't as good as the one I held up as having tight eyes but he has no haw showing, they are just not quite as tight.
He was held up as a comparison or as a work in progress if you like 
And yes degrees of droopiness in the Clumber at this point in time does have to be taken in to consideration.
That bitch had bad eyes full stop, no getting away from that. Her eyes could not possibly stand up to a day in the field


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> As you very well know, spaniels eyes can become red rimed when they have been working hard. In that picture he had already done several hours hard labour. Yes his eye rims aren't as good as the one I held up as having tight eyes but he has no haw showing, they are just not quite as tight.
> He was held up as a comparison or as a work in progress if you like
> And yes degrees of droopiness in the Clumber at this point in time does have to be taken in to consideration.
> That bitch had bad eyes full stop, no getting away from that. Her eyes could not possibly stand up to a day in the field


I haven't looked at the bitch in question to be perfectly honest, and I know from my own experience, *mild* ectropian can be a bit of an enigma, eyes can look tight for much of the time, and then the lid can droop.

That still doesn't detract that you have posted an example of a dog that happens to work well, but has droopy lower lids, and yet choose to criticise dogs with the same fault for winning in the show ring. I've seen Labradors with beat up faces from working that have tight eyes. Some of the working savvy of the dog/breed, can help in that sort of situation, where some will face thick cover in different ways, and come out with less injuries, not something you can always account for. Indie wouldn't dive straight in to thick cover, Tau would, but she's got tight eyes, so is she better?? Surely that's a matter of overall perspective and knowledge about the breed overall?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rona said:


> Yes I'd just found it myself. She is a very old girl now and the breed has probably doubled since she was whelped
> 
> What's her pups?


20.8% on KC database.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> But the vet found inflammation.


And until I see the vet report for Rona's friend's dog after a day in the field, I shall reserve judgement as to whether her friend's dog is as healthy and untroubled as the friend says he is. :aureola:

If we were to believe the woman at crufts and her friends, her dog didn't have sore eyes after a day at work either.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

Why not out-cross Clumbers? It worked for the dalmations.

The thought of breeding only from a small part of a tiny gene pool to try to breed dogs with tight eyes is horrific. Anyone who has done secondary school biology could tell you what will happen there. I can't think of a faster way to make genetic flaws in the breed worse than they already are.

Surely there's a tight-eyed breed that could be used to provide the eye structure and some MUCH needed genetic diversity into Clumbers.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

ozrex said:


> Why not out-cross Clumbers? It worked for the dalmations.
> 
> The thought of breeding only from a small part of a tiny gene pool to try to breed dogs with tight eyes is horrific. Anyone who has done secondary school biology could tell you what will happen there. I can't think of a faster way to make genetic flaws in the breed worse than they already are.
> 
> Surely there's a tight-eyed breed that could be used to provide the eye structure and some MUCH needed genetic diversity into Clumbers.


I think if the show and working people work together, the Clumber may just survive. However I think it's too late for The Sussex Spaniel, they seem to have a lot of health issues


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

ozrex said:


> Why not out-cross Clumbers? It worked for the dalmations.
> 
> The thought of breeding only from a small part of a tiny gene pool to try to breed dogs with tight eyes is horrific. Anyone who has done secondary school biology could tell you what will happen there. I can't think of a faster way to make genetic flaws in the breed worse than they already are.
> 
> Surely there's a tight-eyed breed that could be used to provide the eye structure and some MUCH needed genetic diversity into Clumbers.


Its been done already. I don't know if there are plans to do more. When looking for photos on these dogs and going to Clumber pages I saw too many memorials on dogs aged 5,6 or 7. I hope they do more.

Rasvårdsprojekt : Clumber Spaniel Klubben

_"2001 the Clumber Spaniel Club of SKK to make this racial crossing between the Clumber spaniel and English cocker spaniel. The inkorsningen of another race is to increase the genetic variation and reduce inbreeding. In order to continue breeding to produce healthy, mentally and healthy Clumbers were granted by the Kennel Club's breeding committee 22 August 2001.

. . .

On 14 June 2008, it was time for the two girls from second generation crossings to participate in inmönstring.

The SSRC's show was inmönstringen of Sugar Loaf Niagara and Spin First Cross Line, judge Ing-Marie Hagelin and Karl-Erik Johansson and the two females was awarded a first prize in quality.

To be numbered took at least a third prize as both bitches did this with a good margin. They have now re-registered as Clumber Spaniel of SKK which means they can be exhibited, bred without first seeking from SKK etc. Their pedigrees are now "blank" on mödernets side, that is all that is not Clumber and the generations behind this has been removed.

On the 14th of june two of the crossbreed from the second generation, was best moments on an official dog show judged by two Experienced group Judges. The purpose was to get Them registered as Clumber Spaniels deprecated of cross breeds. The crossbreed bitches that was best moments was Sugar Loaf Niagara and Spin First Cross Line And the Judges were Ing-Marie Hagelin and Kar-Erik Johansson. Both of the bitches received in respect of a first price in quality.

To be registrered as pure Clumbers, you need to get a third price on an occation like this so the bitches were cleared by a large margin! Now Their pedigrees are cleared on Their mothers side and all information on the Cocker-side is removed.

SKK X-register (from SKK sampled a brochure "Breeding 2009")"_​
One of the second gen girls, Spindels Crossline, can be found here - http://www.spindelns.com/clio.html










Puppy images -









http://clumber.net/avel-halsa/rasvardsprojekt/cross-breed-2ond-generation-3/

This is a page for one of the first gen crosses, Molle. The Cocker stud used is shown there as well - http://www.diabf.com/molle.html










CC


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

OK, I'm a daft b*gger but that actually made me cry. Thanks Comfortcreature. 

There IS hope for our dogs if people can be so very sensible about breeding them. If people can see outcrossing as viable then they need not breed from miniscule gene pools. 

Outcrossing will bring in the possibility of change and genetic diversity. Not all diversity will be "good" but then further selection can take place without reducing the gene pool to a gene puddle. Going back to the foundation types for the dog breeds concerned might be a good place to start looking for diversity and change.

Can we re-create Sussex Spaniels?


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

now this is a question I've asked often..and never had a definitive answer to - what happens AFTER the first out cross ? .....do breeders simply breed those out crosses back into the restricted Clumber gene pool ad infinitum ?- how diverse would the breed be after 4 generations if this is the case ?



Out crossing can work to introduce a single gene into a breed as was done for the Lua Dalmatian and the bob tailed Boxer so yes I'm guessing it would work to establish tight eyes in the Clumber - but I'm truly puzzled how it can work to create diversity UNLESS you repeat the outcross every few generations ...


does anyone know ?

In any event do you not agree that Clumber breeders will need at least 10 years to produce tight eyed dogs - why should their dogs not be shown or worked during that time ?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

CC thank you so much for that post, it's by far the most interesting and informative on this whole thread


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

I think with out-crossing it depends on what you're trying to achieve.

If you need to reduce or eliminate a single gene it's fairly straight-forward and it helps if you can establish the genotype through genetic testing. if you have to work it out through checking the phenotype it can be more difficult or at least take more time and can become downright unethical. If a problem is controlled by several alleles (hip dysplasia for eg) it can make you weep.

A simple dominant is the easiest. Cross dog with problem to dog with no evidence of problem in phenoytype. Breed from offspring with no evidence of problem. Problem fixed.

A simple recessive is also simple to fix. Hope like hell there is some form of test for the heterozygote and only breed homozygotes that have a phenotype showing no problem. In the absence of a test it becomes harder and/or unethical.

Unethical method. Isolate from breeding pool all with problem phenotype, they have two faulty genes. Check family trees of all animals for evidence of problem. If absolutely no evidence of problem despite line breeding probably OK. Where there is a problem in the tree, cross suspect animal with homozygous animal if all offspring clear of the problem then suspect animal is clear. If 50% of offspring show problem then suspect is heterozygous and cannot be bred.

Ethical method. Breed only animals ONLY from stock known NOT to have had any relatives with problem. For a small gene pool this means using animals from outside the gene pool as well as those animals clear of problem in gene pool then breeding to type.

If multiple alleles then it becomes a nightmare. You can try breeding animals to animals who show the best phenotypes but it takes many, many, many generations. This is impossible in a small gene pool because you would eliminate too many genes that you do want.

Out-crossing is far from an exact science because there are so many variables. The out-crossing to get rid of one gene would take one generation to get the cross. F1 animals need to be checked to see if the desired gene has been eliminated, simple if a defective dominant. If the out-cross looked like (or was an ancestor) of the desired dog breed then it's a few generations to get a reliable type. Look at the Dalmations.

Out-crossing GSDs for example to get rid of hip dysplasia would be a geneticist's nightmare. Could be done if there's a reasonably similar dog with sound hips but it would be more a case of crossing just enough shepherd into the other breed to get the appearance of the GSD rather than a dash of the other dog into the shepherd.

Out-crossing for diversity would perhaps be best done by re-creating breeds. That could be done by breeding "pedigree" looking dogs from *sound* foundation stock and then breeding them back into the pedigrees.

I hate to say it but keeping a very mixed mongrel population would be best for "dogs". If genetic diversity is lost by breeding pedigrees (and that's what it's about) then it most be "stored" in the mongrels. I am NOT saying mongrels are "better" or "healthier" I am saying they are diverse.

In the case of an epidemic of some dog infectious disease (for example) there will be enough genetic diversity in the mongrels that some will survive to breed. Sometimes, even deleterious genes are a survival advantage for a species; think sickle-cell anaemia in humans. We may need the dodgy genes in our mongrels one day.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Bijou said:


> yep - here is the Kc's 'Breed watch page '
> 
> The Kennel Club
> 
> ...


thank you Bijou, weight is the only thing i could possibly think of in huskies.

it does all seem a bit random doesnt it



swarthy said:


> If you go into the different breeds, you will see what they are looking for.
> 
> All breeds are listed on there, but actually, some when you click on them say "no issues noted for this breed".
> 
> For Labs it is weight and length of leg


ive found it now but thanks Swarthy


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Since the history of spaniels is mixed in any case, would you actually benefit health wise from outcrossing back to the same breeds they were from, other than widening the gene pool? Surely you will still have the same health problems/risks long term, although it would be of benefit to help with the conformation issues more effectively than trying to sort things out with just a small closed gene pool on it's own. 

This is where I think we'll never be able to get it right, people want dogs that are 100% clear for all conditions, and I just don't think that's possible, even with outcrossing. So it will always seem like we fail, no matter what measures are put in place to try and ensure healthier breeds over time. 

Having had the chance to chat with quite a few people within the working dog community, there are, it seems likely, some who are already outcrossing, just not declaring on the paperwork; not for health reasons, but for ability. The dogs are registered as their own, and no-one else need know, but when this sort of thing happens, of course you just have to tell one person, and that one person happens to tell their mate down the pub, etc, etc. Sometimes, the dog has been another KC pedigree breed, at least once I've heard of an unregistered *type* used by a top competitor, simply because in their opinion, the dog was a fantastic example of the breed and they wanted to introduce those attributes to their lines. So should we be applauding their forsight for outcrossing schemes already in place, or villifying them for their unscrupulous activities (tongue in cheek just in case anyone misses it). 

In all seriousness, if outcrossing and breeding to type does assist in the long term for the overall health of pedigrees, I'm all for it, always have been, and would prefer to see it done openly and fully documented.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

RAINYBOW said:


> I see the point but in the case of the minimum ages they could still be adhered to with dogs requiring to have had those tests by a certain age as recommended.
> 
> In an attempt to ensure that dogs that are placed are really top of their game i do believe that they should be sound inside and out wether they are bred from or not. Just my personal opinion though.
> 
> I also tend to look at this from a "jo public" point of view and just think that when puppies from show breeders tend to go for more than the average pup the public should expect all the t's to be crossed and the i's to be dotted in terms of health, temperament and conformation


So are you telling all the pet people, and believe me there are MANY in the showring who will never breed a dog, that they have to subject their dog to -for example in my breed, an unnecessary GA (from which dogs HAVE died). unnecessary eye tests - which are unpleasant at best, blood tests they don't need and a cool cost in the region of around £700 to £800 to enable them to continue what is already an expensive hobby 

Because THAT is exactly what you are saying 

A dog with a higher hipscore may not be suitable for breeding - but they can still be totally sound - I speak from experience.

And then which breed average should we use? when there is a divergence of over 30 points between the highest and lowest breed averages - so one breed could be considered "sound" with a score of 35, whereas a flatcoat wouldn't be - even though the dog is sound but happens to have a higher score than the breed average.

It's all too easy to sit on the sidelines and make judgements.

Similarly, someone mentioned GSDs - whose breed clubs have been in rather um constant discussion with the KC - lost track on where that has gone now

But if you wanted to judge them on health-results - there have been dogs labelled as unsound who have hip and elbow scores to make anyone envious.

There's no point getting into discussions on the issues with backs and hocks if they are health tests that cannot be performed and we are we are now basing showing on health-test results (which incidentally, the some (if not all) of the dogs of the with-held BOBs at Crufts had.

Many of you will publically villify owners and breeders for moving dogs on, now in the same breath, some people are saying "if that dog doesn't have the right eyes" go and find one that does - encouraging them to do the very thing so many villify them for.

Surely better to encourage a breeding programme to breed these issues out - that takes time.

God forbid someone makes health-testing mandatory for being able to show - then someone has to decide where the cutoff points are.

If you want to make showing accessible only to the elite few, then this is exactly the way to go about it


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

swarthy said:


> So are you telling all the pet people, and believe me there are MANY in the showring who will never breed a dog, that they have to subject their dog to -for example in my breed, an unnecessary GA (from which dogs HAVE died). unnecessary eye tests - which are unpleasant at best, blood tests they don't need and a cool cost in the region of around £700 to £800 to enable them to continue what is already an expensive hobby
> 
> Because THAT is exactly what you are saying
> 
> ...


All good points, and I just wanted to add, I've got Indie here who is slightly stiff on her knee joint because of her cruciate op, but thankfully never shows any sign of being lame on her front end, with her 2:1 elbow grade. I also know of a dog with a 2 elbow grade who works, won't be bred from, but shows absolutely no signs of any problems whatsoever. People may wonder why I bang on about the difference between knowing the status of a dog, and how you use that information, but for me it certainly is not black and white. Even in the case of genetic tests, there are breeders who test every generation to confirm the status is correct, as there will be a percentage of results that are not correct, however low that might be.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> Many of you will publically villify owners and breeders for moving dogs on, now in the same breath, some people are saying "if that dog doesn't have the right eyes" go and find one that does


Sorry Swarthy, I don't understand this bit? 

What does moving dogs on mean and why do people publicly vilify owners and breeders for it? And don't forget one person's opinion isn't 'people' and my opinion isn't fixed in stone, it is subject to change without notice, if I'm given a good argument.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elles said:


> Sorry Swarthy, I don't understand this bit?
> 
> What does moving dogs on mean and why do people publicly vilify owners and breeders for it? And don't forget one person's opinion isn't 'people' and my opinion isn't fixed in stone, it is subject to change without notice, if I'm given a good argument.


Selling or rehoming a dog that can't be used in a breeding programme, where you don't have room to keep them. Not everyone will have the room to bring in new dogs as some are demanding on this thread, so what can they do?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Ah okay. I'm not someone who believes you shouldn't rehome or 'move on' an unsuitable dog.

I wouldn't vilify someone who felt that breeding and showing was the be all and end all to their life and they loved it above anything else. So long as they made certain their dogs were happy, healthy and well cared for. If that meant careful rehoming of unsuitable dogs, even if just because they didn't like showing, or weren't suitable for breeding, or were done with breeding, that's fine by me.

Why keep a dog and make it miserable, when someone else would love the dog?

Be honest and know yourself. Do what's best for your dogs regardless of what someone else thinks.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

PS: Don't get me wrong. lol I do think that closed stud books and the pursuit of purity and inbreeding has caused many problems and not just for the obviously unhealthy exaggerated breeds. I think the general breeding practices of pedigree dogs needs looking at. I don't think allowing one pointer in the dalmatian breed is even close to good enough.

I do think that some breeds are complete and utter abominations, probably lovely dogs living in warped, uncomfortable bodies and that they got that way for a show career and in pursuit of the perfect 'insert breed'. I think that some breeders and judges are blind to it and that independent outside experts need to shake them, bang their heads on the nearest wall and wake them up. If God himself told me those dogs were fine, I'd say God was wrong. 

I do think that today, here and now, the KC should be looking at it. I'm pleased to see they are and don't want the vet checks stopped. I want them for more breeds and before the dog goes in the ring. :yesnod:


----------



## spaniel04 (Nov 27, 2011)

comfortcreature said:


> Its been done already. I don't know if there are plans to do more. When looking for photos on these dogs and going to Clumber pages I saw too many memorials on dogs aged 5,6 or 7. I hope they do more.
> 
> Rasvårdsprojekt : Clumber Spaniel Klubben
> 
> ...


Tragically the Swedish lady who fought so hard to get permission for this outcross breeding died not long after at a very young age. She had had tremendous support in her work from friends of mine, breeders of working clumbers here in the Uk, but there was fierce opposition from show breeders in Sweden. After her death the dogs were just bred back into the small gene pool in Sweden, just like Bijou predicted, so how valuable that one outcross breeding was, I really don't know.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

swarthy said:


> So are you telling all the pet people, and believe me there are MANY in the showring who will never breed a dog, that they have to subject their dog to -for example in my breed, an unnecessary GA (from which dogs HAVE died). unnecessary eye tests - which are unpleasant at best, blood tests they don't need and a cool cost in the region of around £700 to £800 to enable them to continue what is already an expensive hobby
> 
> Because THAT is exactly what you are saying
> 
> ...


I am here to be educated not to make judgements


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

swarthy said:


> Surely better to encourage a breeding programme to breed these issues out - that takes time.
> 
> (


So why didn't this CA appear many years ago to protect dogs and not now to protect exhibitors?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> God forbid someone makes health-testing mandatory for being able to show - then someone has to decide where the cutoff points are.


It's like expecting a dog to be hip scored before you do agility, flyball, obedience, or working trials, field trial...

Yes, there are those in these activities that will breed, and for them health tests are important, but there are many pet owners who take part purely as a hobby, so cannot see that showing is any different.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Bijou said:


> now this is a question I've asked often..and never had a definitive answer to - what happens AFTER the first out cross ? .....do breeders simply breed those out crosses back into the restricted Clumber gene pool ad infinitum ?- how diverse would the breed be after 4 generations if this is the case? . . .


There are ~20,000 genes on the dog genome. At each gene locus pups have an allele from each parent - so the first gen cross here would have 20,000 from the Clumber and 20,000 from the Cocker side. From there what is retained or lost depends on selection . . . and luck as well.

On average the third generation descendent of an outcross will still retain 5000 alleles from the outcross ancestor. That is an average. In theory the only 'known' numbers are from the first gen cross. Keep in mind that pups take on only 1 of the two alleles offered from each parent at each location. The heterozygous outcross parent can pass on the full 20,000 allele load to the 2nd gen cross, or could pass on none of the outcross alleles. Theoretically you could have 5th or 6th gen pups with those 20,000 alleles still. The odds of those last examples happening, however, are miniscule.

What that does demonstrate, however, is that a 'set' of genes from that outcross (genes are linked and inherited as groups) can be spread into many, many descendents in the gene pool and be kept ad infinitum. In fact this would be happening with many different 'sets' of alleles from that outcross.

What would be best in a breed like the Clumber Spaniel that appears to be genetically depauperate is numerous outcrosses to numerous Clumber lines.



Bijou said:


> Out crossing can work to introduce a single gene into a breed as was done for the Lua Dalmatian and the bob tailed Boxer so yes I'm guessing it would work to establish tight eyes in the Clumber - but I'm truly puzzled how it can work to create diversity UNLESS you repeat the outcross every few generations ...
> 
> does anyone know ? . . .


To be clear Fiona and the LUA Dals have more than one gene still from that Pointer in the background. They'll have the full linked set (at least) that came on the chromosome on which that LUA dominant allele sat.

In regards to creating diversity this is actually a good example. One Pointer contributed his genes. That one Pointer now has hundreds of Dalmation descendents who have 'some' of his genes. Using letters to exemplify genes, he could have passed on abcdefgh'lua'ijk to one pup. Another might have received 'fgh'lua'ijklmnopqr, and another 'fgh'lua'ijkstuvwxyz. Generations forward you will have Dal pups that have just 'fgh'lua'ijk, Dal pups that will have just 'stuvwxyz', or any one of numerous combinations. That is diversity retained.

What would be required to retain diversity in breeds AFTER an outcross therefore would be the same as what is required to retain diversity in a closed gene pool BEFORE an outcross. Much would depend on the founding population of the breed, the current population of the breed, the disease incidense, and as well the breeders practices themselves - how fast they culled diversity out through the use of matador studs and selection criteria.

Because of all of that variance there is not a black and white number of generations diversity can 'hold' which I'm afraid some seem to be looking for. From my experience and understanding it is widely accepted in all breeding arenas that black and white answers or practice guidelines are rare, so nothing new about that situation.



spaniel04 said:


> Tragically the Swedish lady who fought so hard to get permission for this outcross breeding died not long after at a very young age. She had had tremendous support in her work from friends of mine, breeders of working clumbers here in the Uk, but there was fierce opposition from show breeders in Sweden. After her death the dogs were just bred back into the small gene pool in Sweden, just like Bijou predicted, so how valuable that one outcross breeding was, I really don't know.


I am sad to hear she passed away. As I addressed above those genes might prove to do good things in the breed ad infinitum even if they are continuously put back to Clumbers. When googling I discovered pups going forward still, which is good.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Since the history of spaniels is mixed in any case, would you actually benefit health wise from outcrossing back to the same breeds they were from, other than widening the gene pool? .


The breeds are genetically different enough that they are identifiable through DNA testing. Yes you would benefit health wise. Widening the gene pool is incredibly important with regard to keeping a large enough viable population to sustain health and longevity . . . it is the point in fact.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Surely you will still have the same health problems/risks long term, although it would be of benefit to help with the conformation issues more effectively than trying to sort things out with just a small closed gene pool on it's own. . . . .


The incidense rate of problems would be diminished with better avenues to retain diversity while working away from them. As well, in this breed where surveys are showing a diminished life span, that lifespan will most likely increase.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> . . . This is where I think we'll never be able to get it right, people want dogs that are 100% clear for all conditions, and I just don't think that's possible, even with outcrossing. So it will always seem like we fail, no matter what measures are put in place to try and ensure healthier breeds over time.


BINGO. No breeder in any breed of any species can create *viable* animals that are 100% clear for all conditions. IT HAS PROVEN IMPOSSIBLE. In lab environments clear populations are created through tons of suffering and loss in former generations while getting there. Even after attaining this 'goal population' they are considered 'at risk' as they have incredibly diminished lifespans and need to be kept in completely sterile environments as their immunity is crap.

But what I don't understand is the idea that this is a FAIL for breeders? As breeders humans are guides, and expectations set up for more than that are misleading at best. Where did the idea ever come from that we could perfect better than nature can? Nature does not create perfection and neither can humans when interfering.



ozrex said:


> . . . Out-crossing for diversity would perhaps be best done by re-creating breeds. That could be done by breeding "pedigree" looking dogs from *sound* foundation stock and then breeding them back into the pedigrees.
> 
> I hate to say it but keeping a very mixed mongrel population would be best for "dogs". If genetic diversity is lost by breeding pedigrees (and that's what it's about) then it most be "stored" in the mongrels. I am NOT saying mongrels are "better" or "healthier" I am saying they are diverse.
> 
> In the case of an epidemic of some dog infectious disease (for example) there will be enough genetic diversity in the mongrels that some will survive to breed. Sometimes, even deleterious genes are a survival advantage for a species; think sickle-cell anaemia in humans. We may need the dodgy genes in our mongrels one day.


Absolutely. I wish the KCs, from the beginning would have embraced the idea of keeping ancestry on landrace populations. In this manner those breeding pure would have gene pools to go to. Through history this is what the purebred breeders - who were the rich or privileged often living separately than the masses - did. In absence of having embraced this in the first place I'd love it if there were acceptance of registering bodies keeping pedigree info that wanted to do this now, instead of condemnation.

CC


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Brilliant post Comfortcreature 

Maybe rather lambasting all crosses as the spawn of the devil if everyone worked together, for the benefit of dogs generally, there must be a huge amount of valuable information to be gleaned from the existing living breathing crosses. I for one would gladly give dna samples from my dog for scientific research into the health of dogs - it would benefit everyone I would have thought, afterall to have an healthy crossbreed you need two healthy pedigrees to start with


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> BINGO. No breeder in any breed of any species can create *viable* animals that are 100% clear for all conditions. IT HAS PROVEN IMPOSSIBLE. In lab environments clear populations are created through tons of suffering and loss in former generations while getting there. Even after attaining this 'goal population' they are considered 'at risk' as they have incredibly diminished lifespans and need to be kept in completely sterile environments as their immunity is crap.
> 
> But what I don't understand is the idea that this is a FAIL for breeders? As breeders humans are guides, and expectations set up for more than that are misleading at best. Where did the idea ever come from that we could perfect better than nature can? Nature does not create perfection and neither can humans when interfering.


Bingo right back atcha! The *fail* is not in my eyes, but in the eyes of some onlookers that expect 100% genetic and conformationally perfect animals 100% of the time, which is impossible.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> From my experience and understanding it is widely accepted in all breeding arenas that black and white answers or practice guidelines are rare, so nothing new about that situation.


too true !! ....yet this seems to be the expectation amongst some who do not breed.

Thanks for your explanation CC ...but if just one outcross can create sufficent diversity within a breed I'm puzzled why my 3*** Groenendael X Tervueren out crossed pups will be considered 'pure' at the 4th generation by the Kc -surely the assumption is that they will have a minimal amount of diversity left by this stage and can be considered as pure Groenendaels for breeding purposes ?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

What an interesting thread. :thumbup:

I admit, I did used to think all pedigree dogs were hothouse flowers, who needed special care and attention, didn't live very long and cost a fortune.

And that all mongrels were tough as old boots and if you got a sick one, you were just unlucky.

Okay, it was when I didn't put much thought into it, wasn't looking for a dog, so it wasn't important to me, but it is what I thought. I didn't blame breeders though, I just thought that's how it was. I had vaguely heard of puppy farms and that you should see both parents if you were buying a pup, but when I started looking, I was looking for a crossbreed or a mongrel, thinking it would be healthier, even if it was raised in a barn, until I saw some with weepy eyes and a pot belly and thought I'd better think about this. 

I used to think Barbara Woodhouse was amusing and eccentric too, as she yanked a chihuahua out her owners arms by a choke chain and yelled 'Sit!' while smacking her thighs. I thought she was clever with dogs. 

How things change eh? 

I now think that some pedigree dogs are really nice, worth every penny, ethical breeders are essential and should be supported whatever dog they breed and education is the key, even if that education needs to be implanted by force into some brains.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elles said:


> What an interesting thread. :thumbup:
> 
> I admit, I did used to think all pedigree dogs were hothouse flowers, who needed special care and attention, didn't live very long and cost a fortune.
> 
> ...


Can I just say what a refreshing post and to say thanks for seeing all sides of the argument. It is genuinely nice to see people who accept that not one side is perfect, or imperfect, they all have their faults, some more than others!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Can I just say what a refreshing post and to say thanks for seeing all sides of the argument. It is genuinely nice to see people who accept that not one side is perfect, or imperfect, they all have their faults, some more than others!


Do the deformed dogs think that?
On their side there is just suffering

Cowardice asks the question: is it safe? Expediency asks the question: is it politic? Vanity asks the question: is it popular? But conscience asks the question: is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular- but one must take it simply because it is right. Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> Do the deformed dogs think that?


Do you think that all pedigree dogs are deformed?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Elles said:


> Do you think that all pedigree dogs are deformed?


No but too many are, and I've heard the very same words from the show fraternity through the 70s 80s 90s seems to have been going infinitum.

Words mean nothing.
Doesn't matter what is discussed here or at the CA, millions of dogs are still suffering


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> No but too many are


I would agree with this. 

However, I wouldn't agree that discussion is useless. Actions speak louder than words of course, but a whisper heard and acted upon is a whisper worth hearing.

Someone has to stand up and speak out for the dogs, they can't talk for themselves.

What happened yesterday, needn't happen tomorrow. My point was that things change. People change. We have the Internet now, it's much harder to close your ears and eyes to injustices, so keep talking imo.

MLK 'said' what you have quoted. He thought some things were worth saying.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

But they are still in denial.
Unbelievably


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

If you mean the 'they' that are in denial I agree, it's unbelievable. I just don't agree that everyone is in denial and I do think some people who show would genuinely like to see changes and are quite happy to see vet checks brought in.

There just need to be more of them, people that is, though more vet checks would be nice too.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> But they are still in denial.
> Unbelievably


Which "they" do you mean, Rona? If you mean the Canine Alliance, there have over 1000 paid up members who are fighting for more health checks on more breeds. That's over 1000 people doing more for the health of pedigree dogs than those who sit back and do nothing except use forums like these to criticise them.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Elles said:


> If you mean the 'they' that are in denial I agree, it's unbelievable. I just don't agree that everyone is in denial and I do think some people who show would genuinely like to see changes and are quite happy to see vet checks brought in.
> 
> There just need to be more of them, people that is, though more vet checks would be nice too.


From a lot of the pm's I've received about this thread and there have been many. It sounds as if those that have tried over the years have been ostracized and denied the chance to achieve.
They upset the hierarchy you see.
I'll believe the actual exhibitors when and if (such a big if) they start to embrace the efforts of the KC.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Which "they" do you mean, Rona? If you mean the Canine Alliance, there have over 1000 paid up members who are fighting for more health checks on more breeds. That's over 1000 people doing more for the health of pedigree dogs than those who sit back and do nothing except use forums like these to criticise them.


Heard it all before


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> those that have tried over the years have been ostracized and denied the chance to achieve.


Show people?

Sweet and sour. On the one hand some show people have tried to bring about change, which is heartening, on the other hand 'the hierarchy' and other show people have stopped them. 



> embrace the efforts of the KC


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Elles said:


> Show people?
> 
> Sweet and sour. On the one hand some show people have tried to bring about change, which is heartening, on the other hand 'the hierarchy' and other show people have stopped them.


Yep I've had several nice pms from those that couldn't or wouldn't embrace the closed shop/old boy network that is the show dog world and were basically forced out by either unfair judging or being ignored by others in their breed. 
I have sent an email to the KC congratulating them on their efforts


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

I've sent an email of congratulations to the KC, too. "Shock and Awe" worked.

While I agree that discussion is not action I firmly believe that it is a necessary precursor. There are some breeders shattered by the knowledge that people think that their dogs are deformed. In some ways their denial, anger and grief indicate that they know this, now. If the pressure from other peoples' opinions continues we will see change.

The danger is that "the public" will loose interest or that some breeders will retire into a fortress of like-minded people and raise the drawbridge.

I think it is very important to open discussion and encourage rational debate.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

ozrex said:


> The danger is that "the public" will loose interest or that some breeders will retire into a fortress of like-minded people and raise the drawbridge.


That is how it is now, but they still believe they hold the moral high ground.

Only a sledge hammer will break through, the KC tried a club hammer, it needs to be bigger and more forceful


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> Heard it all before


*It is easier to be critical than be correct"
Benjamin Disraeli


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Bingo right back atcha! The *fail* is not in my eyes, but in the eyes of some onlookers that expect 100% genetic and conformationally perfect animals 100% of the time, which is impossible.


I've never run into a non-dog involved person that expected this of dogs that they purchase, acquire or are given. Keep in mind I live in a culture where mutts are the norm. Most people believe that when you purchase a life gambles come with it.

That is why I questioned where the idea of 'perfection' has come from. Who is leading with this idea? Who is selling it? The idea of 'perfection' in living creatures sets up an unreasonable expectation that is detrimental to dog welfare. It has to stop.



Bijou said:


> too true !! ....yet this seems to be the expectation amongst some who do not breed.
> 
> Thanks for your explanation CC ...but if just one outcross can create sufficent diversity within a breed I'm puzzled why my 3*** Groenendael X Tervueren out crossed pups will be considered 'pure' at the 4th generation by the Kc -surely the assumption is that they will have a minimal amount of diversity left by this stage and can be considered as pure Groenendaels for breeding purposes ?


I don't understand why you have come to the conclusion that the KCs decision would be based on the assumption the diversity is now minimal?

Purebred dogs can have lots of diversity and still be purebred dogs. It does not have to be taken to a minimum before identifiable and even refined purebred traits are fixed.

CC


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

what other explanation could there be that my 3*** out crossed pups are not eligible for exportation and MUST be bred back into the Groenendael gene pool for 3 generations ?

The Kc must surely be expecting much of the Tervueren influence to have gone by the 4th generation for this to be logical - otherwise why have the restrictions ?



> I think it is very important to open discussion and encourage rational debate.


absoloutely agree - we can all sit in our own corners with our fingers in our ears going LA LA LA or we can listen to each other and move forward together .....the problem sometimes is that we all feel passionately about this subject and when that happens it's all too easy to view things in black and white - breeders feel threatened, picked upon and misunderstood - others feel that all the evils of dogdom rest at the feet of the show world, that all dogs should be completely healthy and that change should be instant........so both sides stand with their fists up becoming even more entrenched in their viewpoints until all that matters is scoring 'point's against each other ..........


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

> The Kc must surely be expecting much of the Tervueren influence to have gone by the 4th generation for this to be logical - otherwise why have the restrictions ?


Because organizations HAVE to have a clear cut parameter. Simple as that. They have picked 3 gens in the same manner that most animal breeding registries have done - cattle, sheep, cats are three I can think of that often use that parameter. Goats are another. Here is a link to the system used by the American Dairy Goat Association - http://www.adga.org/index.php?optio...nstructions&catid=909:catadgagoats&Itemid=131

It is not about assuming most of an influence is gone. It is about a common number of generations which it takes to get back to a type that will be acceptable for those who hold that dearly.

Getting back to type externally however does not mean losing a great deal of the diversity brought in. What you see on the outside is not necessarily indicative of diversity loss on the inside.

CC


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Bijou said:


> absoloutely agree - we can all sit in our own corners with our fingers in our ears going LA LA LA or we can listen to each other and move forward together .....the problem sometimes is that we all feel passionately about this subject and when that happens it's all too easy to view things in black and white - breeders feel threatened, picked upon and misunderstood - others feel that all the evils of dogdom rest at the feet of the show world, that all dogs should be completely healthy and that change should be instant........so both sides stand with their fists up becoming even more entrenched in their viewpoints until all that matters is scoring 'point's against each other ..........


I can no longer listen and remotely believe anyone here from the show stance in this thread to be honest, not only have you all been supporting dogs that are not fit to be held up as best of breed, but I know for a fact that you are having the wool pulled over your eyes by one of your number just because they tell you how good they are.
Goes back to words and actions again. Words are so very easy

I don't want to read all this subject avoidance, which most of this is. Interesting some of it but still avoidance. So no I'm not going LaLaLa, I'm trying to bring the thread back to what it was originally about. Those poor dogs and the CA

Having worked with a large number of "pedigree" animals that were health tested via scan and blood tests. 17 years I did that so I do at least have some insight 
100 breeding females, 8 studs with the best progeny used as breeding stock.
I was in control of the breeding programme with all that entailed.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> Do the deformed dogs think that?
> On their side there is just suffering


Which of my dogs is deformed Rona? Because not one of them seems to be in pain currently, after a nice morning walk and their breakfast they're all crashed out while I get on with some work. Granted, Indie's knee joint plays her up, but I'd put a lot of that down to environmental influences from when she was younger, rather than something that would have otherwise occurred naturally. So which one of my deformed dogs exactly are you pointing a finger at, or do you mean the wider issues, and dogs I don't personally own? Breeds I've never owned, or even thought about wanting to own? And that's all down to me?? Sorry, but my shoulders just ain't broad enough, not even after two sugary cups of tea in a morning.

However, at least I am joining in in a constructive way with any discussions I can to try and promote a better way forward for ALL dogs, along with lots of other like minded folk. I've had a lot of crap come my way in life, but I refuse to sit back and not *do* something when I think it is warranted, some times it does feel like too much effort to help someone else find another good breeder, to help someone with a diet sheet for their dogs, to put forward a view point when I'm asked for ideas about how to promote ethical breeding, to report that ABS member who's abusing their position to try and sell badly bred pups, to join in discussions like these where good ideas do get bounced around and people have the chance to learn from each other etc, etc. If the situation is so dire to you and you really can't bring yourself to *do* anything constructive, why bother just nit picking all the time?



comfortcreature said:


> I've never run into a non-dog involved person that expected this of dogs that they purchase, acquire or are given. Keep in mind I live in a culture where mutts are the norm. Most people believe that when you purchase a life gambles come with it.
> 
> That is why I questioned where the idea of 'perfection' has come from. Who is leading with this idea? Who is selling it? The idea of 'perfection' in living creatures sets up an unreasonable expectation that is detrimental to dog welfare. It has to stop.
> 
> CC


You only have to look at some of the comments on this thread to see what a skewed idea people have of dogs, mandatory health testing for showing? Really not necessary for a dog someone has no intention of breeding from, the information would be nice to have, but for a conformation show surely the only health that should be looked at is welfare issues, which is what the CA are pushing for across the board with all KC registered breeds, not JUST the 15 that were highlighted, and to be done in a way that has credence. But apparently the idea is that a dog that has the best conformation now needs to have all the relevant health tests in place to also be the proven healthiest example of a dog, now if that isn't promoting eugenics I don't know what is!!


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Which of my dogs is deformed Rona? Because not one of them seems to be in pain currently, after a nice morning walk and their breakfast they're all crashed out while I get on with some work. Granted, Indie's knee joint plays her up, but I'd put a lot of that down to environmental influences from when she was younger, rather than something that would have otherwise occurred naturally. So which one of my deformed dogs exactly are you pointing a finger at, or do you mean the wider issues, and dogs I don't personally own? Breeds I've never owned, or even thought about wanting to own? And that's all down to me?? Sorry, but my shoulders just ain't broad enough, not even after two sugary cups of tea in a morning.
> 
> However, at least I am joining in in a constructive way with any discussions I can to try and promote a better way forward for ALL dogs, along with lots of other like minded folk. I've had a lot of crap come my way in life, but I refuse to sit back and not *do* something when I think it is warranted, some times it does feel like too much effort to help someone else find another good breeder, to help someone with a diet sheet for their dogs, to put forward a view point when I'm asked for ideas about how to promote ethical breeding, to report that ABS member who's abusing their position to try and sell badly bred pups, to join in discussions like these where good ideas do get bounced around and people have the chance to learn from each other etc, etc. If the situation is so dire to you and you really can't bring yourself to *do* anything constructive, why bother just nit picking all the time?
> 
> You only have to look at some of the comments on this thread to see what a skewed idea people have of dogs, mandatory health testing for showing? Really not necessary for a dog someone has no intention of breeding from, the information would be nice to have, but for a conformation show surely the only health that should be looked at is welfare issues, which is what the CA are pushing for across the board with all KC registered breeds, not JUST the 15 that were highlighted, and to be done in a way that has credence. But apparently the idea is that a dog that has the best conformation now needs to have all the relevant health tests in place to also be the proven healthiest example of a dog, now if that isn't promoting eugenics I don't know what is!!


Actually this is a prime example of how things get blown out of proportion on threads like this. I think it was just me that suggested health tests yet i seem to have multiplied into a whole group of people 

I assume no allowance has been made for the fact that i may have read the responses and taken on board "some" of the issues with my naive statement  Like i said i read this thread for education not judgement.

I still maintain though that there is something wrong about a dog being held up as a "Best in Breed" that could be suffering from a potentially life crippling ailment but i concede the issue with the more invasive tests. I don't get the cost issue given what people must spend travelling around to shows etc.

For a thread that is about improving the general health and wellbeing of dogs (long overdue in some breeds as most i am sure would agree) I don't really understand such a defensive stance, if people who show and or breed do all the right things what is the problem as this clearly isn't aimed at them ?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> Actually this is a prime example of how things get blown out of proportion on threads like this. I think it was just me that suggested health tests yet i seem to have multiplied into a whole group of people
> 
> I assume no allowance has been made for the fact that i may have read the responses and taken on board "some" of the issues with my naive statement  Like i said i read this thread for education not judgement.
> 
> ...


No, it wasn't you that sprang to mind when I posted about mandatory health tests, and it wasn't just this thread actually. Conformation shows are just to show the best *looking* dog, they aren't necessarily the best example of a breed overall, it's the opinion of a judge on that day. Just as a field trials champion isn't necessarily the best dog overall, it's a bl**dy good dog, and it may have had a swing of luck on the day as well as skill, often the gun's choice will differ from how the judges view it as well.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> I don't want to read all this subject avoidance, which most of this is. Interesting some of it but still avoidance.


All the subject avoidance really annoys me too. So, for the fourth time of asking,  will you explain to me why you think that an organisation whose members want all breeds to be health tested, want unhealthy dogs to be penalised, and want healthy dogs not to be penalised, is so wrong in your eyes?


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No, it wasn't you that sprang to mind when I posted about mandatory health tests, and it wasn't just this thread actually. *Conformation shows are just to show the best *looking* dog*, they aren't necessarily the best example of a breed overall, it's the opinion of a judge on that day. Just as a field trials champion isn't necessarily the best dog overall, it's a bl**dy good dog, and it may have had a swing of luck on the day as well as skill, often the gun's choice will differ from how the judges view it as well.


But isn't this where alot of the issues have stemmed from in certain breeds with exagerated features being rewarded by some judges and then others breeding to those preferences rather than in the best interests of the animal ?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

*"Crufts Best In Show

Not actually the best Dog but just The Best Looking Dog on the Day According to One Person But not Necessarily Very Healthy (could be but we don't know), or Able to Breathe, Give Birth Naturally, See Properly or Perform the Function Somone Had in Mind When they were First Bred it, But Dave Liked it So it Won - And got a Cup"*​
... not got much of a rnuch of a ring to it


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> But isn't this where alot of the issues have stemmed from in certain breeds with exagerated features being rewarded by some judges and then others breeding to those preferences rather than in the best interests of the animal ?


Exactly, and is completely different to the health status of the dog, what the health checks for at shows is to ensure the welfare of the dog is correct, ie good eyes, no drooppy saggy extra skin that could cause problems, clean ears, no skin rash from clipping/shaving dogs to try and make them meet the BS etc. The welfare issues are very different to health tests, I don't support mandatory health tests as I think it's unworkable, I do support education and more research about health testing, and I hope that shows from the way I've tested my own dogs. I do think these health checks are a very good step as well, but I do wish they had been done differently, and I think it's only fair to include all breeds, not just focus on the problem breeds as it were, but make sure it never becomes a problem for *any* breed, even if they appear to be 100% healthy now.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> *"Crufts Best In Show
> 
> Not actually the best Dog but just The Best Looking Dog on the Day According to One Person But not Necessarily Very Healthy (could be but we don't know), or Able to Breathe, Give Birth Naturally, See Properly or Perform the Function Somone Had in Mind When they were First Bred it, But Dave Liked it So it Won - And got a Cup"*​
> ... not got much of a rnuch of a ring to it


Since you obviously don't know anything about showing, don't want to know about pedigrees, and have shown your ignorance numerous times when it comes to health tests, I really don't know why you're posting on a thread other than to try and wind people up. You did that last night too if I remember rightly, didn't work then either, no matter how much you tried to dodge the truth and twist the facts


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> All the subject avoidance really annoys me too. So, for the fourth time of asking,  will you explain to me why you think that an organisation whose members want all breeds to be health tested, want unhealthy dogs to be penalised, and want healthy dogs not to be penalised, is so wrong in your eyes?


I have answered this question so many times I'm sick of it.
Some of the dogs classed as healthy that you don't want penalised are far from..............

I have heard this all before. 
I don't believe it for a moment due my my *OWN* experience
I think the KC are going to have to force through the issue, much as they have with all other reforms, with stiff opposition most of the time. It took them decades to get the breeders to health test.
If the CA actually does what it says without watering down I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. Ain't gonna happen

Is that clear enough?


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> All the subject avoidance really annoys me too. So, for the fourth time of asking,  will you explain to me why you think that an organisation whose members want all breeds to be health tested, want unhealthy dogs to be penalised, and want healthy dogs not to be penalised, is so wrong in your eyes?


From a laymans point of view because you want the tests stopped until they are done in a way the suits the members & not for the benefit of the dogs.

There has been lots of gnashing of teeth that 2 were supposedly disqualified unfairly (no proof though as the vet reports not released other than the Clumber which the alliance still seems in denial about) but no comment on the rest which I assume therefore were disqualified fairly in your eyes.

Therefore the majority were correct but you do not see that as a good reason to carry on with the tests because it upset the exhibitors & judges. Life is tough!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> From a laymans point of view because you want the tests stopped until they are done in a way the suits the members & not for the benefit of the dogs.
> 
> There has been lots of gnashing of teeth that 2 were supposedly disqualified unfairly (no proof though as the vet reports not released other than the Clumber which the alliance still seems in denial about) but no comment on the rest which I assume therefore were disqualified fairly in your eyes.
> 
> Therefore the majority were correct but you do not see that as a good reason to carry on with the tests because it upset the exhibitors & judges. Life is tough!


I completely agree that there's been an awful lot of gnashing of teeth, as you put so well. But it's frustrating for me, maybe I'm naieve, but to have people say that we want health checks to suit the members, which makes it sound like we want to fiddle the health checks; that's certainly not my intention, and I have yet to decide whether to join the CA as a fully paid up member, but what I want is a robust system that can't be questioned no matter how much gnashing of teeth from anyone. And the only reason I can see for stopping the current checks, is to ensure they are put in place in a way that stops them from being questionable, what is the point of a health check that can be called into question so easily?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> From a laymans point of view because you want the tests stopped until they are done in a way the suits the members & not for the benefit of the dogs.
> 
> There has been lots of gnashing of teeth that 2 were supposedly disqualified unfairly (no proof though as the vet reports not released other than the Clumber which the alliance still seems in denial about) but no comment on the rest which I assume therefore were disqualified fairly in your eyes.
> 
> Therefore the majority were correct but you do not see that as a good reason to carry on with the tests because it upset the exhibitors & judges. Life is tough!


In the video of the meeting, the suggestion of suspension is made by the solicitor on the basis that it will safeguard the KC against ongoing litigation if the system continues as stands.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

A press release from the CA:

http://www.caninealliance.org/images/PRESS RELEASE24.3.12.pdf


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

rona said:


> If the CA actually does what it says without watering down I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. Ain't gonna happen
> 
> Is that clear enough?


I agree...But they only want "basic" health checks (tyre kicking) and think this is the standard for dogs that are held up to be the best of the best. if this is the case, if "OK" (as the advert says) is the top of the pile... why would anyone else bother at all?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> In the video of the meeting, the suggestion of suspension is made by the solicitor on the basis that it will safeguard the KC against ongoing litigation if the system continues as stands.


Litigation for what? The exhibition is organised by the KC, they make the rules and they implement them. What possible claim could anyone have against them? Loss of reputation is only a defamation claim and without any actual economic loss is dead before it starts. The only economic loss could be that a dog deemed as unhealthy may lose stud fees but as the "alliance" don't want breeding style health tests (just basic) what are they worried about?

The KC don't employ the exhibitors so there is no loss or earnings claim either. What would be the loss they claim for?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

KC/BSAVA Purebred Dog Health Survey 2004 - The Kennel Club

This was 2004 and it doesn't look as if the Clumber people were even interested enough to reply 
I wonder why...................


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Snoringbear said:


> A press release from the CA:
> 
> http://www.caninealliance.org/images/PRESS RELEASE24.3.12.pdf


To be honest, they seem to be demanding something unworkable to replace the current vet checks - check every dog before it's shown? A logistical nightmare, surely? Bring an end to the current system until we can put something quite impractical and maybe unworkable in place...hmmm.
I can't help but view that demand with cynicism, given that their stated aim was to protect the interests of the breeders, the judges and those who show. Not the dogs.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I agree, if you pay an entry fee and accept the terms and conditions, you can't then sue the organisers or the vets if you feel a mistake has been made, or even if you think the dog has been deliberately disqualified and the vet is biased.

You accept the terms and conditions and that the judges and now vets decision is final.

Other animals (and humans) are vet (doctor) checked and pulled from all sorts of competitions at the highest level. There may be an appeals process, but no-one has sued anyone so far as I know. 

That imo is not a reason for stopping the checks.

Do they want the current checks to continue, but done before the dogs enter the ring, eventually rolling them out on all breeds? That would be great.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

myshkin said:


> To be honest, they seem to be demanding something unworkable to replace the current vet checks - check every dog before it's shown? A logistical nightmare, surely? Bring an end to the current system until we can put something quite impractical and maybe unworkable in place...hmmm.
> I can't help but view that demand with cynicism, given that their stated aim was to protect the interests of the breeders, the judges and those who show. Not the dogs.


A lot are actually in favour of something equivalent to a health check passport, so not at all done at shows but possibly by approved vets, a bit like the BVA eye scheme I suppose.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Litigation for what? The exhibition is organised by the KC, they make the rules and they implement them. What possible claim could anyone have against them? Loss of reputation is only a defamation claim and without any actual economic loss is dead before it starts. The only economic loss could be that a dog deemed as unhealthy may lose stud fees but as the "alliance" don't want breeding style health tests (just basic) what are they worried about?
> 
> The KC don't employ the exhibitors so there is no loss or earnings claim either. What would be the loss they claim for?


Watch the video.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I completely agree that there's been an awful lot of gnashing of teeth, as you put so well. But it's frustrating for me, maybe I'm naieve, but to have people say that we want health checks to suit the members, which makes it sound like we want to fiddle the health checks; that's certainly not my intention, and I have yet to decide whether to join the CA as a fully paid up member, but what I want is a robust system that can't be questioned no matter how much gnashing of teeth from anyone. And the only reason I can see for stopping the current checks, is to ensure they are put in place in a way that stops them from being questionable, what is the point of a health check that can be called into question so easily?


Isn't the only reason they have been called into question because the results were not made public allowing lots of hearsay & chinese whispers. The Exhibitor can do so, but not the vet or KC, so to be honest I find the claims are lets say dubious as they have chosen not to - surely you as an exhibitor would publish something if it said your dog had a condition it 100% did not and you could prove independently it did not?

So the simple answer is to change the rules that results of vet checks are made public immediately and carry on in the present format until such time as they cover all breeds? Though is it necessary for all breeds as say labs for example don't generally have breathing/eye/skin problems do they?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Isn't the only reason they have been called into question because the results were not made public allowing lots of hearsay & chinese whispers. The Exhibitor can do so, but not the vet or KC, so to be honest I find the claims are lets say dubious as they have chosen not to - surely you as an exhibitor would publish something if it said your dog had a condition it 100% did not and you could prove independently it did not?
> 
> So the simple answer is to change the rules that results of vet checks are made public immediately and carry on in the present format until such time as they cover all breeds? Though is it necessary for all breeds as say labs for example don't generally have breathing/eye/skin problems do they?


I honestly haven't even looked at all the dogs that were disqualified, but as I said earlier in this thread, even though I would very likely be open and honest about the results and why my dog failed if I were in that position, I most likely wouldn't do so straight away, and I most likely wouldn't want to while there was such a palava going on. They are after all my dogs, and the information is personal to me as their owner.

And yes, I'd say it is necessary for all dogs, the watch list for Labs is to ensure they're not carrying excess weight, and that they have enough length of leg, as there has been comment that we are getting shorter and shorter leg length (don't ask me what I think as I honestly couldn't give a balanced answer I've seen so few Labradors at shows) - so all dogs should be checked, as I said above, I think the scheme people would like to see would be a bit like the BVA eye cert to approve the dog isn't *exaggerated* to a degree that affects welfare, whilst still being a good representative of a given breed.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> Watch the video.


I tried to watch it all but after 20 minutes of back slapping gave up. My question stands.

I can't find the solicitor on the video - do you know whereabouts he is / time?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I tried to watch it all but after 20 minutes of back slapping gave up. My question stands.
> 
> I can't find the solicitor on the video - do you know whereabouts he is / time?


25ish onwards


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Part 2 Canine Alliance - Post Crufts Meeting - Part 2 - YouTube!


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

rona said:


> I don't think it is us that keep banging on about health tests, most of us non show people are talking about breeding dogs that cannot breath/walk/see or are in pain because of the breed clubs choice of breed standard and burying their heads in the sand and opposing the KCs efforts to reverse it.


You cant (to some extent) blame breed clubs, all you can blame is breeders that breed dogs with exaggerated features, and judges that continue to place them.....


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> You cant (to some extent) blame breed clubs, all you can blame is breeders that breed dogs with exaggerated features, and judges that continue to place them.....


Yes but the breed clubs surely have the power to sort that by discussion with the KC, otherwise what is the point of them?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Not the Canine Alliance. They merely want the present unfair system to be suspended and a fairer one - one that includes all dogs, all breeds - to replace it. Hardly a reversal, Rona
> 
> I'll tell you what I've noticed - whatever else the Canine Alliance does or does not do, they have, on this forum at least, done more for the Kennel Club than anyone or anything I know. I'm sitting here chuckling to myself at all the new supporters of the Kennel Club - supporters who, a week before Crufts, hated the Kennel Club and all it stood for and couldn't decry them loudly enough. :lol:


Brilliant post..

Makes you laugh doesnt it! - People were all for the `15 selected breeds, yet those out of the 'show' world so to speak, happen to be against it becoming a fair, standard rule where ALL breeds went through the same health tests - what ever that happened to be! 

The aims of the CA seem to want to go beyond the aims of viewing the health of show dogs, but also go in some way to making sure dogs are also looked at before breeding.

Things arent going to happen over night, just like the KC cant change things over night. I am very passionate about health testing, breeding dogs in the correct manner and like wise...so it stands to right I am all for anything trying to achieve such. I dont know what will come of this, but I can only hope for once us folk working together can make a difference for our pets that we happen to show, breed.

Health should be important for show dogs, likewise with pets...no one is doubting that!


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

rona said:


> Yes but the breed clubs surely have the power to sort that by discussion with the KC, otherwise what is the point of them?


The breed standards have been the same for years, yet folk continue to point out the differnece in breeds now, than before. That is down to those that want to win and care for little else, they breed in features that are so exaggerated that the dogs in some cases suffer, judges placing these dogs dont help they make it seem acceptable and folk aim for the dogs being placed.

Changing the breed standards wont work, thats already been shown when breed standards were recently altered. It can in some cases help but those with the wrong aims will continue to consentrate on their wanted features regardless of the possible problems the dogs will encounter.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> Part 2 Canine Alliance - Post Crufts Meeting - Part 2 - YouTube!


Look at 42 minutes in. 
Tell me what you think of that??
Didn't show them did it? 
Wonder what breeds they have?

And 46.50!
and 48, how the hell does she know?
Sorry Snoringbear, not aimed at you this post!


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> I'm sitting here chuckling to myself at all the new supporters of the Kennel Club


And (some of) the breeders and exhibitors thought the kennel club could do no wrong. "How dare you accuse our KC of being born of nazi principles" they cried.

And now? "KC are nazis" they shriek, "they want us to kill our poor deformed puppies"

Lordy Lord. 

Point is things change, people change, this is now, that was then. Should we not recognise progress and applaud it, just because the people digging in and battening down the hatches yesterday are the same people opening their doors today? The 'other side' were asking the KC to help bring about change, they used to say 'bu**er off*, now they say 'let's look into it' (before we're lynched? lol). It's the principle that counts, not who wrote it. 

But yes, it makes me chuckle too. :ciappa:


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Elles said:


> And (some of) the breeders and exhibitors thought the kennel club could do no wrong. "How dare you accuse our KC of being born of nazi principles" they cried.
> 
> And now? "KC are nazis" they shriek, "they want us to kill our poor deformed puppies"
> 
> Lordy Lord.


Thats a very unfair comment. - and I think you will find most breeders think very different than the KC doing no wrong. like everything, theres good and bad in all.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

It's true DD. I've heard it and read it. 

I think we can all agree that some people, whichever 'side' they might be on are a bit silly.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> The breed standards have been the same for years, yet folk continue to point out the differnece in breeds now, than before. That is down to those that want to win and care for little else, they breed in features that are so exaggerated that the dogs in some cases suffer, judges placing these dogs dont help they make it seem acceptable and folk aim for the dogs being placed.
> 
> Changing the breed standards wont work, thats already been shown when breed standards were recently altered. It can in some cases help but those with the wrong aims will continue to consentrate on their wanted features regardless of the possible problems the dogs will encounter.


We agree but I didn't mention breed standards you did. I know full well it's the people not the standards that are the problem. So why haven't the good breeders been able to influence what happens to these dogs.
DD, I know we actually agree and you can see past this OMG I'm a show breeder so I'm good


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

rona said:


> We agree but I didn't mention breed standards you did. I know full well it's the people not the standards that are the problem. So why haven't the good breeders been able to influence what happens to these dogs.
> DD, I know we actually agree and you can see past this OMG I'm a show breeder so I'm good


You brought up the standards, I didnt I just quoted your comment regarding the breed clubs choice of standards! 

The problem is the good breeders try so hard to influence needed change, let that be with regards to health, resuce and breeding practice in their choosen breed. - Those involved for the wrong reasons, simply dont care. Hence we need something that will riddle out the bad, we simply cant educate all. - and we cant alone as good people stop all the bad that goes on.. SADLY..

Ohh no breeder is good, simply for entering shows. we both can agree on that. It goes way beyond that!


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rona said:


> Look at 42 minutes in.
> Tell me what you think of that??
> Didn't show them did it?
> Wonder what breeds they have?
> ...


I'll have to ask how many were against. That said, a minority won't stop them going ahead with a majority decision.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when MG is talking about the name.

I'm guessing she knows the people who exhibit, their names and affixes, all of which are in the BRS, so it would be easy to ascertain that. i could do it with my own breed.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> You brought up the standards, I didnt I just quoted your comment regarding the breed clubs choice of standards!
> 
> The problem is the good breeders try so hard to influence needed change, let that be with regards to health, resuce and breeding practice in their choosen breed. - Those involved for the wrong reasons, simply dont care. Hence we need something that will riddle out the bad, we simply cant educate all. - and we cant alone as good people stop all the bad that goes on.. SADLY..
> 
> Ohh no breeder is good, simply for entering shows. we both can agree on that. It goes way beyond that!


Sorry DD I did, I was trying to listen to the video at the same time and lost concentration there for a bit 

I don't care how good a breeder someone thinks they are(not aimed at you personally) if they cover up something for someone else then they cannot hold the moral high ground.

I have of course met a few breeders who I believe have the dog at their heart. I believe you, your mother and Tashi all do. My last Goldies breeders seemed to be all that they should have been.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> I'll have to ask how many were against. That said, a minority won't stop them going ahead with a majority decision.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're referring to when MG is talking about the name.
> 
> I'm guessing she knows the people who exhibit, their names and affixes, all of which are in the BRS, so it would be easy to ascertain that. i could do it with my own breed.


No but it's not the majority that's the problem for the dogs is it?
The majority just keep protecting these people


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

rona said:


> Sorry DD I did, I was trying to listen to the video at the same time and lost concentration there for a bit
> 
> I don't care how good a breeder someone thinks they are(not aimed at you personally) if they cover up something for someone else then they cannot hold the moral high ground.
> 
> I have of course met a few breeders who I believe have the dog at their heart. I believe you, your mother and Tashi all do. My last Goldies breeders seemed to be all that they should have been.


 aay its alright I shall let you off. I did have to go and check myself mind!

If you cover up faults, health issues and such in your own programme, or help others do such in theres.. You couldnt be further from a good breeder in my eyes.

This is why it bugs me that certain people have been made to leave breed clubs, ect due to pointing out other breeders doing the above. - sometimes its one word against another but if I knew something was being done underhand I would speak up, if that meant I was kicked off the committee so be it. The breeds overall well being means more to me, than the reputation. Although being on the committee helps to get my opinions on, and helps me to be that bit more involved.

aaw thank you, thats nice of you to say. I hope others would agree. we certainly try our very best, and do all that we possibly can the dogs coming first. - we do more than we are required to do, and if more breeders took on that attitude I doubt there would be such a problem in some breeds.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> aay its alright I shall let you off. I did have to go and check myself mind!
> 
> If you cover up faults, health issues and such in your own programme, or help others do such in theres.. You couldnt be further from a good breeder in my eyes.
> 
> ...


See
I knew we have common ground because we both truly care, and can see the whole picture.
You are not in denial like so many others. I hope you and yours are involved in this CA, though I don't suppose you have the time. Might get something done then 

Michael Gadsby comes across quite well, he does at least talk about the dogs unlike the others in those videos


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> Although being on the committee helps to get my opinions on, and helps me to be that bit more involved.


For many years a friend of mine was outspoken against various practices held as the norm by the establishment within the horse world. She was ostracised, criticised and pilloried by the powers that be, but she kept on.

Now she's county chairwoman and lecturing at meetings and demonstrations for the members, organised by the various local groups all over the country and sponsored by the establishment. 

I used to ask her why she was still a member and she said it's useful for some people to press for change from the inside, than be another voice on the outside.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

rona said:


> See
> I knew we have common ground because we both truly care, and can see the whole picture.
> You are not in denial like so many others. I hope you and yours are involved in this CA, though I don't suppose you have the time. Might get something done then
> 
> Michael Gadsby comes across quite well, he does at least talk about the dogs unlike the others in those videos


we are involved, as supports thats all for now. Im interested to see how it goes, and would love to be apart of healthier dogs.

I think Michael, is a fab person to be involved in this. Always talks such sense, straight from the heart (so it would seem anyways!)!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> 25ish onwards


He proposes to "invite" the KC to suspend the testing. I can't find anything where he suggests there would be anything considered a contentious matter.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> He proposes to "invite" the KC to suspend the testing. I can't find anything where he suggests there would be anything considered a contentious matter.


Then you haven't watched enough.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> Then you haven't watched enough.


You just want me to suffer the whole hour of drivel don't you :yikes:

Got to where they think they can demand things (temper)... oh hang on... now they "require" it


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> You just want me to suffer the whole hour of drivel don't you :yikes:
> 
> Got to where they think they can demand things (temper)... oh hang on... now they "require" it


I did.:Yawn: 
How can you have a discussion if you don't know what happened?

Most is drivel mind and there's quite a bit of editing, don't know why or who did that. Might have just been even more boring than the rest


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

rona said:


> I did.:Yawn:
> How can you have a discussion if you don't know what happened?
> 
> Most is drivel mind and there's quite a bit of editing, don't know why or who did that. Might have just been even more boring than the rest


I thought the discussion was whether the dog paraded as the "best" (Winner of Crufts) should be the "best", not just the "best" looking.

My point was, there is no contentious legal matter; apparently the video suggests otherwise but I'm nearly at the end and I've not heard the solicitor mention anything.

.... now they're going on about a name.....

.... still going.....

... one guy mentioned "union"... glad that didn't get adopted; the TUC would have kittens (puppies)

Brian Hill - "Dog Shows, they should be a beauty parade"..... I thought they were


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I thought the discussion was whether the dog paraded as the "best" (Winner fo Crufts) should be the "best", not just the "best" looking.
> 
> My point was, there is no contentious legal matter; apparently the video suggests otherwise but I'm nearly at the end and I've not heard the solicitor mention anything.
> 
> .... now they're going on about a name.....


Oh well done, it's bloody hard going.
I don't think there is anything of interest after they start that


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Still can't find anything from the solicitor that suggests there are any claims against the KC or anyone else...

... I do need a lay down though


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Still can't find anything from the solicitor that suggests there are any claims against the KC or anyone else...
> 
> ... I do need a lay down though


Did you watch the first video though, there's another hour and I think it's in there


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

I was referring to the first video, part 1.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> I was referring to the first video, part 1.


TeeHee Elmo is not going to be happy :lol:


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

rona said:


> TeeHee Elmo is not going to be happy :lol:


Therapy is not cheap you know....


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I've watched the first bit of part 2. I couldn't watch this in one go. 

I thought asking for dogs to have a one off MOT at a year old in order to register their pups with the kennel club, to stop puppy farmers is an entirely separate issue and nothing to do with general health issues being bred into some dogs in order for them to win shows. Puppy farmers already lay claim to 'vet checked' for their puppies, I'm sure the same vets will pass their breeding stock if they need to. Some vets have been accused of puppy farming themselves.

What's that got to do with anything?

When the woman stood up claiming to be just a pet owner, then in her next breath said she'd been showing for 8 years, I needed a break. lol

Address the issues in hand please. Most dogs get a basic health check at 12 months, before vets stick needles into them. They could sign a form too, but that's not even close. Claiming all show dogs are healthy is closed mind, closed ears and closed eyes and just proves the KC was right to bring in these checks and needs to carry on.

I liked the bloke with the grey hair who stood up and had his little rant. Was he anyone important?

Let's hope the discussion gets a bit better.  I'll watch it later when I have a beer to hand. :drool:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Therapy is not cheap you know....





Elles said:


> I've watched the first bit of part 2. I couldn't watch this in one go.
> Let's hope the discussion gets a bit better.  I'll watch it later when I have a beer to hand. :drool:


I just hope when they've all calmed down they go and have a look at these videos and actually see how it looks to people from the "outside" Not good :nonod:


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Maybe not, but full kudos to them for not banning cameras and videos. :thumbup:


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Found it now. Kind of a point but I think he maybe had a little too much time on his hands... if there is a tortious claim for breach, it would be a fairly academic point. if there is a prize fund for crufts then any claim would need to be based on the probability of winning and the actual detriment caused by the action of the KC and whether that action was reasonable (in the eyes of the court, not the breeder).

So the claim for breach is that the contract does not mention the use of an external vet - but it also (don't have a copy to check) doesn't seem to say it won't. In contract law, this would come down on the side of the "wronged" party so there may be a claim for this... however.... place it before a court...

... "my claim is that my dog was checked using an external vet and not a KC vet" - Judge says "what is the qualified difference?" .... "claimant says....?????"


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Just saw this on Dogworld:

"Three members of the Canine Alliance met this afternoon at The Kennel Club with Kathryn Symns and Caroline Kisko. The meeting lasted approximately 90 minutes during which both parties listened carefully to the other's point of view. After the meeting Alliance secretary Robert Harlow said, "We were delighted with the response of the Kennel Club to our request for an early meeting, and feel that our proposals are being taken seriously. It has been agreed that a joint formal press release will be issued tomorrow ... that in itself is unprecedented and gives us great hope for the future."


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> Just saw this on Dogworld:
> 
> "Three members of the Canine Alliance met this afternoon at The Kennel Club with Kathryn Symns and Caroline Kisko. The meeting lasted approximately 90 minutes during which both parties listened carefully to the other's point of view. After the meeting Alliance secretary Robert Harlow said, "We were delighted with the response of the Kennel Club to our request for an early meeting, and feel that our proposals are being taken seriously. It has been agreed that a joint formal press release will be issued tomorrow ... that in itself is unprecedented and gives us great hope for the future."


I saw that earlier on FB, unfortunately I'm out looking at culverts tomorrow so won't be back until the afternoon, I'll miss all the fun!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> You brought up the standards, I didnt I just quoted your comment regarding the breed clubs choice of standards!
> 
> The problem is the good breeders try so hard to influence needed change, let that be with regards to health, resuce and breeding practice in their choosen breed. - Those involved for the wrong reasons, simply dont care. Hence we need something that will riddle out the bad, we simply cant educate all. - and we cant alone as good people stop all the bad that goes on.. SADLY..
> 
> Ohh no breeder is good, simply for entering shows. we both can agree on that. It goes way beyond that!


Isn't that what the vet checks are for?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> I've watched the first bit of part 2. I couldn't watch this in one go.
> 
> I thought asking for dogs to have a one off MOT at a year old in order to register their pups with the kennel club, to stop puppy farmers is an entirely separate issue and nothing to do with general health issues being bred into some dogs in order for them to win shows. Puppy farmers already lay claim to 'vet checked' for their puppies, I'm sure the same vets will pass their breeding stock if they need to. Some vets have been accused of puppy farming themselves.
> 
> ...


perhaps she means shes not a breeder? like many others who enjoy showing.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> Just saw this on Dogworld:
> 
> "Three members of the Canine Alliance met this afternoon at The Kennel Club with Kathryn Symns and Caroline Kisko. The meeting lasted approximately 90 minutes during which both parties listened carefully to the other's point of view. After the meeting Alliance secretary Robert Harlow said, "We were delighted with the response of the Kennel Club to our request for an early meeting, and feel that our proposals are being taken seriously. It has been agreed that a joint formal press release will be issued tomorrow ... that in itself is unprecedented and gives us great hope for the future."


Oh well. Looks like the tizzy tantrum worked. The KC have failed to do anything for years because (as I've been told by so many people on here) the KC do not control the health, the breeders do.

Now that the KC is kowtowing to the Alliance of Righteous Show-people and Exhibitors, who is looking out for the dogs at these shows?..... as was said in the video , Crufts is a "beauty parade"... not a show to check that the dogs are healthy.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Isn't that what the vet checks are for?


That's what their meant to be checking for, and something you will see I've stated a number of times I'm not in the slighest bit against....however I have an do continue to some extent question a number of the 15 breeds selected, while others (possibly more in need of attention!) Haven't been viewed as high profiled!!


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

> however I have an do continue to some extent question a number of the 15 breeds selected, while others (possibly more in need of attention!) Haven't been viewed as high profiled!!


My thoughts on this have been 'they have to start somewhere', however I have long shared your concern over some of the breeds chosen while I believe others are more in need of attention.

CC


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> Just saw this on Dogworld:
> 
> "Three members of the Canine Alliance met this afternoon at The Kennel Club with Kathryn Symns and Caroline Kisko. The meeting lasted approximately 90 minutes during which both parties listened carefully to the other's point of view. After the meeting Alliance secretary Robert Harlow said, "We were delighted with the response of the Kennel Club to our request for an early meeting, and feel that our proposals are being taken seriously. It has been agreed that a joint formal press release will be issued tomorrow ... that in itself is unprecedented and gives us great hope for the future."


'I am waiting with baited breath


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Oh looky here.

Pedigree dog problems + Kennel Club response in 1985 - YouTube

I couldn't resist this little gem from 1985 :yikes:

How many years do you need to put things right? 

Sorry lennythecloud , I missed your excellent post somehow and hadn't realised you had put this on the thread before.
Well worth another viewing though


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

rona said:


> Oh looky here.
> 
> Pedigree dog problems + Kennel Club response in 1985 - YouTube
> 
> ...


Well it took them 142 years to cock it up, so I reckon a little while (that's if "right" is not just a fudge)


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I'm ploughing my way though it. As a break, I thought I'd look up some of the names' dogs. Some names have pictures of their winning dogs on their websites, saying that the dogs are healthy and free from exaggeration and one was complimented on her dog's good, tight eyes when it won its latest show apparently.

I saw a saggy, over exaggerated dog, I couldn't see its eyes.

By names, I mean some of the people who said who they were, not names as in famous, or influential. Some of the dogs owned, and/or bred by some of the names did look fine to me, but some would be exactly what people are complaining about.

No need to reply, of course, it's all been said already and everyone can watch the vids, pick out some names, do the same as I did and make up their own minds. :yikes:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I saw that earlier on FB, unfortunately I'm out looking at culverts tomorrow so won't be back until the afternoon, I'll miss all the fun!


Awww - wish I'd seen this last night because going on the rest of the thread, I could have given you the following potted version of what will happen to take to your culverts with you:

Snoringbear will publish a link to the release (not being sarcastic here, your links have been great Snoringbear, thank you)

However, whatever the link says will be largely immaterial because:

Elmo will trash it using his usual ill-informed rhetoric about showing, show breeders, pedigree dogs etc.

Rona will trash it and add some veiled comment about the dishonesty of certain people on here.

Paganman will "like" whatever either of these two say, but not add anything to the discussion.

They will all "like" each others posts irespective of the contents of that post.

And while they get on with their little games, the rest of us will discuss it sensibly, some agreeing with it and supporting the statement, some disagreeing with it and pointing out the flaws in the statement - so you'll be able to join in that discussion when you get back.

There you go! You won't miss out now. :lol:


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

You are wicked. I think Rona is perfectly fine and has many valid points. :nono:


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

Phew! Glad I escaped censure.... I think it's my obscurity.

Watched the whole thing. Very tedious. Only bit that worried me was the MoT by "one's own vet". Not casting "nasturtiums" at the veterinary profession BUT _that_ looked dodgy.

OK I am casting aspersions....MoT by an independent vet would be FAR better.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ozrex said:


> Phew! Glad I escaped censure.... I think it's my obscurity.
> 
> Watched the whole thing. Very tedious. Only bit that worried me was the MoT by "one's own vet". Not casting "nasturtiums" at the veterinary profession BUT _that_ looked dodgy.
> 
> OK I am casting aspersions....MoT by an independent vet would be FAR better.


I agree - it would be much better. I had thought about it being done at shows (in much the same way as eye-testing is done now) but after discussing the ins and outs of it with Elles on here, I'm a bit worried about whether or not that is viable. So I think it might be better for a panel of independent vets to be set up (or several around the country) to give dogs a yearly "MoT".

btw - you're not obscure - imo you always come across like a very sensible and intelligent individual who makes some very valid points and observations. :thumbsup:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Another interesting article on the eye conditions at Crufts

BVA - Statement on Eye Scheme examinations following Crufts veterinary checks


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

That is interesting Rona, particularly the last part. :thumbsup:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

http://www.bhcofwales.org.uk/CRUFTS 2012.pdf

Err moved a lot!!!!!
All bassets have haw showing 

Albany & West Lodge Bassets of Hertfordshire - Gallery

The bulldog statement

http://www.bulldogbreedcouncil.co.uk/


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Did I miss anything, culverts were scintillating, given that half of them couldn't be viewed because of poor access my day involved lots of photos of bits of tunnel I couldn't get through to look through smaller bits of tunnel basically, still, it's a job! Off to go catch up.......


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

http://www.caninealliance.org/documents/KCpresentation28.3.12.pdf

Mike Gadsby's presentation to the Kennel Club yesterday


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

It's not particularly well thought out or well presented (decision by committee tends to do this).

The vet check would replicate the judge check? - but the judge is not a vet nor are they qualified to examine for health issues; so how could it replicate?

"excessive eye examination"; meaning that the eye examination was sufficiently thorough to discover a problem as opposed to a quick look so it could be said a check had been done, without the need to reveal it was actually worthless as it was too short and the vet was not allowed unfettered access.

_" insufficient time given to ensure that suitable vets were appointed"_, easy to assume this means vets that would have been sympathetic to exhibitors view as opposed to concentrating on the dog's health.

_"We formally request a copy of the briefs given to the appointed vets"_ I'm sure the vets supplied their own underwear. If they want to know what the vet's were told, surely the assumption would be "check the dog to see if it could be considered healthy". I assume the group want the vet brief to say "but don't worry about anything that is a conformation issue, even if it indicates poor health (and don't use a torch and don't be too long bout it)

_"It was obvious that no training had been given and that the vets appeared to be unfamiliar with the breed standards for the 15 targeted breeds."_ the vets had sufficient training, to be a veterinarian. The only reasons they would need "training" in the breed standard was if they were to be induced into passing a dog if the health issue they suffered from conformed with the breed standard.

The letter then goes on to infer that there should be continued vet exams after the initial one until the exhibitor finds a vet that thinks the dog is OK.

And the crux of the issue _"The exhibitors', the Kennel Club's paying customers feelings were never taken into account."_ aww bless, not sure the Cavaliers' feelings were taken into account when someone decided to do a little Shuar philosophy on them. I thought this was supposed to be about the health of the dogs but (as one speaker at the group's meeting said) Crufts is a beauty parade and health is not a criteria.

He then complains that the Basset Hound was excluded but says they were by "Assured Breeders", the "jewel" in the KC's crown; but we've heard here that many of these "assured" breeders have never even had a homecheck.

_"There was an understandable assumption that exhibits that failed the health inspections must have been unhealthy"_ do you really call your dog an exhibit? If the "exhibit" failed the health check then I would safely make an assumption that the dog could not pass a health check - I think that's a safe assumption.

I read the whole thing and it seems to be a pointless whinge. Issues about inconsistent lighting so the vet used a torch (but the judge didn't) so what?... what's judge going to be qualified to look for?

The chap writing the report seems to have personal issues with Steve Dean (guessing he's someone from the KC).

the long and the short is that the issues (even the ones that have substance) in no way have anything to do with putting the health of the dog first (or even second) so the group is clearly an exhibitors alliance and nothing to do (at all) with the welfare of the dog (or exhibit if you prefer).

... sorry. To be fair there is a bit at the end about health but it infers that they (the exhibitors) have always bred for health and its everyone else that is a problem... bit of denial there I think... probably trying to take the focus of the fact this is about Crufts and nothing else.

(scuse any typos - questioned my own motives for bothering half way through :thumbsup: )


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

"A group winner at the show with an exaggeration more severe than that which had exempted
the Basset Hound and the Clumber Spaniel could be clearly seen

On this note, what penalties have been applied to those judges who failed in this most
important area of their role during Crufts?

It is vital that we treat our dogs primarily as
companions and give them the freedom so essential for 'quality of life'."

Indeed. Could you ask the Crufts winner if the article in the Mail was a fair representation please? And let us know what the KC are going to do about the judges that you said put the exaggerated dogs through? Thanks.

"The implications of Crufts 2012 have firmly brought our sport into disrepute.

It was already in disrepute, didn't you know? That's what all this is about. :eek6:

If the dogs of the 15 checked breeds (and some other breeds) were in the main healthy and free from exaggeration and everyone agreed they were in the main healthy and free from exaggeration I could understand the anger, but they aren't (imo), so I think they should have gone to the KC proposing how to go forward and improve the checks, not appear to be whining and nitpicking technicalities which sadly this report looks like to me and I was hoping it wouldn't tbh. 



> "We formally request a copy of the briefs given to the appointed vets" I'm sure the vets supplied their own underwear.


:lol:


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> A group winner at the show with an exaggeration more severe than that which had exempted
> the Basset Hound and the Clumber Spaniel could be clearly seen.


:blush2::blush2::blush2:

I wonder if he realises how that comes across. So now we know that they realise these exaggerations are being awarded and never objected to that until a dog with less exaggerations was not allowed to be put forward. I wonder too, if the judge of the dog with more severe exaggerations is a member of the CA ?


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> The vet check would replicate the judge check? - but the judge is not a vet nor are they qualified to examine for health issues; so how could it replicate?


Elmo - at the risk of repeating myself again - that was the WHOLE point of the vet checks - to educate judges on disqualifying conditions that* COULD BE SEEN BY THEM * -


> what the KC are going to do about the judges that you said put the exaggerated dogs through?


 if they cannot see them without a 20 minute examination and a pen torch then how can they avoid sending them into the group ring ? - see my point above !!

..and to fail dogs on haw showing when it's written into their breed standard and that's what the dogs were being judged against is just illogical and discriminatory when it's just being done to some breeds and not all breeds which show haw - if vets now think that *any* amount of haw is wrong them why are they allowing dogs with this condition to pass their eye tests and why were all breeds with haw ( including the Newfie that came 2nd in the group ) not checked ?

this is not 'nit picking technicalities ' but the crux of the matter - and it's this discrimination, lack of joined up thinking and illogicality shown by the KC that is the reason why the Canine Alliance has so many supporters


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Steve Dean is my new hero 
Seems that the KC have woken up, the exhibitors and breeders (that's all breeders) have to catch up.

The Kennel Club | Dog Health


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Elles said:


> http://www.caninealliance.org/documents/KCpresentation28.3.12.pdf
> 
> Mike Gadsby's presentation to the Kennel Club yesterday


Not good is it?


----------



## Emmastace (Feb 11, 2011)

Do you know.....I'm starting to get the impression that there isn't a point at which people are going to agree on this subject.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Emmastace said:


> Do you know.....I'm starting to get the impression that there isn't a point at which people are going to agree on this subject.


There are a few that do agree, you'll never get everyone to agree though


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Well if thats the best they can come up with there is little hope, appalling PR for the Canine Alliance - basically all they want is the status quo, go back to how it was before anyone dared point out that some dogs are uncomfortable & unhealthy because of over breeding for certain points because some people think it looks pretty.

_"The Kennel Club choosing to implement this new inspection at Crufts when obvious flaws had not been ironed out was at best questionable. It was ludicrous not to adopt a 'softer launch' to sort out
teething problems or, in this case, to rework the whole initiative"_

Do they not realise how this comes across - the obvious flaw being that the vets dared to point out health issues & fail some dogs! Absolutely shocking. No wonder there are problems in "dogdom", as some plonker keeps referring to, with such entrenched attitudes as shown in that statement.

What do you think of it so far folks? Answer: a resounding RUBBISH!!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Bijou said:


> Elmo - at the risk of repeating myself again - that was the WHOLE point of the vet checks - to educate judges on disqualifying conditions that* COULD BE SEEN BY THEM * -


Bijou - it's pointless trying to have a conversation with Elmo about this. Anyone who can come up with a comment like:



Elmo the Bear said:


> The chap writing the report seems to have personal issues with Steve Dean (guessing he's someone from the KC).


not only demonstrates his supreme lack of knowledge of the subject about which he is pontificating, he he also and very obviously has not read the document properly. (Steve's Dean's identity is given quite early on in the document). But then, his innacurate comments about the content of the document make it obvious that he has merely skim-read the document to try to pick out some points about which to spout his nonsensical rhetoric.



Bijou said:


> this is not 'nit picking technicalities ' but the crux of the matter - and it's this discrimination, lack of joined up thinking and illogicality shown by the KC that is the reason why the Canine Alliance has so many supporters


Spot on!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

I do have some sympathies with those involved in showing. They certainly seem to have made some progress and in fairness, were really the first to embrace health testing. But there is no doubt that they lost sight of things and probably because it's difficult to see the wood for the trees when you are involved, still seem unable to see the problem. This reply really disappoints me and comes across as a petulant denial from people who are only 'improving' things due to duress rather than because they really see the problem. I suspect that is why so many outside showing don't have much faith in it.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> I do have some sympathies with those involved in showing. They certainly seem to have made some progress and in fairness, were really the first to embrace health testing. But there is no doubt that they lost sight of things and probably because it's difficult to see the wood for the trees when you are involved, still seem unable to see the problem. This reply really disappoints me and comes across as a petulant denial from people who are only 'improving' things due to duress rather than because they really see the problem. I suspect that is why so many outside showing don't have much faith in it.


That exactly how I feel about it, I just gabbled on & went round the houses :thumbsup:


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> if vets now think that any amount of haw is wrong them why are they allowing dogs with this condition to pass their eye tests


Because eye tests don't test for haw showing or any other adnexal problems.



> Following the veterinary checks at Crufts some confusion has arisen regarding the BVA/KC/ISDS Eye Scheme, which we would like to address. The Scheme does not currently certify adnexal problems such as entropion and ectropion, although this information may be noted and discussed during the eye examination.
> 
> The Eye Panel Working Party is very keen to collect data on breed-related ocular problems. We are currently finalising a new certificate to give this information more prominence, and we discussed these changes with representatives of the high profile breeds at a Kennel Club seminar in November.
> 
> We hope that the increased attention on eye conditions as a result of the veterinary checks at Crufts will allow us to educate more and more breeders and owners


This part of the BVA statement in response to the Crufts eye tests worries me considerably. I accept that owners many not understand exactly what eye tests test for, but breeders?! If you are breeding you should KNOW exactly what conditions an eye test tests for and it concerns me how many think an eye test pass is an indication of a healthy eye.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

[/QUOTE]



rona said:


> Not good is it?





DoodlesRule said:


> What do you think of it so far folks? Answer: a resounding RUBBISH!!


OK - perhaps you two would care to explain what is not good or what is rubbish about an organisation who has stated these aims in the document:

_We need to demonstrate to the world that we are very serious about the health and welfare of our dogs and not just 15 exhibits. We have to insure that ALL our pedigree dogs have acceptable levels of health enabling them to lead happy healthy lives. The KC needs to reinforce and defend the actions of the vast majority of show breeders who have displayed for decades their resolve to breed with health and temperament as a priority.

Furthermore they must exclude and condemn those who fail to demonstrate positive breeding practices to achieve this ideal. They must once and for all address the puppy farmers and back street breeders whose puppies they happily register without care for their welfare._

It seems to me that the points raised here are the very points that all the detractors of the KC and pedigree breeds on this forum have been saying is wrong on so many threads for so many years. Some of you have even called for exhibitors to become invloved, to fight against the bad breeders.

And now - lo and behold - those wishes of all the detractors have come true. A formal group of exhibitors has formed to try to make the KC address all the things which in your opinion have been wrong with the KC and pedigree dogs - ie the health of all dogs, good breeders allying themselves against bad breeders, the KC registering progeny from puppy farms - so why have you suddenly all changed your minds and now think that none of this is good and that the issues the alliance are addressing - ie the very issues on which you were previously calling for action- are rubbish?

I just don't understand it. I would have thought you'd all be shouting from the rooftops somthing like, "AT LAST!" So all I can conclude is either you didn't believe what you were writing on all those other posts when you were calling for this kind of action, or that you don't believe what you ar writing here. The two just don't fit together.



Emmastace said:


> Do you know.....I'm starting to get the impression that there isn't a point at which people are going to agree on this subject.


I don't think you ever will when you get such an about face as the one I've outlined above.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

.


> But there is no doubt that they lost sight of things and probably because it's difficult to see the wood for the trees when you are involved, still seem unable to see the problem. This reply really disappoints me and comes across as a petulant denial from people who are only 'improving' things due to duress rather than because they really see the problem. I suspect that is why so many outside showing don't have much faith in it.


- most breeders are working like mad to improve the health of their breeds only last week the gene for Epilepsy was found for my own breed thanks to the efforts and support of breeders - this was not done 'under duress' - but because along with most breeders, we care passionately about our breed - you could clearly see the progress in the rings at Crufts this year but if breeds are going to be failed for something that is currently within their breed standard and is not even mentioned on the BVA eye tests then even our worst critics must see that this is unfair - by all means change the standards ( and I note that the BVA are changing the eye tests ) but give us time to breed for those changes THEN test and disqualify if necessary.

...we DO see the trees ....hell we've planted the whole damn forest !! ..never forget that without breeders you would not have the breeds you know and love ...


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> This part of the BVA statement in response to the Crufts eye tests worries me considerably. I accept that owners many not understand exactly what eye tests test for, but breeders?! If you are breeding you should KNOW exactly what conditions an eye test tests for and it concerns me how many think an eye test pass is an indication of a healthy eye.


..because that's what the BVA themselves have lead us to believe !!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

OK - perhaps you two would care to explain what is not good or what is rubbish about an organisation who has stated these aims in the document:
[/QUOTE]

Because it comes across that you want vet checks stopped initially, then changed to ones that suit the exhibitors so that they take into account breed standards (flaws if you like)


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> - most breeders are working like mad to improve the health of their breeds only last week the gene for Epilepsy was found for my own breed thanks to the efforts and support of breeders - this was not done 'under duress' - but because along with most breeders, we care passionately about our breed -


You clearly haven't read what I have said. I said show breeders were the first to embrace health testing. I know they care - which is why I said I have some sympathies. I've said it before, health testing is a completely different thing to confirmation exaggerations that lead to health problems. It is the latter that those in showing seem to be in denial about. Even though some improvements have been made - some breeds still have some way to go.



> ...we DO see the trees ....hell we've planted the whole damn forest !! ..never forget that without breeders you would not have the breeds you know and love ...


My dogs come from working lines. I will refrain from replying about planting the whole damn forest  But I have attended breed standard seminars for my own breed (where I think I was the only working breeder amongst show) and heard the comments. The exaggerations in my breed are not deletorious to health, however, they are still exaggerations, and have heard first hand how they cannot see the wood for the trees.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> ..because that's what the BVA themselves have lead us to believe !!


But the winning clumber's owner is on camera saying how the dog had a clear eye certificate so how could they have failed the test. If that misunderstanding has come from a Crufts BOB winner, I would be surprised that she is not the only one. I'm not saying all make the mistake, but it happens.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> health testing is a completely different thing to confirmation exaggerations that lead to health problems. It is the latter that those in showing seem to be in denial about. Even though some improvements have been made - some breeds still have some way to go.


agreed but Epilepsy can decimate the health of my breed when bred badly in just the same way that Brachy air way syndrome can decimate badly bred Bulldogs - that's why ALL dogs need to be tested - simply because a potential health issue can be seen does NOT mean it is the either the only breed with issues or the worst ..we need health testing for conditions that can and for those that cannot be seen for *all* breeds - now why is the Kc not insisting on this before registration ?



> Because it comes across that you want vet checks stopped initially, then changed to ones that suit the exhibitors so that they take into account breed standards (flaws if you like)


yep we want the vet checks in their present form stopped initially whilst the KC change the breed standards to reflect what vets will be looking for ( if required ) - then time allowed to breed for those changes - that's surely the logical way to go ?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> Because it comes across that you want vet checks stopped initially, then changed to ones that suit the exhibitors so that they take into account breed standards (flaws if you like)


Ok - I'll alter the question slightly - what is it exactly that gives you this impression? (The bit outlined in red) I don't get that impression at all - I get the impression that they are wanting the matter sorted out fairly, with the health of all dogs in mind. What I'm wondering is whether neither side (not you and me - I mean the pro-alliance and anti-alliance people) can see the other side's point of view because of all the baggage gone before? I'm not trying to be confrontational here - I really am trying to understand why it is that the anti-alliance people are -well, anti-alliance!


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> But the winning clumber's owner is on camera saying how the dog had a clear eye certificate so how could they have failed the test. If that misunderstanding has come from a Crufts BOB winner, I would be surprised that she is not the only one. I'm not saying all make the mistake, but it happens.


sorry I'm not understanding your point -( a senior moment perhaps  ? )

the Clumber owner DID have a clear eye cert both before and after the disqualification - presumably both those vets did not think that haw showing was a health problem - ( even the BVA did'nt until after Crufts or it would have been highlighted in their original eye tests !! )


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Bijou said:


> Elmo - at the risk of repeating myself again - that was the WHOLE point of the vet checks - to educate judges on disqualifying conditions that* COULD BE SEEN BY THEM * -


You don't need to repeat yourself. Judges Identifying "conditions" they could see = tyre kicking by someone who is not qualified= pointless exercise to fool the public into thinking the dogs have been health checked.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Bijou said:


> yep we want the vet checks in their present form stopped initially whilst the KC change the breed standards to reflect what vets will be looking for ( if required ) - then time allowed to breed for those changes - that's surely the logical way to go ?


Sorry - don't know ho to do multiple quotes:

The vet should be looking for anything that shows poor health in the dog. Why should breeders (not qualified) or breed clubs (not qualified) be allowed to restrict what health problems the vet is "allowed" to look for; this is simply rigging the result of the health check.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> the Clumber owner DID have a clear eye cert both before and after the disqualification - presumably both those vets did not think that haw showing was a health problem


Exactly my point - a clear eye certificate does not test for haw or any other adnexal problems - it tests for the disease of the eye (pra, hc etc)



> agreed but Epilepsy can decimate the health of my breed when bred badly in just the same way that Brachy air way syndrome can decimate badly bred Bulldogs - that's why ALL dogs need to be tested - simply because a potential health issue can be seen does NOT mean it is the either the only breed with issues or the worst ..we need health testing for conditions that can and for those that cannot be seen for all breeds


I agree, but this is IRRELEVANT to the health tests done at crufts. Health testing is completely different to the health tests that look at conformation exaggerations that lead to health problems. Maybe I'm not making sense, but I'm not sure how to put this to be clearer.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Bijou, I was disappointed in the communication to the KC, I'm not having a go. I can see what it looks like. The guy presenting it breeds what appear to be gorgeous, healthy poodles, yet appears to be supporting exaggerations himself. He was the one that said exaggerated dogs got through, not me. He was the one who said they could be clearly seen. No mention of vets with torches.

The vet who said the Bassett Hound was healthy, is a vet from abroad who breeds and shows exaggerated Bassetts himself. How does that look? The Bassett that failed wasn't as exaggerated as the Bassett I found on the 'net belonging to and bred by one of the people who stood up and spoke at the CA, but it was still a type of dog that is the type that people are complaining about.

We (the collective lol) don't want the showing breeders to worry about puppy farms, we want them to put their own house in order. They can worry about puppy farms too, so can we, but that's not the issue here. Concern over one issue does not exclude another. One step at a time, no-one can fix everything in one go.

If the dogs are healthy to the eye, it would be nice if an average joe type of vet can have a quick look and say they are healthy. They are the ones looking at the pet dogs the show people moved on. Unfortunately that's not going to happen. The CA can scream 'biased vet, with agenda' as much as they like, the vets passed 9 breeds and I look at the failed ones and think to myself 'yes, there are worse dogs, but these are the ones they are looking at first'.

They have to start somewhere. If the CA felt the vets were too rigorous and used implements they shouldn't, then why not speak to the KC about that, rather than scream for all vet checks to stop immediately.

If you agree with the people who breed and show exaggerated dogs and feel there is nothing wrong with them, I'll never agree with you. If you feel some dogs are exaggerated and mistakes have been made, then fair enough. Move on, move forwards and stop breeding unhealthy, uncomfortable exaggerated dogs that are plain as the nose on your face immediately, now, today. 

If your dog was sick you couldn't take it to a show, people are saying that some dogs are sick, just no-one important seems to want to do anything about it, other than prove through whatever means necessary that sick dogs aren't sick. 

That's how it looks to me. 

I've read some of the breed standards, wondering what in it caused the exaggeration and some of them ask for the complete opposite of what the dogs have. eg asking for "Broad, well-opened nostrils" when some of the winning show dogs have nostrils that look to have been superglued together.

I wonder if some of the breeders of the less exaggerated more healthy dogs have been complaining to the KC about the exaggerated dogs being pulled in first. The CA has 1800 members, but at Crufts alone there were over 22000 dogs entered. There could be all kinds of things happening behind the scenes that none of us know anything about.


----------



## Ewan (Mar 1, 2012)

All breeding stock should be health tested, regardless if they are in the ring or not but the vet checks need to continue at Shows to stop this:










Here is a working basset and the "BOB winner".

I'm sorry but the non-working one can still pass every health test in the book and it is still never going to be fit for function. How can anyone not look at that photo and feel anything but appalled and saddened at what has went on in certain breeder. These breeders aren't doing enough to correct the problems. I for one whole heartedly believe that if this is the best that the show stock has they should all be publicly humiliated until they sort out the mess that they created in the first place.

And before people moan about me using photos to try and prove a point breeders and exhibitors have been doing it with the bulldogs and clumber for weeks now.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Ok - I'll alter the question slightly - what is it exactly that gives you this impression? (The bit outlined in red) I don't get that impression at all - I get the impression that they are wanting the matter sorted out fairly, with the health of all dogs in mind. What I'm wondering is whether neither side (not you and me - I mean the pro-alliance and anti-alliance people) can see the other side's point of view because of all the baggage gone before? I'm not trying to be confrontational here - I really am trying to understand why it is that the anti-alliance people are -well, anti-alliance!


To be honest I was neither pro nor anti alliance, same as I am neither pro nor anti showing (not something I would do as would feel a bit of a nitwit trotting round a ring but it doesn't harm so if it floats your boat). So I am neutral if you like My interest is in the dogs thats all & for the first time the KC seemed to have got off the fence and done something useful.

If the Alliance's aim was with the dogs first & foremost the campaign would surely be to widen the checks to cover all breeds not just 15 and make improvements, perhaps making them more open and clear to everyone. But by fixating on getting them stopped it gives totally the wrong impression because obviously the outcome would be that the dogs that were disqualified for health reasons would now go through, likely be bred producing more dogs with the same health issues.

The Alliance statement is very poorly written and petulant and only serves to increase my perception afraid.

Not sure I have worded it well as I should be doing something else so am in a hurry, but I know what I am trying to get at.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Showing dogs isn't something I'd ever considered, but I think my Elles is beautiful. She's silky, shiny soft, with bright eyes and gleaming white teeth, and little sparkly bits in her coat, I'd love to be able to show her off in a ring. 

Of course I can't, she's not a show collie, I'd need training in how to do it and sparkly bits aren't really relevant, but I'm considering buying another dog at a later date and now I know not all pedigree show dogs are mutant ninjas. 

I'm getting corrupted. :yikes: :lol:

I do now know the importance of a decent bra though, so I'm one step further than I was.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Pug vet check account form the owner:

&#8206;"Once the judging, presentations and photos had finished we were met by a Kennel Club group steward who informed us that only the dog and handler were allowed to the veterinary check. I was led away from the rings to a brightly lit private room where I was met by the vet undertaking the checks. I was first asked to fill in the necessary paperwork and then the vet asked me to walk the dog up and down the room a couple of times, the vet spoke to the steward and the steward addressed me stating that the vet required us to go outside. I was lead out of the building into a loading area at the back of the NEC. Here I was requested to, take the dog round.

"During the first lap the vet requested that the dog be moved faster, the second and third laps of this area were at a speed where the dog was running. This was very difficult for me and caused pain, discomfort and I was out of breath. The vet then asked for the dog to be run up the ramp back to the NEC halls; it was obvious that he was observing his fitness and respiratory function and Mac wasnt even panting!

"I asked the vet if he was looking for rasping or panting and he said "yes, rasping. When we returned to the room he asked for another couple of up and downs and then he requested him to be put on the table. The vet did a full examination of Mac; he first checked his eyes with a led pen light, he checked for eye problems, which included opening the eye fully and rolling back the eyelids, locating all the white of eye and making him look up and down, left and right in both eyes. He then checked the wrinkle for debris, dermatitis, or infection; he checked the nostrils with the pen light too. He then did a strange move and pushed the wrinkle against the eyes to see if it was capable of rolling into the eyes; this seemed unnecessary and unnatural to me.

"He then checked the rest of his facial skin and ears, checking the ear canals etc. He moved to the front and checked his legs, shoulders and elbows for soundness. He then checked his forechest. He moved to the spine and checked every vertebrae individually for shape and size and flexed them, working methodically from the withers to the tip of the tail, in my opinion exerting a fair amount of pressure on each one. The detail in which he looked over the tail gave me the impression that he was looking for breaks or malformations; when he fully extended the tail he also checked the skin under the twist.

"He then checked the hips by exerting pressure from above and moved down the thigh checking muscle and patella. I am familiar with patella testing and this seemed to be what he was doing. He took one final look at the head again and thanked the steward. The vet didnt address me at any point in the test. He finished the paperwork and during this time I asked whether Mac had passed, the steward responded yes.

"The signed veterinary check paperwork was handed to me and I returned to the ring. On the return the steward handed me the BOB card and rosette. This process had taken some time and left very little time to get from the ring to the group. You may be aware that the group is held in the arena and its a long trek from ring 24. We arrived with very little time to spare and were thrust into the bustle of photos and preparation for the start of the group. It seemed a little unfair that we, including Mac, hadnt had any time to have a break, unlike many of the other toy breeds, before heading out on to the hallowed green.

"We were immensely proud when Annette Oliver pulled Mac out for her shortlist and even more so when he was awarded G2. Although the veterinary checks seemed stringent it does go to prove that Pugs are healthy and fit for function and in direct contradiction to what was portrayed in both the Pedigree Dogs Exposed programmes.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> The Alliance statement is very poorly written and petulant and only serves to increase my perception afraid.


I think one of the problems may be that this is not a "statement" by the alliance. It is not a press release to inform the puiblic, but is a preliminary document intended to set out the intentions and aims of the alliance to the KC. It is a document designed to provide a basis for discussion with the KC and therefore has to be, of necessity, a very detailed document. In that sense it is not poorly written; just very detailed about a multitude of things. (And, incidentally, that is why the accusations of nit-picking by other posters are pretty unfair - or perhaps they just did not understand the purpose of the document)

Having said that, it would seem to me that the alliance are doing all that you would wish them to do and more. Compare what you said in your reply to me, and what they said in their "summing up" paragraph. (I've outlined the same points in both statements in the same colour)



DoodlesRule said:


> If the Alliance's aim was with the dogs first & foremost the campaign would surely be to widen the checks to cover all breeds not just 15 and make improvements, perhaps making them more open and clear to everyone. But by fixating on getting them stopped it gives totally the wrong impression


_We are not here today to simply highlight the failures in this health initiative, but to insist that these inspections in their current format are ceased until a better solution to ensure fairness and openness in agreed.

We need to demonstrate to the world that we are very serious about the health and welfare of our dogs and not just 15 exhibits. We have to insure that ALL our pedigree dogs have acceptable levels of health enabling them to lead happy healthy lives.[ The KC needs to reinforce and defend the actions of the vast majority of show breeders who have displayed for decades their resolve to breed with health and temperament as a priority.

Furthermore they must exclude and condemn those who fail to demonstrate positive breeding practices to achieve this ideal. They must once and for all address the puppy farmers and back street breeders whose puppies they happily register without care for their welfare_

So. to summarise:

You want the checks to cover all breeds - so do the alliance.
You want to make improvements to the checks - so do the alliance.
You want the tests to be more open and fair - so do the alliance.

In additon, the alliance are also wanting the KC to support the good breeders, the ones who are making the improvements to their breeds, and they want them to stop registering progeny from puppy farmers - two things which you haven't mentioned in your reply but which I know from other posts of yours are both something that you feel should be happening.

So when it boils down to it, the only point that you disagree with the alliance on is that you believe the unfair tests should continue until they are replaced with fairer tests, and the alliance believe they should be stopped until they are replaced with fairer tests.

Not really poles apart at all :thumbsup:


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

A good post Spellweaver which highlights the common ground both sides have 

I do hope the CA, the Kc and the BVA ( all those initials !! ) can move foward with a scheme that is workable, fair and has the most impact on the health and welfare of the dogs .



> Of course I can't, she's not a show collie, I'd need training in how to do it and sparkly bits aren't really relevant, but I'm considering buying another dog at a later date and now I know not all pedigree show dogs are mutant ninjas


.

Ooh come over to the dark side....you know you want one of THESE !!










:thumbsup:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> Bijou, I was disappointed in the communication to the KC, I'm not having a go. I can see what it looks like. The guy presenting it breeds what appear to be gorgeous, healthy poodles, yet appears to be supporting exaggerations himself. He was the one that said exaggerated dogs got through, not me.


But he is saying that it is _wrong_ that this should happen - that tests should be on all breeds because this sort of thing is happening!



Elles said:


> The vet who said the Bassett Hound was healthy, is a vet from abroad who breeds and shows exaggerated Bassetts himself. How does that look? The Bassett that failed wasn't as exaggerated as the Bassett I found on the 'net belonging to and bred by one of the people who stood up and spoke at the CA, but it was still a type of dog that is the type that people are complaining about.


Different results from different vets are one of the inherently unfair things about the present system that the alliance want addressing.



Elles said:


> We (the collective lol) don't want the showing breeders to worry about puppy farms, we want them to put their own house in order. They can worry about puppy farms too, so can we, but that's not the issue here. Concern over one issue does not exclude another. One step at a time, no-one can fix everything in one go.


But some exhibitors and breeders have in the pst been accused of puppy farming - so surely that is a relevant point that needs addressing as part of all this? Surely its all part of the health test being vigorous enough to exclude badly bred dogs?



Elles said:


> They have to start somewhere. If the CA felt the vets were too rigorous and used implements they shouldn't, then why not speak to the KC about that, rather than scream for all vet checks to stop immediately.


Its interesting that you are starting to use words like "scream" instead of "ask". Do you feel that you need to resort to emotive language because your point doesn't seem very valid without it? Especially when the alliance do state in this document exactly what you've just put in the above quote 



Elles said:


> If you agree with the people who breed and show exaggerated dogs and feel there is nothing wrong with them, I'll never agree with you. If you feel some dogs are exaggerated and mistakes have been made, then fair enough. Move on, move forwards and stop breeding unhealthy, uncomfortable exaggerated dogs that are plain as the nose on your face immediately, now, today.


Seems to me that you are in accord with the alliance here!



Elles said:


> If your dog was sick you couldn't take it to a show, people are saying that some dogs are sick, just no-one important seems to want to do anything about it, other than prove through whatever means necessary that sick dogs aren't sick.  That's how it looks to me.


How do you come to that conclusion after reading the following paragraph in the document:

_We need to demonstrate to the world that we are very serious about the health and welfare of our dogs and not just 15 exhibits. We have to insure that ALL our pedigree dogs have acceptable levels of health enabling them to lead happy healthy lives_



Elles said:


> I wonder if some of the breeders of the less exaggerated more healthy dogs have been complaining to the KC about the exaggerated dogs being pulled in first. The CA has 1800 members, but at Crufts alone there were over 22000 dogs entered. There could be all kinds of things happening behind the scenes that none of us know anything about.


And if they have, then that's bad. But what has that got to do with the Alliance, who have been open and above board from their conception?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> OK - perhaps you two would care to explain what is not good or what is rubbish about an organisation who has stated these aims in the document:
> 
> _We need to demonstrate to the world that we are very serious about the health and welfare of our dogs and not just 15 exhibits. We have to insure that ALL our pedigree dogs have acceptable levels of health enabling them to lead happy healthy lives. The KC needs to reinforce and defend the actions of the vast majority of show breeders who have displayed for decades their resolve to breed with health and temperament as a priority.
> 
> ...


But Steve dean and the KC have already started to address this.
Didn't you know?
Oh and about the Vets not knowing about each individual breed, somewhere in the links I've put up is reference to a book/folder whatever you want to call it where the KC have listed all relevant differences relating to specific breeds, just written for vets so that they know what they are looking at 
Can't be arsed to look for it for you, can't understand why the CA doesn't know about all this?


----------



## PippaM (Jun 5, 2011)

> that was the WHOLE point of the vet checks - to educate judges on disqualifying conditions that COULD BE SEEN BY THEM 


I wonder if anyone can tell me where this concept that the vet checks were designed to educate judges comes from. It seems to be a common complaint from breeders. Was there some kind of document given to breeders by the KC that gave them this impression and does anyone have a link to it?

It seems to be a source of great confusion and is directly contradicted by the following statement made by Steve Dean, chairman of the KC



> the primary reason was to prevent dogs with clinical problems associated with exaggerated conformation competing in the group ring.


Pippa


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> But Steve dean and the KC have already started to address this.
> Didn't you know?


But the alliance don't think they are doing it fairly - didn't you know?



rona said:


> Oh and about the Vets not knowing about each individual breed, somewhere in the links I've put up is reference to a book/folder whatever you want to call it where the KC have listed all relevant differences relating to specific breeds, just written for vets so that they know what they are looking at
> Can't be arsed to look for it for you, can't understand why the CA doesn't know about all this?


Sorry you can't be arsed to do something - but I think you are mixing me up with some other poster. I've not written about this - so I hope that whoever you can't be arsed to help reads this.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> So. to summarise:
> 
> You want the checks to cover all breeds - so do the alliance.
> You want to make improvements to the checks - so do the alliance.
> ...


I never mentioned anything about fairness as I do not believe they were unfair anyway.

Open - by that I meant it would save a lot of misinformation if the details were revealed officially, maybe the day after to give the exhibitors time to come to terms with their shock and not have to discuss with the media before they have had time to err collect their thoughts 

Improvements - just making it known exactly what & how checks are done i.e. can they use a torch for example. I also believe they should be able to listen to hearts with a stethescope. Ok judgest don't but the owners should certainly know if their dog has a dicky ticker or not!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> But the alliance don't think they are doing it fairly - didn't you know?
> 
> Sorry you can't be arsed to do something - but I think you are mixing me up with some other poster. I've not written about this - so I hope that whoever you can't be arsed to help reads this.


They didn't say anything beforehand though did they?
Perfectly happy to let the 15 breeds take the flack then, until the reality struck

No the CA came up with that little gem, saying the vets had no idea on individual breed traits


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> I never mentioned anything about fairness as I do not believe they were unfair anyway.
> 
> Open - by that I meant it would save a lot of misinformation if the details were revealed officially, maybe the day after to give the exhibitors time to come to terms with their shock and not have to discuss with the media before they have had time to err collect their thoughts
> 
> Improvements - just making it known exactly what & how checks are done i.e. can they use a torch for example. I also believe they should be able to listen to hearts with a stethescope. Ok judgest don't but the owners should certainly know if their dog has a dicky ticker or not!


But doesn't the fact that you think there are improvements to be made carry with it an inherent assumption that they are not fair at the moment? If they are fair, why do improvements need to be made?

As for the details of the improvements and openness - that's just what they are, details. The principles behind those details - ie the principle of openness, the principle that things need to improve - are the same for you and for the alliance. As I said, you are not really poles apart - you want the same things in principle, you are just differing in the details.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

KC statement following the meeting on the 28th:

Positive meeting with the Canine Alliance - The Kennel Club


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> I wonder if anyone can tell me where this concept that the vet checks were designed to educate judges comes from. It seems to be a common complaint from breeders. Was there some kind of document given to breeders by the KC that gave them this impression and does anyone have a link to it?


this was issued by the Kc a year ago - it clearly states that the vet tests were to be used to monitor judges and to ensure they do not send forward dogs that are visibly unhealthy



> Judges now have the power to remove dogs that look unhealthy from competition and show monitors can also ask show veterinary surgeons to determine whether a dog is healthy enough to continue competing. These existing requirements will continue to be in place at dfs Crufts 2011.
> 
> Ronnie Irving, Kennel Club Chairman, said: "The majority of people involved in showing dogs, including the 15 high profile breeds, are doing a good job in moving their breed forward and many judges are ensuring that health is paramount when they judge. This work should be applauded and recognised.
> 
> "Sadly though, a few judges in some breeds simply can't or won't accept the need to eliminate from top awards, *dogs which are visibly unhealthy.* Neither we who show dogs, nor the Kennel Club which must protect our hobby, can reasonably allow that state of affairs to continue. I hope also that monitoring the results of this exercise may even, in time, enable us to drop from the 'high profile' list some of those breeds which prove to have a clean bill of health.


vets were supposed to replicate what the judge could see and feel in the average time allowed per dog ( about 2 minutes )


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> KC statement following the meeting on the 28th:
> 
> Positive meeting with the Canine Alliance - The Kennel Club


Brilliant.
Well done the KC :thumbsup:


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

thanks for the link Snoringbear - at least both sides are talking -I wonder what will happen at UK toy dog this weekend ?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Bijou said:


> thanks for the link Snoringbear - at least both sides are talking -I wonder what will happen at UK toy dog this weekend ?


I don't think anything much more than this was expected - I know the alliance spokesman was disappointed that they didn't suspend the checks but surely they would have realised that even if the KC were willing to do that, it couldn't happen without it being discussed and voted on at a committee meting anyway? At least they are willing to listen and discuss proposals put to them.

Re this weekend (and all the shows until it gets sorted out) I wouldn't like to be the vet doing the checks - I know all the controversy should not affect the professionalism of the vet, but imagine the pressure on those poor individuals


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Bijou said:


> vets were supposed to replicate what the judge could see and feel in the average time allowed per dog ( about 2 minutes )


So, completely pointless but it makes it look like those involved are doing something about health.

The vet shouldn't do what the judge does, the vet should do what the vet does and the judge should do what the judge does (have a look to see if the dog conforms to the piece of paper).

I'm perplexed as to why judges are continually compared to vets - a vet can give a qualified opinion on a dog's health and a judge can't. If all you want is the vet to do a visual check then it's clear that all you want is to con people into thinking the health of the dog is important.

If you took your dog to the vet and said "he seems to be limping" and the vet took a look round and had a bit of a feel, to then announce "he's fine"... would you be reassured there were no issue with the dog?

Guess the headline could read "Bitter Blow to Canine Alliance and Dogs Continue to be Checked for Health" - the irony.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Bijou said:


> thanks for the link Snoringbear - at least both sides are talking -I wonder what will happen at UK toy dog this weekend ?





Spellweaver said:


> I don't think anything much more than this was expected - I know the alliance spokesman was disappointed that they didn't suspend the checks but surely they would have realised that even if the KC were willing to do that, it couldn't happen without it being discussed and voted on at a committee meting anyway? At least they are willing to listen and discuss proposals put to them.
> 
> Re this weekend (and all the shows until it gets sorted out) I wouldn't like to be the vet doing the checks - I know all the controversy should not affect the professionalism of the vet, but imagine the pressure on those poor individuals


I thought it was unrealistic for the health checks to be suspended following that meeting TBH.

I wonder if the Peke is going to the Toy Show? Might pass this time. Next show I have with health checks is WELKS, but I'm not particuarly concerned at the prospect.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Elmo I'm not sure why you cannot grasp the fact that this is EXACTLY the reason why the Canine Alliance say the checks are unworkable and unfair - breeders and exhibitors don't expect judges to be vets - only the KC seems to be doing this - and punishes judges for NOT being able to see what vets do 



> If all you want is the vet to do a visual check then it's clear that all you want is to con people into thinking the health of the dog is important.


...but ...is'nt that just what I've been saying - of* course* a visible check is not enough and of course you need to check health properly but a judge cannot do this in the ring so how on earth can this system work to educate judges as the KC originally intended ?

and it's got nothing to do with trying to 'con' anyone - if you can see the futility of what went on then why do you oppose those of us that want something better put in it's place..


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> They didn't say anything beforehand though did they?
> Perfectly happy to let the 15 breeds take the flack then, until the reality struck


That's not true though - there were mutterings about it before they took place - people were writing to the dog press expressing their doubts that it would work, and people were discussing the possible pitfalls on "serious" forums such as champdogs Health checks at Crufts!

Didn't you know?

And, of course, how could - to use your phrase - "reality strike" about the fact that dogs would pass under one vet and not under another until it had actally happened? How did the bulldog's owner, for example, know that her dog would pass under the vet at the trial at BUBA and not pass under the vet at Crufts until it had actually happened? Or do you think the fact that not all exhibitors are mediums and able to see into the future is another black mark against them?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Bijou said:


> Elmo I'm not sure why you cannot grasp the fact that this is EXACTLY the reason why the Canine Alliance say the checks are unworkable and unfair - breeders and exhibitors don't expect judges to be vets - only the KC seems to be doing this - and punishes judges for NOT being able to see what vets do
> 
> ...but ...is'nt that just what I've been saying - of* course* a visible check is not enough and of course you need to check health properly but a judge cannot do this in the ring so how on earth can this system work to educate judges as the KC originally intended ?
> 
> and it's got nothing to do with trying to 'con' anyone - if you can see the futility of what went on then why do you oppose those of us that want something better put in it's place..


Because you don't want to see anything "better" in its place (or at least the group concerned doesn't). The group is saying that the vet should only be able to do what the judge does; which is pointless.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> That's not true though - there were mutterings about it before they took place - people were writing to the dog press expressing their doubts that it would work, and people were discussing the possible pitfalls on "serious" forums such as champdogs Health checks at Crufts!
> 
> Didn't you know?
> 
> And, of course, how could - to use your phrase - "reality strike" about the fact that dogs would pass under one vet and not under another until it had actally happened? How did the bulldog's owner, for example, know that her dog would pass under the vet at the trial at BUBA and not pass under the vet at Crufts until it had actually happened? Or do you think the fact that not all exhibitors are mediums and able to see into the future is another black mark against them?


No but then why should I? 
I don't show and have no interest in showing. Much like I never saw "that" programme
I do care about dogs as a whole though, but make up my own mind, not be influenced by others 
Then why didn't the CA get together beforehand to voice their concerns?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Because you don't want to see anything "better" in its place (or at least the group concerned doesn't). *The group is saying that the vet should only be able to do what the judge does*; which is pointless.


It was the KC who orignally said that:

"The Vet will be checking for obvious signs of ill health and especially for signs of eye discomfort or inflammation, lameness, respiratory difficulty and skin inflammation and no special diagnostic aids will be used so all of these signs of ill health would be noticeable by the Judge."

High Profile Best of Breed Veterinary Checks - FAQs - The Kennel Club

(Sorry you have to read this twice in as many minutes, Rona)


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> No but then why should I?
> I don't show and have no interest in showing. Much like I never saw "that" programme


Oh, sorry - thought you had said previously that you were speaking with authority because of your experience in showing.



rona said:


> Then why didn't the CA get together beforehand to voice their concerns?


Just a wild guess here, but maybe it was because they didn't have a crystal ball and so could not possibly know that dogs would pass vet checks at BUBA and fail them at Crufts *until it had actually happened* :lol:


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> It was the KC who orignally said that:
> 
> "The Vet will be checking for obvious signs of ill health and especially for signs of eye discomfort or inflammation, lameness, respiratory difficulty and skin inflammation and no special diagnostic aids will be used so all of these signs of ill health would be noticeable by the Judge."
> 
> ...


Thank you. My point exactly. The KC check was pointless and the check the group are asking for is no better (in fact it seem to be the same(or less) with a vet of their chossing, the only difference all breeds should be subject to it); so it's purely a cosmetic (pardon pun) exercise to make those outside of the exhibition think that health is a priority.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> How did the bulldog's owner, for example, know that her dog would pass under the vet at the trial at BUBA and not pass under the vet at Crufts until it had actually happened?


I can understand how that can be upsetting and allowing that individual opinion will always exist improvements could be made to this area, I can't grasp why it should be such a surprise. After all, judges too have different opinions - a dog that will win under one judge may not under another. This is something the show world has lived with and should understand. Why is acceptable for a judge but not a vet?


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

How did the bulldog's owner, for example, know that her dog would pass under the vet at the trial at BUBA and not pass under the vet at Crufts until it had actually happened? 

Could it simply be there was something wrong with the bulldog at Crufts and not at the trial?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I just want to reiterate a point again, as I think things are getting confused, yet again.

Health checks are nothing to do with, and shouldn't be anything to do with a health test. A health check is to do with the welfare of the dogs, and should pick up issues such as eye problems, skin problems, ear problems, that are welfare issues. Health tests are not something you can check at a dog show.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Thank you. My point exactly. The KC check was pointless and the check the group are asking for is no better (in fact it seem to be the same(or less) with a vet of their chossing, the only difference all breeds should be subject to it); so it's purely a cosmetic (pardon pun) exercise to make those outside of the exhibition think that health is a priority.


Great. Why all of the concern over suspension of the health checks if they're pointless?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Thank you. My point exactly. The KC check was pointless and the check the group are asking for is no better (in fact it seem to be the same(or less) with a vet of their chossing, the only difference all breeds should be subject to it); so it's purely a cosmetic (pardon pun) exercise to make those outside of the exhibition think that health is a priority


Sorry, I think your point shows that you don't know what you're talking about.  Of course the tests are 'cosmetic' (in your words) or to use the correct term, about conformation. I'm surprised this is still being misunderstood!  I can't see what there is that makes it so difficult to understand.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Sorry, I think your point shows that you don't know what you're talking about.  Of course the tests are 'cosmetic' (in your words) or to use the correct term, about conformation. I'm surprised this is still being misunderstood!  I can't see what there is that makes it so difficult to understand.


I think it's a deliberate misunderstanding tbh, it's been posted so many times!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> Sorry, I think your point shows that you don't know what you're talking about.  Of course the tests are 'cosmetic' (in your words) or to use the correct term, about conformation. I'm surprised this is still being misunderstood!  I can't see what there is that makes it so difficult to understand.


I never thought it was any more than a simple check of eyes, ears, breathing & walking which any dog should hopefully pass with flying colours - if not then obviously something amiss. Which is why I never understood any opposition to them, still don't to be honest


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> I never thought it was any more than a simple check of eyes, ears, breathing & walking which any dog should hopefully pass with flying colours - if not then obviously something amiss. Which is why I never understood any opposition to them, still don't to be honest


I'd hope that they would pick up on more than that, particularly if vets are given specific things to look at in individuals breeds. So for Labradors, if a dog was overweight, then hopefully the vet would pick up on that, as it's a health check point specific to Labradors. But all of them should have good sound movement, clear eyes, clean ears and good skin/coat condition.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> I can understand how that can be upsetting and allowing that individual opinion will always exist improvements could be made to this area, I can't grasp why it should be such a surprise. After all, judges too have different opinions - a dog that will win under one judge may not under another. This is something the show world has lived with and should understand. Why is acceptable for a judge but not a vet?


A judge's assessment relies upon opinion; so it is possible to get two judges with differing opinons. A vet's assessment relies on facts; so two different vets should come to the same conclusion.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> How did the bulldog's owner, for example, know that her dog would pass under the vet at the trial at BUBA and not pass under the vet at Crufts until it had actually happened?
> 
> Could it simply be there was something wrong with the bulldog at Crufts and not at the trial?


Well, as the scar on the bulldog's eye was an injury when he was a pup, it would have been there at BUBA as well as at Crufts - one vet didn't disqualify it for that, another did.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> Its interesting that you are starting to use words like "scream" instead of "ask"


Just got home and got this far.  I was watching the video and some people were getting very irate and loud, they seemed to be demanding not asking, I based my emotive language on their emotive language.  Point taken though. :thumbsup:



> How do you come to that conclusion after reading the following paragraph in the document:
> We need to demonstrate to the world that we are very serious about the health and welfare of our dogs and not just 15 exhibits.


By asking for the vet checks to stop immediately, suggesting that a biased vet who breeds bassets for show has a more acceptable view of the dog and asking for a one off MOT at 12 months by their own vet.

I agree, they do need to demonstrate to the world that they are serious. I don't agree that they have so far.

Your dog is exactly my type. Gorgeous. :001_wub:

ETA: Of course I mean Bijou's dog, I think it would be pretty obvious that I like at least one of Spellweaver's breeds. 

Second ETA: By they, I mean the collective CA, not the individuals. Some of the individuals come across quite well tbh.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> It was the KC who orignally said that:
> 
> "The Vet will be checking for obvious signs of ill health and especially for signs of eye discomfort or inflammation, lameness, respiratory difficulty and skin inflammation and no special diagnostic aids will be used so all of these signs of ill health would be noticeable by the Judge."
> 
> ...


No problem, a very good link, however we do see the written word from different angles and understanding.
As long as the dogs benefit from all this, I'll be a happy bunny 



Spellweaver said:


> Oh, sorry - thought you had said previously that you were speaking with authority because of your experience in showing.
> 
> :


So reading Champdogs forum is a must for those that need to be in the know is it? 
Does everyone agree on there?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rona said:


> No problem, a very good link, however we do see the written word from different angles and understanding.
> As long as the dogs benefit from all this, I'll be a happy bunny


True, for me that's the importance of clarity, to remove interpretation. The comments made by Steve Dean in Dogworld presented things in a far more detailed and granular manner. IMO that is what should have been detailed in that article, would probably have caused fewer arguments.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

You are determined to force an argument, aren't you? Please stop twisting my words.

You erroneously stated that no-one had voiced an opinion about worries over the proposed checks and I replied:



Spellweaver said:


> That's not true though - there were mutterings about it before they took place - people were writing to the dog press expressing their doubts that it would work, and people were discussing the possible pitfalls on "serious" forums such as champdogs


and expressed surprise that someone as self-professed in showing as you did not know of this dissatisfaction.

You then replied:



rona said:


> No but then why should I?
> I don't show and have no interest in showing.


A remark which I found puzzling because of your previous insistence on your showing experience. However, I apologised for having misunderstood you:



Spellweaver said:


> Oh, sorry - thought you had said previously that you were speaking with authority because of your experience in showing.


So how on earth you get from that to this:



rona said:


> So reading Champdogs forum is a must for those that need to be in the know is it?
> Does everyone agree on there?


is beyond me, except as a deliberate attempt to cause an argument. Is that really what you want?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> Great. Why all of the concern over suspension of the health checks if they're pointless?


Because what the vet did was try to give the dog a proper check - and this group then lambasted him/her for doing it. Someone is trying to fool everyone that the group is looking for something better when they're not. My only concern is for the dogs; if Crufts never happened again I wouldn't lose any sleep.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> if Crufts never happened again I wouldn't lose any sleep.


Thats a shame, those that really care still would.....why? because the end of crufts, wouldnt be the end of the suffering for the poor dogs :closedeyes:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Because what the vet did was try to give the dog a proper check - and this group then lambasted him/her for doing it. Someone is trying to fool everyone that the group is looking for something better when they're not. My only concern is for the dogs; if Crufts never happened again I wouldn't lose any sleep.


Dog showing and Crufts isn't really the problem though and could hopefully in the future with the KC and under Steve Dean (my new hero ) be a force for good in the world of dogs.
That's how it should have been, but somehow it got taken over by people blinded by the glory or whatever else makes people blind to what is happening


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Thats a shame, those that really care still would.....why? because the end of crufts, wouldnt be the end of the suffering for the poor dogs :closedeyes:


So to "really care" I have to support Crufts... "complete tosh", as a friend would say.

The end of Crufts wouldn't be the end of suffering but (as it stands, without health checks and with a group opposing even the small measures taken) the end of Crufts would mean there would be nothing for the exhibitors to breed these dogs to compete for so the element of competition which has caused the breed standards / health problems would be gone. If Crufts cannot support dog's health as number one, then it genuinely is the pointless beauty parade that some of exhibitors admit (at the group meeting) think it is.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

rona said:


> Dog showing and Crufts isn't really the problem though and could hopefully in the future with the KC and under Steve Dean (my new hero ) be a force for good in the world of dogs.
> That's how it should have been, but somehow it got taken over by people blinded by the glory or whatever else makes people blind to what is happening


But allowing this group to control the KC (as they have done for so long) will not see Crufts move on in terms of health.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So to "really care" I have to support Crufts... "complete tosh", as a friend would say.
> 
> The end of Crufts wouldn't be the end of suffering but (as it stands, without health checks and with a group opposing even the small measures taken) the end of Crufts would mean there would be nothing for the exhibitors to breed these dogs to compete for so the element of competition which has caused the breed standards / health problems would be gone. If Crufts cannot support dog's health as number one, then it genuinely is the pointless beauty parade that some of exhibitors admit (at the group meeting) many think it is.


Oh dear Elmo - where have I said to care you have to support crufts, I cared long before I 'agreed' with showing  You see ive seen both sides of the show ring, and the pet world and can appreciate that good comes in both, as well as the bad. Those aiming for the good will work bloody hard to rid the bad! not just make statements on a forum about those that wish to show, compete at crufts breed show dogs and such. Their out their working for better - and I guess thats the funniest thing of all, those with the sweeping statements arent involved in either helping make change or with the hobby altogether.

Crufts isnt the bee all and end all, believe me..only a fool would think so :thumbsup:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But allowing this group to control the KC (as they have done for so long) will not see Crufts move on in terms of health.


Well luckily, so far the KC hasn't backed down. Well not publicly anyway.
We can only hope


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But allowing this group to control the KC (as they have done for so long) will not see Crufts move on in terms of health.


erm please do clear up here as I for sure am confused...whos controlling the KC..what group? :eek6:


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Oh dear Elmo - where have I said to care you have to support crufts,


In your last post. "Those who really care do" you said.

Crufts (and shows like it "conformation shows" are the problem. The breed standards and conformation to them is, without question, the root cause of the issues. This group opposes even the small advances the KC tried to make (very small) at Crufts. If Crufts and other conformation shows did not exists then the problem would not exist.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Devil-Dogz said:


> erm please do clear up here as I for sure am confused...whos controlling the KC..what group? :eek6:


The breeders and exhibitors. You yourself, when I criticised the KC about breed standards, stated time after time that the breed clubs controlled the breed standards (the problem) and therefore control the issue.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Their out their working for better - and I guess thats the funniest thing of all, those with the sweeping statements arent involved in either helping make change or with the hobby altogether.
> 
> Crufts isnt the bee all and end all, believe me..only a fool would think so :thumbsup:


Their out there working for their own self interest, not that of the dogs to be exhibited.

So what are you personally doing? Have you stopped breeding and showing until such time as the KC have full and proper independent vet checks for any dogs offered up as "the best" at a conformation show?

As I don't breed dogs to exhibit, the only thing I can actually do to help is oppose those that do. So I would like to help, if you can let me have the phone numbers of all the "exhibitors" I'll ring them and ask them to stop - happy to help :thumbsup:


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> In your last post. "Those who really care do" you said.
> 
> Crufts (and shows like it "conformation shows" are the problem. The breed standards and conformation to them is, without question, the root cause of the issues. This group opposes even the small advances the KC tried to make (very small) at Crufts. If Crufts and other conformation shows did not exists then the problem would not exist.


I said those that care still would, as the end of crufts wouldnt mean the end of suffering. NO where in that status says to care you have to support crufts, you twisted my words (as always).

The problem would still exist in and out of pedigree dogs. Because you will always find breeders, breeding without consideration of health let that be through genetics, or conformation.
- although I can stand up myself and say, yes showing does play a part although shows themselves are not responsible, nor are all show breeders.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> The breeders and exhibitors. You yourself, when I criticised the KC about breed standards, stated time after time that the breed clubs controlled the breed standards (the problem) and therefore control the issue.


So by this I take it that you mean the breed standards that those involved in a breed set are to blame? so shall we change them?? because I can tell you now, that wont stop people breeding in exaggerated features, or stop people breeding dogs that suffer. - the reviews and changes in the standards proved that, things were altered but folk will still over do things stated in a standard - NO MATTER what they say!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> So by this I take it that you mean the breed standards that those involved in a breed set are to blame? so shall we change them?? because I can tell you now, that wont stop people breeding in exaggerated features, or stop people breeding dogs that suffer. - the reviews and changes in the standards proved that, things were altered but folk will still over do things stated in a standard - NO MATTER what they say!


You are a breath of fresh air from within the show world


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Their out there working for their own self interest, not that of the dogs to be exhibited.
> 
> So what are you personally doing? Have you stopped breeding and showing until such time as the KC have full and proper independent vet checks for any dogs offered up as "the best" at a conformation show?
> 
> As I don't breed dogs to exhibit, the only thing I can actually do to help is oppose those that do. So I would like to help, if you can let me have the phone numbers of all the "exhibitors" I'll ring them and ask them to stop - happy to help :thumbsup:


Theres no point even talking with you is there?? You see/state what you want. You have a very narrow minded view, you try and be funny, and you insult the experience, knowledge and damn right hard work that some folk try so hard to put in! & due to that I simply can not be bothered...

Must get ready for a show tomorrow :thumbsup: :laugh:


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Because what the vet did was try to give the dog a proper check - and this group then lambasted him/her for doing it. Someone is trying to fool everyone that the group is looking for something better when they're not. My only concern is for the dogs; if Crufts never happened again I wouldn't lose any sleep.


So the kennel club endorsed vet checks aren't pointless now??

I'm not sure if this will come as a blow to you or something good, but a lot of posters on the CA Facebook page have been suggesting that show dogs should not only pass a vet check but also pass the health tests relevant to the breed.

Exhibitors aside, I think a great many people who participate in obedience, HTM, agility, flyball and Cani-X would be pretty upset if Crufts ended.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So to "really care" I have to support Crufts... "complete tosh", as a friend would say.
> 
> The end of Crufts wouldn't be the end of suffering but (as it stands, without health checks and with a group opposing even the small measures taken) the end of Crufts would mean there would be nothing for the exhibitors to breed these dogs to compete for so the element of competition which has caused the breed standards / health problems would be gone. If Crufts cannot support dog's health as number one, then it genuinely is the pointless beauty parade that some of exhibitors admit (at the group meeting) think it is.


The exhibitors could still attend one of the other 3000 KC licensed shows each year.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Theres no point even talking with you is there?? You see/state what you want. You have a very narrow minded view, you try and be funny, and you insult the experience, knowledge and damn right hard work that some folk try so hard to put in! & due to that I simply can not be bothered...
> 
> Must get ready for a show tomorrow :thumbsup: :laugh:


And look what all that experience and "hard work" has done for dogs..... all those health problems are there because of breeders and breed standards and their "narrow minds".

"Experience and damn hard work" - if you mean the qualified vets and their proper qualifications and experience? I think you'll find it's the little faction that the exhibitors have started that is insulting proper professionals by comparing them with judges who have no proper qualification to comment on the health of a dog.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> The exhibitors could still attend one of the other 3000 KC licensed shows each year.


That's the shame of it. One group tries to do a little (very little) to start the long journey to address health and the exhibitors stamp their feed and threaten to take the ball home.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> And look what all that experience and "hard work" has done for dogs..... all those health problems are there because of breeders and breed standards and their "narrow minds".
> 
> Experience and damn hard work - if you mean the qualified vets and their proper qualifications and experience? I think you'll find it's the little faction that the exhibitors have started that is insulting proper professionals by comparing them with judges who have no proper qualification to comment on the health of a dog.


I am not and have never said that health issues are not present due to breeders. But I think you will find a damn sight more show breeders test before breeding than general pet folk. - MANY breeders test without a need to, simply so problems dont occur/widen in a breed or breeding programme. (WHY would they do this unless they care, its of no other benefit?)

You cant compare vets and judges because both are trained and qualifed in difference areas, and as such neither can do the others job..


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> So the kennel club endorsed vet checks aren't pointless now??
> 
> I'm not sure if this will come as a blow to you or something good, but a lot of posters on the CA Facebook page have been suggesting that show dogs should not only pass a vet check but also pass the health tests relevant to the breed.
> 
> Exhibitors aside, I think a great many people who participate in obedience, HTM, agility, flyball and Cani-X would be pretty upset if Crufts ended.


No, the KC vet checks are pointless, but the move towards health checks was not.

The host of the meeting stated " a basic health check"... for the "best dogs in the world".

Other exhibitors stated that Crufts was a beauty parade and health should have nothing to do with it.

let me see if I can guess who will decided what tests are "relevant" ... and even which vets will do the tests?


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> No, the KC vet checks are pointless


Really? I dont believe so, nor do MANY show folk.. Infact ALOT want it widened to all breeds


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Devil-Dogz said:


> You cant compare vets and judges because both are trained and qualifed in difference areas, and as such neither can do the others job..


I'm not the one who wants to compare them, a vet is a professional with a recognised qualification; a judge is not. The group is complaining that the two should have the same opportunity to examine the dog yet one is simply kicking tyres and the other knows what they are doing (but will not be allowed to do it).


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Really? I dont believe so, nor do MANY show folk.. Infact ALOT want it widened to all breeds


Yes, they want a check that is restricted to five minutes, can only check "visible" issues, with no instruments ,extended to all breeds.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I'm not the one who wants to compare them, a vet is a professional with a recognised qualification; a judge is not. The group is complaining that the two should have the same opportunity to examine the dog yet one is simply kicking tyres and the other knows what they are doing (but will not be allowed to do it).


what was stated was, that the vet should only be able to check the dog in the same way a judge could. - as its slightly unfair that a vet could fail a dog due to something a judge couldnt possibly have ever seen/known....as like you say, a judge isnt qualifed in that area....


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Devil-Dogz said:


> what was stated was, that the vet should only be able to check the dog in the same way a judge could. - as its slightly unfair that a vet could fail a dog due to something a judge couldnt possibly have ever seen/known....as like you say, a judge isnt qualifed in that area....


But the judge wouldn't know because he/she is not qualified to comment on the health of a dog. So to say to a vet you can do a check, but how we (the unqualified) want you to do it, under restrictions set by people who aren't vets, is like saying to a mechanic, I want you to change my clutch, but you can't put the car on those big ramp things cos I haven't got any so it's not fair.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> That's the shame of it. One group tries to do a little (very little) to start the long journey to address health and the exhibitors stamp their feed and threaten to take the ball home.


I'm struggling to make sense of that. The health checks will be undertaken at all champ shows from now onwards. All the shows are licensed by the KC who initiated them ???


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Devil-Dogz said:


> what was stated was, that the vet should only be able to check the dog in the same way a judge could. - as its slightly unfair that a vet could fail a dog due to something a judge couldnt possibly have ever seen/known....as like you say, a judge isnt qualifed in that area....


See I think this is wrong, A sick dog is a sick dog no matter what a judge says.
If a vet sees something a judge misses, what's the problem with that as long as we get happier healthier dogs in the end?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> No, the KC vet checks are pointless, but the move towards health checks was not.
> 
> The host of the meeting stated " a basic health check"... for the "best dogs in the world".
> 
> ...


The health checks at Crufts were KC initiated and endorsed and will be going forward. Make your mind up.

Nice to see you glossed over and ignored CA members requesting health testing more stringent than that seen at Crufts


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> But the judge wouldn't know because he/she is not qualified to comment on the health of a dog. So to say to a vet you can do a check, but how we (the unqualified) want you to do it, under restrictions set by people who aren't vets, is like saying to a mechanic, I want you to change my clutch, but you can't put the car on those big ramp things cos I haven't got any so it's not fair.


I see both sides of it. I feel no dog should take top honours if suffering a health issue, but I also feel its something that shouldnt be kept under wraps. - I also see the points others have made with regards to how the checks are done/not done. vaild points have been made from both sides. I dont care about breeders reputations crumbled because of a failed vet check - I care about the dogs...

The Chinese Crested passed his check, however if he had a marked deemed as a clipper scratch he would have failed - my issue with that is, how does this affect the breed, puppies from that dog in the overall picture..??

My dogs play like mental monsters, and sometimes scratch each other, scrape as they run past a tree.. If these marked were deemed from shaving my dog would fail as a concern of health, no what would be worse was me not allowing them to be dogs in fear that I would be seen as a bad owner, for cutting my dog while grooming when in actual fact I just let them be dogs..


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> The health checks at Crufts were KC initiated and endorsed and will be going forward. Make your mind up.
> 
> Nice to see you glossed over and ignored CA members requesting health testing more stringent than that seen at Crufts


They're not asking for more stringent, they're asking for the same "check" but just for more breeds. My position has been exactly the same throughout this (not matter how many times you change the response). The minimal tests at Crufts were only a start and already the exhibitors are opposing them.. if they don't want even this very small step, they will (and do) oppose anything more than the 5 minute tyre kick.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> Nice to see you glossed over and ignored CA members requesting health testing more stringent than that seen at Crufts


I must have missed that too, and I thought I'd read and seen all that had been posted in the last few days :Yawn: 
Won't be catching up any time soon either cos I'm hoping to be away this weekend with no Internet access :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

rona said:


> Won't be catching up any time soon either cos I'm hoping to be away this weekend with no Internet access :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


BLISS!!!! Im at a show tomorrow, not my own dogs think I am handling cavmads male PP and then got my committee meeting and work on sunday. Keep myself busy and off of places like here :thumbsup:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> They're not asking for more stringent, they're asking for the same "check" but just for more breeds. My position has been exactly the same throughout this (not matter how many times you change the response). The minimal tests at Crufts were only a start and already the exhibitors are opposing them.. if they don't want even this very small step, they will (and do) oppose anything more than the 5 minute tyre kick.


Must admit that that is my understanding of the statements too. Don't know how anyone could take them any other way!
Unless I have missed something?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> They're not asking for more stringent, they're asking for the same "check" but just for more breeds. My position has been exactly the same throughout this (not matter how many times you change the response). The minimal tests at Crufts were only a start and already the exhibitors are opposing them.. if they don't want even this very small step, they will (and do) oppose anything more than the 5 minute tyre kick.


Read the posts on the Facebook group. Not sure where I've been changing my responses but you seem to be every post. The Crufts health tests are now minimal??


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> Read the posts on the Facebook group. Not sure where I've been changing my responses but you seem to be every post. The Crufts health tests are now minimal??


Not on FB.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> Read the posts on the Facebook group. Not sure where I've been changing my responses but you seem to be every post. The Crufts health tests are now minimal??


They are minimal so that makes them pointless... doesn't matter how you twist it round...


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> They are minimal so that makes them pointless... doesn't matter how you twist it round...


Better than nothing, minimals a starting point...surely?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> Read the posts on the Facebook group. Not sure where I've been changing my responses but you seem to be every post. The Crufts health tests are now minimal??


You want me to join a FB groups populated by people who call their dogs "exhibits"... no thanks. I suffered the video so I know what they stand for... I read their submission to the KC as well.... says nothing about improving health tests. I think I've wasted enough time reading that drivel.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rona said:


> Not on FB.


There are posters who would like to see all relevant health tests undertaken for a breed to be shown whether the dog will be bred from or not.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Devil-Dogz said:


> Better than nothing, minimals a starting point...surely?


But the group are objecting to even that... and minimal is only better if it's a start (otherwise it's pointless), not simply an excuse to do nothing else and pretend that all is now well.

I don't believe it is a start, I think the KC think "that's it" and the group think "we'll have that, without the torch, five minutes and we get to choose the vet"


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> There are posters who would like to see all relevant health tests undertaken for a breed to be shown whether the dog will be bred from or not.


See there you go again "relevant" in whose eyes? A:An independent vet? B:A tyre kicker? or C:Someone who calls their dog "exhibit" ?

... I'll bet it's anything other than A.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> They are minimal so that makes them pointless... doesn't matter how you twist it round...


Read the account I posted earlier regarding the pug's health test at Crufts. That was far from minimal, in fact of appreciate it if my own vets were that comprehensive when I take them in for their annual checkup and boosters.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> You want me to join a FB groups populated by people who call their dogs "exhibits"... no thanks. I suffered the video so I know what they stand for... I read their submission to the KC as well.... says nothing about improving health tests. I think I've wasted enough time reading that drivel.


Not especially, although it would be interesting to see you put your points across to them.

It's always useful to be well informed of both sided of an argument though.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

I don't think the KC or the CA have that attitude at all - Both are aware something needs doing, and change needs to happen. However we all know that not everyone will be pleased with decisions and it wont all happen over night. I dont know what the KCs next step will be and I dont know what the out come of the CA will be. But I have high hopes for both.. MANY people in the show world care alot about health in their own dogs as well as the breed and many of them are in support of the CA, its attracted some decent people with great knowledge and that can only be a good thing.. Time will tell..

Im just sick of the nagging do gooders, that moan about anything associated with the dog show world yet stick two fingers up every time someone trys to achieve something to help move in a more positive direction. Half the time I think they cant do right from wrong.

Im passed caring of folks opinions. The dogs are what I care for, not a reputation, pleasing folk, following a crowd or any other crap.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> There are posters who would like to see all relevant health tests undertaken for a breed to be shown whether the dog will be bred from or not.


Yes I'm sure there are. What I found a little worrying is that several people at that meeting disagreed and wanted them stopped all together, yet they will still be respected by the vast majority of people who show dogs.
This has always been my bugbear.
Yes there are 100s if not 1000s of people who show, health test, care for their dogs properly, but they still protect and support those that don't.
Too many dogs have already suffered, about time for the good to stand up and be counted, there's enough of you now to say no more


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> See there you go again "relevant" in whose eyes? A:An independent vet? B:A tyre kicker? or C:Someone who calls their dog "exhibit" ?
> 
> ... I'll bet it's anything other than A.


Relevant to the specialist BVA schemes which have quantified metrics to qualify the results by independent expert vets. Hip Dysplasia and Elbow Dysplasia being two examples.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rona said:


> Yes I'm sure there are. What I found a little worrying is that several people at that meeting disagreed and wanted them stopped all together, yet they will still be respected by the vast majority of people who show dogs.
> This has always been my bugbear.
> Yes there are 100s if not 1000s of people who show, health test, care for their dogs properly, but they still protect and support those that don't.
> Too many dogs have already suffered, about time for the good to stand up and be counted, there's enough of you now to say no more


They won't be respected by me. Seeing several meeting attendees tomorrow, I'll have more insight on things then.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> They won't be respected by me. Seeing several meeting attendees tomorrow, I'll have more insight on things then.


No
I'd already worked out that you weren't one of them.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> Not especially, although it would be interesting to see you put your points across to them.
> 
> It's always useful to be well informed of both sided of an argument though.


I consider these people to be the cause, not the solution. I can only be well informed of their argument if their argument is well informed, which it is not. It is based on a view I don't share; that dogs are exhibits and that Crufts is an appropriate place to exhibit their example of the breed standard and have it judged as such, not to have the exhibit judged or otherwise, based on "it" being a healthy example of the exhibit because the breed standard does not require "it" to be healthy.

If the people involved genuinely had an appropriate view on this they would have put health in the breed standard from the start, at some point in history, or even now... right now... but nothing, nothing at all (as I have been told so many times on here, the breed standard is within their gift, not the gift of the KC).

These are people trying to avoid even the smallest move towards some kind of health standard for the "exhibits" they hold aloft as the "best".

Their meetings talk of "others" as the problem... that's it's not them that are the problem... "look at the puppy farms" etc etc.. blame someone else it's not us. But puppy farmers and "others" do not (cannot) turn up to Crufts, the closed shop operates so it can only be them holding their exhibit up as "the best" and still they avoid, duck, dive, dodge.... surely they would want to be able to say "this is the best exhibit in terms of matching the breed standard and point one of that breed standard says my dog must be able to pass an independent health test set out by a qualified person"....

.. why does the group not do that? They don't even need to talk to the KC.. they are the breed people... change the standard.. do it now.?.... no?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> Relevant to the specialist BVA schemes which have quantified metrics to qualify the results by independent expert vets. Hip Dysplasia and Elbow Dysplasia being two examples.


Just that? The schemes are laid out by the BVA, but who chooses what dogs are checked for what?

Why not just allow the vet to decide?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> I don't think the KC or the CA have that attitude at all - Both are aware something needs doing, and change needs to happen. However we all know that not everyone will be pleased with decisions and it wont all happen over night. I dont know what the KCs next step will be and I dont know what the out come of the CA will be. But I have high hopes for both.. MANY people in the show world care alot about health in their own dogs as well as the breed and many of them are in support of the CA, its attracted some decent people with great knowledge and that can only be a good thing.. Time will tell..
> 
> Im just sick of the nagging do gooders, that moan about anything associated with the dog show world yet stick two fingers up every time someone trys to achieve something to help move in a more positive direction. Half the time I think they cant do right from wrong.
> 
> Im passed caring of folks opinions. The dogs are what I care for, not a reputation, pleasing folk, following a crowd or any other crap.


Well said! At the end of the day, the opinions of idiots who know nothing at all about which they're pontificating are just so much hot air. Whatever people like these think, as you say there are MANY people - both in and out of the alliance - who are working their arses off to improve the health and welfare of pedigree dogs. _ That_ is what important. _That_ is what is actually happening.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

> Relevant to the specialist BVA schemes which have quantified metrics to qualify the results by independent expert vets. Hip Dysplasia and Elbow Dysplasia being two examples.


Snoringbear I hope that you realize that there are a huge number of breeds that have no recommended tests expected by the KC, even though these breeds have many inherent problems.

While I know many larger breeds have recommendations for hip or elbow screening etc., many, many small breeds are lacking.

So when Elmo asks which tests will be seen as relevent I understand that concern.

What are the proposals regarding health exams regarding breeds with no, or minimal, recommended health tests? Pugs are one. They still, IMHO, should have the basics looked at regardless but I have seen nothing addressing this type of situation in what has been proposed so far. For ex. what would a vet doing a yearly check be allowed to point out about a dog if there are no areas of recommended testing?

CC


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

comfortcreature said:


> Snoringbear I hope that you realize that there are a huge number of breeds that have no recommended tests expected by the KC, even though these breeds have many inherent problems.
> 
> While I know many larger breeds have recommendations for hip or elbow screening etc., many, many small breeds are lacking.
> 
> ...


I'm aware of the discrepancy of KC recommended health tests between breeds. I don't know what the CA or pug breed clubs are doing regarding health tests, sorry. This is what we're doing now, it's pushing for more than the KC ABS requirements.

BRONZE AWARD 6+ months
The dog must be micro chipped 
Have a full vet/health check (forms will be provided by the club)

SILVER AWARD 12 + months
The dog must be micro chipped and DNA profiled
Have a full vet check (forms will be provided by the club)
BVA Hip Score and BVA Elbow Score

GOLD AWARD 12+ months
The dog must be micro chipped and DNA profiled
Have a full vet check (forms will be provided by the club)
BVA Hip Score below 25 
BVA Elbow Score 2 and below
Clear BVA Eye Test
BVA Heart Test


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Just that? The schemes are laid out by the BVA, but who chooses what dogs are checked for what?
> 
> Why not just allow the vet to decide?


No, not just that. The clue was in "two examples" there are plenty of other tests available.

Is that really a serious question? Breeders decide to have their dogs tested. Under what circumstances are you expecting a vet to instruct that a dog be hip and elbow scored? Are you suggesting that at a show the vet health checking my dog can say that my dog has to be immediately hip and elbow scored, taken away put under anesthetic and I pay about £300 for the privilege?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I think I've wasted enough time reading that drivel.


Let's hope that means you won't be writing any more drivel :001_tt2:


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Well said! At the end of the day, the opinions of idiots who know nothing at all about which they're pontificating are just so much hot air. Whatever people like these think, as you say there are MANY people - both in and out of the alliance - who are working their arses off to improve the health and welfare of pedigree dogs. _ That_ is what important. _That_ is what is actually happening.


You people, those people, idiots who know nothing ..... is that really how you view every one who does not happen to show? Pretty sad if so, you are writing off a very large proportion of dog lovers/owners


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Snoringbear said:


> I'm aware of the discrepancy of KC recommended health tests between breeds. I don't know what the CA or pug breed clubs are doing regarding health tests, sorry. This is what we're doing now, it's pushing for more than the KC ABS requirements. . . .


While it is good to know that some clubs are asking for more, my question and concern still remains for those that insist on doing less.

CC


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Devil-Dogz said:


> I don't think the KC or the CA have that attitude at all - Both are aware something needs doing, and change needs to happen. However we all know that not everyone will be pleased with decisions and it wont all happen over night. I dont know what the KCs next step will be and I dont know what the out come of the CA will be. But I have high hopes for both.. MANY people in the show world care alot about health in their own dogs as well as the breed and many of them are in support of the CA, its attracted some decent people with great knowledge and that can only be a good thing.. Time will tell..
> 
> Im just sick of the nagging do gooders, that moan about anything associated with the dog show world yet stick two fingers up every time someone trys to achieve something to help move in a more positive direction. Half the time I think they cant do right from wrong.
> 
> Im passed caring of folks opinions. The dogs are what I care for, not a reputation, pleasing folk, following a crowd or any other crap.


well said Kerry!
i too am optomistic for the future, i really believe the Alliance can only be a good thing, it accepts that there are problems within some breeds, so assuming that most involved are like the people ive got to know on the show scene over the years, people who want to do the best for their dogs and the breed theyre passionate about then i feel we now have a voice, one which can push for improvements in welfare for pedigree dogs across the board, and i for one am thrilled the issue of puppy farmers and byb's has already been brought up, lets see if the KC will put morals before money on this one.

and like the majority i love my exhibits:001_wub: Elmo lol


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> You people, those people, idiots who know nothing ..... is that really how you view every one who does not happen to show? Pretty sad if so, you are writing off a very large proportion of dog lovers/owners


No, I did not mean that at all - although I can see how you might have thought that from my post and I'm sorry I ddn't make my point more clearly. I was answering this post of DD's, and the idiots I referred to are the ones she is talking about - the ones who just want to moan and criticise and don't really care what the subject is.



Devil-Dogz said:


> Im just sick of the nagging do gooders, that moan about anything associated with the dog show world yet stick two fingers up every time someone trys to achieve something to help move in a more positive direction. Half the time I think they cant do right from wrong.


We have one or two excellent examples of that kind of poster on here - both from the show world and not from the show world - and it's those kind of posters whose opinions are just so much hot air. It's obvious from the things they post that they may have glanced at the videos, they may have skim-read the document, but they are not really interested in having a sensible debate on the subject; all they are interested in is having a go at people who are trying to do something.

On the other hand, there have been some excellent debates with people who are not in the show world, particularly with Elles, CC and yourself (now, bet that made you spill your coffee  ) who have obviously read and/or watched and come up with some very salient points for discussion.

So, as I said, I did not mean to make the demarcation between show/non-show people, but between those who care and those who just want to moan and criticise, and I'm sorry that I did not make that point more clearly.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> and like the majority i love my exhibits:001_wub: Elmo lol


I notice with many of the "best" dogs at crufts, the owners not only don't turn up with their "exhibit", they're not even in the country or are actually watching.

The "handler" of one dog I recall said the owners (in Brazil, in this case it sounded like a racehorse syndicate) would be delighted when his manager let them know.... can't say I'm feeling the love.

The issue of puppy farming was brought up by the group as an afterthought, in a "blame them, not us" idea, clearly to divert attention away from their avoidance and opposition to even minimal health checks for the "best" dogs.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Of course this happens at the top level with horses quite a bit. The rider isn't the owner/s and some are professionals with hefty sponsorship. I'm sure some of the riders are very upset when the horse is sold out from under them. Just because an owner isn't the handler or breeder, it doesn't mean the person actually responsible for the dog, but not responsible for the bills doesn't care about their charges. 

I'm sure, just like in the horse world, some of them don't actually care about the animal either, but I wouldn't say that because the owner isn't involved with the dog, no-one cares about the dog at all.

Maybe it'll end up like the horse world. With individual societies and competitions set up for the exaggerated versions, separate from the general society or in this case, the KC. The Arabian Horse in the US is a perfect example of this in the horse world. With exaggerated trophy horses paraded around, owned by people who wouldn't know one end of a horse from another and handled by people who like the attention and the money, members of a separate society who specialise in running the shows and registering these types. Maybe there's more money in horses though, especially in America.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> Of course this happens at the top level with horses quite a bit. The rider isn't the owner/s and some are professionals with hefty sponsorship. I'm sure some of the riders are very upset when the horse is sold out from under them. Just because an owner isn't the handler or breeder, it doesn't mean the person actually responsible for the dog, but not responsible for the bills doesn't care about their charges.
> 
> I'm sure, just like in the horse world, some of them don't actually care about the animal either, but I wouldn't say that because the owner isn't involved with the dog, no-one cares about the dog at all.
> 
> Maybe it'll end up like the horse world. With individual societies and competitions set up for the exaggerated versions, separate from the general society or in this case, the KC. The Arabian Horse in the US is a perfect example of this in the horse world. With exaggerated trophy horses paraded around, owned by people who wouldn't know one end of a horse from another and handled by people who like the attention and the money, members of a separate society who specialise in running the shows and registering these types. Maybe there's more money in horses though, especially in America.


There's certainly not that much prize money in dogs - £100 for winning Best in Show at Crufts! :lol:

Not surprisingly, once again Elmo is spouting off on something about which he knows nothing. The reverse of what he is trying to pretend is actually true - at Crufts, you are much more likely to see a whole retinue of people with a dog from abroad - the owners, the handler, and their family and freinds. If the owner isn't there with the dog and the handler it is much more likely to be because of the expense of travelling or an inability to travel rather than anything else - and in no way does that mean the owner doesn't love or care about the dog.

For example, Laura from Caleykiz who handles Quinny for me wants to take him to Belfast to show him this year (I can't go, can't get the holidays off work) . He loves Laura and would be perfectly happy to go with her for the three days, but I haven't decided what to do yet. However, if I do let him go it will not mean I don't love him or care about him - in fact, I will miss him sooooo much that letting him go so that he can compete in Ireland will actually be quite a sacrifice for me. It's my guess the owner from Brazil that the muppet above was so erroneously scathing about felt exactly the same - otherwise why would the handler have been straight on the phone?

You don't get many professional handlers in this country - there are a few, but the practice is much more prevalent in the USA. There, it is not unusual for handlers to go on the road for months with several dogs from several owners, travelling around the country to various shows. Here, whilst people do handle dogs for other people, it is much more likely to be done out of friendship, or breeders handling for people who have bought dogs from them, or people in the breed helping out because someone is ill or injured.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Sounds a far more sensible view of it in the UK. :thumbsup:


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Do not have either the time, patience or concentration required to read the entire content of this thread, but just wanted to say have read some cracking posts made by Devil-Dogz. Who irrespective of her tender age had put both sides forward in a professional manner
Well Done Kerry.
x


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I notice with many of the "best" dogs at crufts, the owners not only don't turn up with their "exhibit", they're not even in the country or are actually watching The "handler" of one dog I recall said the owners (in Brazil, in this case it sounded like a racehorse syndicate) would be delighted when his manager let them know.... can't say I'm feeling the love.
> 
> The issue of puppy farming was brought up by the group as an afterthought, in a "blame them, not us" idea, clearly to divert attention away from their avoidance and opposition to even minimal health checks for the "best" dogs.


Wow Elmo how on earth do you know all this?!: :eek6:

and this!! where do you get your info from?, ...deary me

Spellweaver has explained very well how most of our 'exhibits' are treated in the UK, its not like America here where its common for dogs to live with handlers rather than owners, infact ive never come across a single dog who didnt live with its owner, might be showed by someone else, ive had someone show for me on occasions but the dog still came home with me :thumbsup:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> Wow Elmo how on earth do you know all this?!: :eek6:
> 
> and this!! where do you get your info from?, ...deary me


:lol: It's obvious Noush. He was clearly at Crufts all four days, and is clearly a founder member of the Canine Alliance. How else could he *notice* anything about "many of the best dogs at Crufts" if he was not there all four days? How else could he have an intimate knowledge of the thought processes behind the proposals of the Canine Alliance if he was not there when they were forming their proposals?

Oh - just thought - he* could* be making it all up, I suppose. :yikes:


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> :lol: It's obvious Noush. He was clearly at Crufts all four days, and is clearly a founder member of the Canine Alliance. How else could he *notice* anything about "many of the best dogs at Crufts" if he was not there all four days? How else could he have an intimate knowledge of the thought processes behind the proposals of the Canine Alliance if he was not there when they were forming their proposals?
> 
> Oh - just thought - he* could* be making it all up, I suppose. :yikes:


 OMG surely Not making it up!:eek6:.... there i was thinking you'd hit the nail on the head in your 1st paragraph :lol:


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> Wow Elmo how on earth do you know all this?!: :eek6:
> 
> and this!! where do you get your info from?, ...deary me
> 
> Spellweaver has explained very well how most of our 'exhibits' are treated in the UK, its not like America here where its common for dogs to live with handlers rather than owners, infact ive never come across a single dog who didnt live with its owner, might be showed by someone else, ive had someone show for me on occasions but the dog still came home with me :thumbsup:


You should watch Crufts. It was on the TV. (not very good though) And Crufts is international (last time I looked) so I don't know what the "UK" bit of your post was about... but hey, you know the world expert


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> You should watch Crufts. It was on the TV. (not very good though) And Crufts is international (last time I looked) so I don't know what the "UK" bit of your post was about... but hey, you know the world expert


most on here are in the UK and the vast majority of entries at Crufts are from the UK, and its rare dogs belong to 'syndicates' here, some might be co-owned but 1st and foremost they are still much loved pets:thumbsup: ... anyway youve still not actually answered my question lol...so how is it that you know that many of the owners of the best exhibits dont turn up at Crufts, arnt even in the country or are actually watching??

im very intrigued where you get your information from:thumbsup:


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> You should watch Crufts. It was on the TV. (not very good though) And Crufts is international (last time I looked) so I don't know what the "UK" bit of your post was about... but hey, you know the world expert


Elmo!
You are full of it!

To make it plain english just insert SH where it counts!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> most on here are in the UK and the vast majority of entries at Crufts are from the UK, and its rare dogs belong to 'syndicates' here, some might be co-owned but 1st and foremost they are still much loved pets:thumbsup: ... anyway youve still not actually answered my question lol...so how is it that you know that many of the owners of the best exhibits dont turn up at Crufts, arnt even in the country or are actually watching??
> 
> im very intrigued where you get your information from:thumbsup:


I was referring to Crufts not people on here. The issue of the thread is crufts.

I said "many" not "most" and the many comes the "many" handlers interviewed after they had won something. I watched most of the highlights which included all of the BOB handlers and "many" of them were "handling" and exhibit for a third party and the owners were not at the show.

It was on the telly; I've never seen anyone tried to hide this fact.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I was referring to Crufts not people on here. The issue of the thread is crufts.


No - the issue of the thread is the Canine Alliance and its stance against health checks in their present form. (Hint - the clue is in the title!) Crufts is incidental to the thread - it is merely the championship show where the first health checks after the initial trial took place. If the first checks had taken place at WELKS would you be saying the thread is about WELKS?



Elmo the Bear said:


> I said "many" not "most" and the many comes the "many" handlers interviewed after they had won something. I watched most of the highlights which included all of the BOB handlers and "many" of them were "handling" and exhibit for a third party and the owners were not at the show. It was on the telly; I've never seen anyone tried to hide this fact


*ALL* of the BOB handlers? *ALL 200+* of them? Are you sure about that? And ALL 200+ handlers had time to discuss with the interviewer whether or not the owners were there too? How many weeks long were the highlights? Given 5 minutes per interview that would be over 16 hours of programming - ie 4 hours every day - just interviewing all the handlers. :yikes: Oh Elmo, you do come out with some rubbish! :lol:

While you were glued to every word of this marathon TV coverage of every single handler at Crufts I was actually there in person - and I met many, many, many owners of winning dogs there.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I was referring to Crufts not people on here. The issue of the thread is crufts.
> 
> I said "many" not "most" and the many comes the "many" handlers interviewed after they had won something. I watched most of the highlights which included all of the BOB handlers and "many" of them were "handling" and exhibit for a third party and the owners were not at the show.
> 
> It was on the telly; I've never seen anyone tried to hide this fact.


i have to admit even i didnt watch all the highlights lol... but are you actually saying that they included and even interviewed the handlers of All 180 BOB winners? :eek6:


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> No - the issue of the thread is the Canine Alliance and its stance against health checks in their present form. (Hint - the clue is in the title!) Crufts is incidental to the thread - it is merely the championship show where the first health checks after the initial trial took place. If the first checks had taken place at WELKS would you be saying the thread is about WELKS?
> 
> *ALL* of the BOB handlers? *ALL 200+* of them? Are you sure about that? And ALL 200+ handlers had time to discuss with the interviewer whether or not the owners were there too? How many weeks long were the highlights? Given 5 minutes per interview that would be over 16 hours of programming - ie 4 hours every day - just interviewing all the handlers. :yikes: Oh Elmo, you do come out with some rubbish! :lol:
> 
> While you were glued to every word of this marathon TV coverage of every single handler at Crufts I was actually there in person - and I met many, many, many owners of winning dogs there.


oops you beat me Val


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> oops you beat me Val


Great minds think alike!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Great minds think alike!


haha True....it did jump off the page tho didnt it.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

And so the protest continues at the first champ show after Crufts. The pug exhibitors protested against the health checks by refusing to compete for BOB at UK Toydog today. On one hand I admire the fact that they willingly gave up the chance to compete for BOB and BIS in order ro stand up for what they believe in and send a clear message to the KC - ie that the health checks are unfair. On the other hand, I feel they have left themselves open to criticisms that they were afraid their dogs would fail. I would like to think the former is true - but I bet there will be a lot of detractors claiming the latter.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> i have to admit even i didnt watch all the highlights lol... but are you actually saying that they included and even interviewed the handlers of All 180 BOB winners? :eek6:


We watched gundog night and BIS - I recall ONE discussion with a well respected Lab person and some other conversation around the GK ring.

Considering a lot of the online coverage was agility, flyball, YKC etc etc - they must have p*$$ed miracles on all the other nights - because they certainfly didn't do it on Gundog day (which has a day of it's own) or on BIS day


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

swarthy said:


> We watched gundog night and BIS - I recall ONE discussion with a well respected Lab person and some other conversation around the GK ring.
> 
> Considering a lot of the online coverage was agility, flyball, YKC etc etc - they must have p*$$ed miracles on all the other nights - because they certainfly didn't do it on Gundog day (which has a day of it's own) or on BIS day


lol same for working dog day Swarthy... I didnt even see an interview with the owner (also the handler) of the Siberian Husky even when she went on to take working group 2 nevermind get BOB

so i'd love to how Elmo has managed to see interviews with 'all' the BOB winners 'handlers'?? and Elmo clearly has said 'ALL':yesnod:...(this time i made doubly sure i read it correctly so i didnt get my wrist slapped for saying 'most' when fair dues he clearly did say 'many' lol )

well well well it appears i Did say 'many' not 'most'  ...are you trying to play mind games with me Elmo

.


> most on here are in the UK and the vast majority of entries at Crufts are from the UK, and its rare dogs belong to 'syndicates' here, some might be co-owned but 1st and foremost they are still much loved pets ... anyway youve still not actually answered my question lol...so how is it that you know that *many* of the owners of the best exhibits dont turn up at Crufts, arnt even in the country or are actually watching??
> 
> im very intrigued where you get your information from





> I said "many" not "most" and the many comes the "many" handlers interviewed after they had won something. I watched most of the highlights which included all of the BOB handlers and "many" of them were "handling" and exhibit for a third party and the owners were not at the show


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> well well well it appears i Did say 'many' not 'most'  ...are you trying to play mind games with me Elmo


No - it's merely that he's never been one for letting a little thing like the truth get in the way of his posts!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

So, back to the topic - if the KC now turn round and say yes we take on board some of your points and from now with immediate effect the vets checks will cover ALL BOB winners how will the canine alliance handle that?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> So, back to the topic - if the KC now turn round and say yes we take on board some of your points and from now with immediate effect the vets checks will cover ALL BOB winners how will the canine alliance handle that?


Depends whether it's beforbe judging or afterwards.


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> i have to admit even i didnt watch all the highlights lol... but are you actually saying that they included and even interviewed the handlers of All 180 BOB winners? :eek6:


Hmmm well I know the Shetland Sheepdog BOB was handled by his owner. Who is very very proud of him.

I have my OH handle for me because I get quiet nervous which is not suitable when showing. So I don't see the big deal in using a handler. First show Aiden did I waited ring side and the second he came out of the ring I scooped him up into my arms and give him a huge cuddle. I couldn't ever allow him to be shown without me being there BUT If the owners unable to attend and a good friend they trust is going I don't see why its so bad to say "yeah sure take my dog too". 3 Very good friends of mine have offered to take Aiden to shows I couldn't attend but he's never been away from me or my OH so I said no.

As long as owner, dog and handler are happy I don't see the problem.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DoodlesRule said:


> So, back to the topic - if the KC now turn round and say yes we take on board some of your points and from now with immediate effect the vets checks will cover ALL BOB winners how will the canine alliance handle that?





Snoringbear said:


> Depends whether it's beforbe judging or afterwards.


I agree. I wonder if part of the pug owners refusing to compete for BOB yesterday was in any way due to the treatment the CC winner was subject to when he undewent the health check at Crufts (which you psted about earlier)?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Have to admit, I'm surprised at all these dogs passing the vet checks.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> lol same for working dog day Swarthy... I didnt even see an interview with the owner (also the handler) of the Siberian Husky even when she went on to take working group 2 nevermind get BOB


The Lab owner that was interviewed didn't get BOB - but she is heavily involved with health-matters - that (during the programme I saw) was the only Lab person interviewed - don't think I saw any of the other BOB owners / handlers interviewed either.

Bearing in mind Gundog day has a day to itself - so lot more scope for the TV to cover it within the same time-window.

BIS night - they had two groups AND BIS to judge.

Most of the internet coverage seemed to be around the other activities which is fine (a bit frustrating from an owners POV if they can't get there) - but hey - that's life.

Anyone who thinks Crufts is just about showing clearly hasn't been there - whatever you think of showing and whether you agree with it or not, there really is something for every dog lover at Crufts whatever side of the fence you sit on (and lots of nice doggie goodies and bargains from the many stalls there ) -

The range of "doggie" activities is probably unrivalled anywhere else in the world and includes not just the show side of breeds, but working as well, as well as agility, flyball, heelwork to music, young KC and handling, and Discover Dogs, and the assistance dogs, bomb disposal dogs, PAT dogs etc are not forgotten either.

Crufts really is about people's love for their dogs whatever they do.

I like a nice day out in the showring as much as the next show-person (had one today in fact when my lovely home-bred girl got 1st in AVNSC and made the cut down from around 35 dogs down to the last 10 in show (no idea why the judge kept calling her the "naughty labrador" though  hehe )

Whether they get BIS, a default placing, or they walk, they are still first and foremost my lovely pets who will still share my settee at night and wake me up from my slumbers at 630am  and I wouldn't have it any other way.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

swarthy said:


> The Lab owner that was interviewed didn't get BOB - but she is heavily involved with health-matters - that (during the programme I saw) was the only Lab person interviewed - don't think I saw any of the other BOB owners / handlers interviewed either.
> 
> .


Was that Joy VR? do you know anywhere to see it online. Accidently deleted my recording before I had watched it


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> Have to admit, I'm surprised at all these dogs passing the vet checks.


Bit puzzled here - all what dogs? I am supposing you are meaning the dogs at the UK Toydog champ show yesterday. If so there were only two health checks - the peke BOB and chinese crested BOB. Why were you surprised that they passed? Were they unhealthy?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Not just those, the ones at Crufts too. A fair few dogs now of high profile breeds passing vet tests. I didn't think a peke would pass, so yes, I thought all show pekes struggled to breathe and wouldn't pass a passing look, let alone a vet test. 

I hold my hand up.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> Not just those, the ones at Crufts too. A fair few dogs now of high profile breeds passing vet tests. I didn't think a peke would pass, so yes, I thought all show pekes struggled to breathe and wouldn't pass a passing look, let alone a vet test.
> 
> I hold my hand up.


Ah, I understand now. I don't think you'll be alone, if that's any consolation - I think a lot of people on here didn't listen when those of us who do show tried to explain how most show dogs - even the ones in the high profile breeds - are actually very healthy. Now, whether or not the vet checks at champ shows are fair, at least they are making the non-show fraternity realise that they were perhaps a tad hasty in believing everything the "shock-horror" media would have them believe


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> Was that Joy VR? do you know anywhere to see it online. Accidently deleted my recording before I had watched it


Yes, it was Joy - she was interviewed down on the ground and then later in the more "formal" area.

I will have a dig around and see if I can find anything online, if I do, I will let you know


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

From a Pug owning site and forum
Pug World | Health Issues

Health Issues

If you are already a Pug parent or are thinking of becoming one there are some important known health issues you should know about .

This topic is not exhaustive and there will be more added in time, if you know of any issues we have not mentioned here please email us or post on the forum so we can post the item and let other Parents or future Parents know. This section does not replace the veterinary care and you should always seek the advice of a qualified professional.

Please do not let the topics discused here put you of becoming a parent, all breeds have known health issues. Owning a Pug can be one of the most rewarding experiences there can b

Eyes

The adorable big eyes of the Pug can also be a curse, Pugs are prone to so many eye problems it is almost worthy of a section all by itself! Any Pug worth his salt will stick his face into anything that interest them, unfortunately this means putting there vulnerable eyes in harms way. Running into obstacles as a puppy can be a problem but even in adult hood Pugs need to be careful of thorns, claws and many other objects

Cataracts are Chracterised by Opacities in the lens of the eye. Main causes are include: diabetes, trauma, inflammation, inherrited and puppy milk supplementation. They can be treated by surgery, left untreated they can lead to glaucoma, retinal degeneration or detachment.

Distichiasis , This is a where eyelashes grow from a part of the eyelid which would normally not produce hairs. The extra lashes can rub on the surface of the eye and cause irritation. This condition can cause corneal ulcers or erosions where the hairs touch the surface of the eye and Pigmentary keratitis. Surgical removal of the lashes (applying heat to the eyelid or cryosurgery (freezing the lid) will prevent regrowth) will remove the problem. Ointments to lubricate the eye can can help . Surgical procedures used include cauterization (applying heat to the eyelid) or cryosurgery (freezing the lid). Both procedures kill the roots of the lashes and prevent the distichia from growing back.

Entropion, An abnormal inward rolling of the eyelid, commonly location in the lower corner of the bottom lid closest to the nose (George has this condition wich has caused the onset of Pigmentary keratitis). This condition is thought to be genetic or because of a large heavy overnose wrinkle pushing on the eye lid. The only treatment is surgery, after surgery the lids should look normal. The Pug should not be bred since the condition is could be inherited.

Exposure keratopathy syndrome is the inability to close the eyelids when puggy sleeps.This causes a stripe of pigmentation across the centre of the eye. This condition is also thought to be hereditory or just a breed problem caused by the anatomy of the Pug eye. lubricant applied to the eyes at bedtime to prevent the cornea drying is the most common treatment, if Left untreated the exposed part of the cornea will eventually dry and pigmentation forms causing loss of sight.

Keratoconjunctivitis sicca (Dry eye), This is caused by insufficient tear production and is characterised by red and painful eye with some discharge.A vet can measure the tear production to accurately diagnose this condition and can prescribe topical tear substitutes.

PRA (Progressive Retinal Atrophy) is the degeneration of the vessels around the retina. It usually begins with night blindness in younger dogs, their vision progressively deteriorates eventually leading to blindness.

Pannus, is an immunologic eye disease, signs are bood vessels and scar tissue invading the cornea giving the effect of fleshy growth on cornea. Causes are thought to be ultraviolet light an altitude. This condition can be successfully treated with Steroids but can suppress puggies imune response! Cyclosporine (Optimmune), is an immunosuppressant and applied topically alone, or in combination with steroids often results in better control of pannus than the use of steroids alone.

Pigmentary Keratitis affects the white surface area of the eyes, it is the result of many factors that irritate or inflame the cornea. Characterised by brown pigmentation spots on the surface of the eye.This is normally caused by trauma (George has this condition and it was caused by Entropion of the botton eye lids). If the factor causing the inflammation or irritation can be identified it can be corrected with surgery.

Corneal Ulcer is basically a wound on the surface of the eye. Things to watch for is squinting or a bluish cloud on eye. Main causes are injuries, infections, low or no tear production, eyelashes that grow back on them self's to irritate the surface of the eye and i am sure many others but these are the main causes.

Treatment depends on the cause and seriousness of the ulcer. Minor ones heal with just a antibiotic cream. Ulcers generally heal well but may in some cases leave a slight scar on the eye. Treatment should always be started right away. Left untreated the cornea can perforate and in the worst case if left unattended the eye can be lost.

Muzzle

ESP (Elongated Soft Palate) This is Common in Brachycephalic: pron, bra-key-se--phalic; (short muzzled breeds), The cause is the obstruction of the dogs airways. The standard snoring of a Pug is a mild form of this condition,more severe cases can be heard through sounds such as honking, gasping for air and the blocking of the dogs vocal box. This condition can be corrected through surgery.

Stenotic Nares Is a birth defect found again in Brachycephalic breeds, it is essentially overly soft nasal tissue. When puggy breathes, their nostrils collapse, leaving them to breathe through their mouths to get the necessary air and oxygen. You can identify a dog with this condition by a foamy discharge when they breathe or excessive breathing through their mouths when they get excited. This also can be corrected through surgery.

Intestinal 
Intussusception is a potentially life-threatening condition that is common in male Brachycephalic dogs at a young age (usually under 18 months). The condition is the telescoping of the intestines into itself.

Symptoms include vomiting, constipation and diarrhea. Bright red blood present in stool.

There are many different causes of this condition. bacterial gastroenteritis is common cause. Pieces of plastic, bone or wood in the intestine of a dog can lead to the development of intussusception. Tumors or recent abdominal surgery may also contribute to the development of this condition.

Treatment options are almost exclusively surgical. Surgery is often successful if the condition is caught early.

Legs

Luxating Patella This is common in Pugs, and other breeds of small dogs. it is the dislocation of the small movable bone in the knee called the Patella from the femur. The Patella is normally held in place by ligaments.

General symptoms of can be seen by favoring the affected leg when walking or running. Affected Pugs may also have difficulty sitting down and getting up, Some Pugs have also been seen to run in a rabbit or bunny hop manner (lifting both legs up at the same time and leaping).

There are Mild and severe cases and they are differentiated by the Patella moving back into place on its own (mild case). In severe cases the Patella will come out of place frequently, even after being popped back in by a vet. Severe cases require surgery. this not only corrects the problem and relieves the pain, but also prevents the onset of arthritis. Surgery is delicate and expensive but is normally found to be successful.

This condition can be brought on by excess weight. Pugs will often eat excessively if allowed and therefore have weight problems. Please refere to are Care guide for further information.

Neurological

PDE (Pug Dog Encephalitis) Little, if anything is known of the causes of this disease, which is best described as inflammation of the brain. This disease tends to affect young to middle aged Pugs. Its main symptom are seizures other symptoms associated with this condition are lethargy or listlessness and loss of muscle coordination. Along with seizures there are several symptoms ranging from aggression to pacing in circles to pressing their heads against objects or people.

This condition can be slowly or rapidly progressing. Slowly Progressive involves seizures that recur in a matter of days, or weeks, where the Pug will, after the seizures, return to normal. Rapidly Progressing involves seizures, often more frequently, and disorientation in between seizures. Medication can be used to control the seizures, and Corticosteroids can reduce inflammation, but sadly there is no cure.

NOTE: It is important to note that seizures are not necessarily a sign that your Pug has PDE. Pugs can, like many dogs, have epileptic seizures that can be treated with medication and have absolutely nothing to do with PDE.

Again information for an official pekingese breed site.
Pekingese Health Problems

Back and Joint Problems of Pekingese Dogs

The Long and Short of It

Because Pekingese dogs have long bodies and rather short legs, they are quite susceptible to back problems, particularly with slipped discs. They are also prone to dislocated kneecaps. In the interest of preventing these potential problems from happening, you should not allow or encourage them to jump up and down onto and from high places such as sofas, or steep inclines such as stairs.

health problems breathing

Breathing Problems of Pekingese Dogs

Brachycephalic Respiratory Syndrome

The Pekingese is a brachycephalic breed, characterized by its wide head and flat nose. This abnormal construct makes it difficult for Pekingese dogs to breathe (thus their characteristic snort and grunt). The problem most directly arising from this issue is a lack of physical endurance, which typically becomes evident when you walk a Pekingese more than a few blocks at a time; he may start panting and wheezing, signifying a need to take a rest to catch his breath. When he does, be sure to give him a minute's repose in the middle of the walk or given activity, as persistent physical strain can wear your Peke down to exhaustion pretty fast.

Heat Stroke

The second major problem caused by the breathing difficulty is with the regulation of body temperature. It is not the profusely abundant fur but rather is the breathing problem that makes Pekes, probably aside from bulldogs, the breed most prone to heat stroke -- a life threatening condition that comes with a high likelihood of brain damage. Just staying outside on a hot day or being confined to a hot and stuffy room can be enough to trigger it.

How do you prevent it? The first step is to not think "he's an animal and he'll be fine where ever he is." You must cater to your Peke's special needs by ensuring he has a cool room to stay in or cold water to drink at all times. When the weather is hot, get a spray bottle and constantly mist him throughout the day. On severely warm days, keep his exercise and play to a minimum, and let him sleep through the weather.

Common signs of heat stroke include (but are not limited to) nausea, fatigue, weakness, muscle cramps, hypertension, troubled breathing, disorientation, and seizure, followed by death. If you suspect your dog is suffering from heat stroke, do everything in your power to get him emergency vet care as expeditiously as possible, because time will be running out quickly.

Anesthesia

The third major issue concerns surgery where your Pekingese will need to be anesthetized. The breathing abnormality poses a risk regarding anesthesia that can sometimes be fatal. This is often said to be a myth. It is in fact a real concern, but it is generally outdated as modern vets are able to take precautions to offset the danger. However, there have been recent cases where veterinarians operated on Pekingeses that died in surgery due to the brachycephaly. So it is still wise to talk to your vet prior to any surgery to ensure they are aware of your dog's inherent condition.

Pekingese Dogs & Dystocia

On Giving Birth

Pekingese females are known to occasionally have difficulty whelping, or giving birth, a condition known as dystocia. In Pekes, this is due to the over-sized head of the pups and the under-sized hindquarters of the mother. When this does happen, it is a potentially fatal situation for the mother and the pups and must be managed with the aid of a veterinarian.

Because this is relatively common with this breed, inexperienced owners of pregnant Pekingese dogs should not leave them to whelp on their own. Keep an eye on a pregnant Pekingese, and in case of complications, it is best to have an estimated due date established and emergency precautions arranged. Breeding of Pekes should be left to professionals.

Exercising Your Pekingese

A Short Order

Pekes are fairly low-energy dogs and don't necessarily need a large expanse to romp in. For this reason, they are quite suited for apartment living or for owners who prefer not to have to endure long hikes for their dogs' activity needs. But Pekingese dogs, as all dogs, still need a minimum amount of daily exercise in order to maintain physical and mental well-being.

pekingese-dogs.net pekingese information health problems eyes

Eye Problems with Pekingese Dogs

Poke, Pop, Parch, and Peeve

Pekingese dogs exhibit protruding eyes that are prone to an array of problems. Because their eyes lie on the same plane as their noses, eye trauma caused by foreign objects are a prevalent concern, particularly outdoors where there are small branches and long blades of grass into which your dog may stick his face. The best advice is to be aware of your dog's activities and surroundings in an effort to minimize potential situations where he may unknowingly put his eyes in a position of being rubbed or prodded.

Because their eyes are not fully encompassed by deep eye sockets, there is also the potential for the eyes to pop out of their heads. This typically happens when the dog endures a hard blow to the back of the head or is very roughly handled, particularly with leash pulling. The only way to fix this is through surgery, and the entire eye may need replacement. In light of this peculiarity with brachycephalic breed dogs, harnesses are recommended.

Also because of their large eyes, certain Pekes may have trouble closing their eyelids completely; it is typically noticable when they are asleep. This is a major cause of dry eyes and irritation and can be corrected through surgery.

In some Pekingeses, the fold of skin over their noses may also cause problems. Skin sores and dermatitis near the eyes are the most common nuisance. The fold also tends to collect tears, which is a hygienic problem that must be cleaned in order to prevent various kinds of infection. The fur growing on the fold can also grow inward, touching the eyeballs themselves, which can cause some rather serious irritation. There is also the issue of ingrown lashes, which poses a similar problem. In the mildest cases, simply having the fur trimmed by a groomer will resolve it. Other times, it may be necessary to have the problem corrected surgically.

with Pekingese Dogs

Congestive Heart Failure

Smaller breeds of dogs, like our Pekingese, are prone to a condition called congestive heart failure. When high diastolic pressures in the heart build up into the veins and capillaries, then congestive heart failure can occur, which in turn causes a leakage of fluid out of those vessels.

Heart failure is the end result of many different cardiac and pericardial diseases. These include: 
◦Decreased myocardial contractibility. This is a weak heart muscle, which is commonly seen with dilated cardiomyopathy.
◦Valvular regurgitation. This is a leak in one of the four heart valves, as seen with mitral and tricuspid regurgitation.
◦Increased myocardial stiffness, which impairs the hearts ability to fill with blood.

In the beginning, the signs of congestive heart failure can be quite mild and difficult to see. However the symptoms can become more severe in a short space of time. Some of the symptoms to look for are: 
◦Lack of energy  the dog becomes much less active and tires quickly during the later stages of congestive heart failure;
◦Poor appetite;
◦Weight loss;
◦Heavy breathing  the dog can show signs of difficulty in breathing, panting and coughing whilst resting;
◦Coughing;
◦Swollen abdomen - the dogs stomach can enlarge as fluid accumulates in the liver and abdomen; and
◦Change of mouth color  the color of the membranes of the mouth can be grayish rather than being a healthy pink color.

The first thing that is needs to be done though, is to manage the clinical signs of congestive heart failure by reducing the formation of edema and effusion and to increase the cardiac output, which is the delivery of blood to the tissues.

There are a wide variety of treatments available for Congestive Heart Failure, depending on the severity of the condition.

One of the most popular drugs used for this disease is Digitalis. This is a medication which belongs to a group called positive inotropic agents which help to increase the concentration of calcium in the heart muscle cells.

Diuretics are also another well known drug used for dogs with this condition. These drugs help to remove built up fluids that occur in the lungs and abdomen.

Monitor your dogs attitude and any changes in appearance when you spend time with your friend. It is essential to keep a diary of anything that varies from "the norm" so that you can show it to your vet. Check your dog on a daily basis for: 
◦breathing, see if it is heavy or labored;
◦loss or reduction of appetite;
◦restlessness;
◦fainting; and
◦profound lethargy.

However, it is important to remember, that canine congestive heart failure is a major disease and it is a necessity to have regular visits to your veterinarian to ensure that your dogs needs are being met

Pekingese Dogs & Temperature Regulation

A Pampered Pooch

Pekingese dogs are ideally cool (but not cold) weather animals. Because they have a double-layered coat and trouble with breathing, it is difficult for them to regulate their body temperatures in excessively warm conditions.

Heat stroke is a likely possibility in Pekes. So it is recommended to keep their fur short or to try to accomodate them with a cool room or cold water during the warmer seasons. Extreme cold weather is also a concern for small dogs. It is advised to keep your Pekingese clothed when temperatures fall below 40 or 50 degrees fahrenheit.

Pekingese Dogs & Weight

Garfield, the Dog?

Pekingese dogs are known to put on weight relatively quickly. While a fat Peke may be cute and all, the extra weight poses quite serious problems for the dog, primarily in the area of joint issues. Because their shape already contributes to their susceptibility to skeletal problems, adding extra pounds to the dog's existing load is strongly disadvised.

Considering these are specific Pug and Peke breed sites, does look like its all mass hysteria, and the media I Must admit:thumbsup:


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

From the Bulldog Rescue and Rehoming Website
Bulldog Health
Ulceration of the Cornea: Damage to the eye surface will show itself as an Ulcer, best described as a blue "hazey" area. The damage is done by irritation to the surface of the eye so always get your vet to check any unusual marks on the cornea. Untreated ulcers will result in permanent loss of vision in the ulcerated area which may lead to the loss of the eye.

Entropian: Where the eyelashes have turned inwards and are rubbing against the eye, again surgery may be required. Dont confuse this with stray eyelashes that are just growing astray, these can be plucked with tweezers (you may prefer your vet to do this). Entropian needs surgery - if left the in-turned lashes will scratch the cornea and the result will be a severely damaged, ulcerated eye, at worst blindness or loss of eye.

Conjunctivitis: You will need to obtain an anti biotic cream from your vet to apply to the affected eye, repeated bouts of conjunctivitis can cause the dog to retract the eyeball which in severe cases can lead to entropian. Minor eye infections can be treated with "Brolene" eye ointment from the chemist.

Dry Eye: Caused when natural tear production slows or stops. Symptoms include green gungy eyes, especially in the morning and a dry appearance or blue haze to the eye itself. Can be confirmed by your vet who will perform a dry eye test with blotting type paper to see how much moisture can be soaked from the eyes surface. Artificial tears will need to be applied to the eye for life, your vet can prescribe this or a much much cheaper alternative is "Visco Tears" for humans and is available from your pharmasist or an eye jell available here

Cherry Eye: Where the gland under the third eyelid protrudes and looks rather like a cherry in the corner of the eye. Your vet will need to remove the gland (some prefer to tuck but it's not recommended). Occasionally removal of the gland causes dry eye but dry eye is a very common bulldog problem anyway regardless of if the dog had cherry eye surgery as a pup. More recently we have heard of vets that refuse to snip, try and find one that will if possible. The risk of dry eye is increased but we see so much dry eye in dogs that haven't had this surgery that it's not usually a factor - bulldog tear glands often block even if they still have this gland.

Closed ears: Long term ear infections will eventually close the ear canal as the ear tissues swells with infection. Ear drops will be required from the vet. Cleaning extremely infected ears can be a long process as you literally clean the infection away a layer at a time.

Dirty / Infected ears are a very common problem, regular ear cleaning is essential. Long term dirty ears will become infected and sometimes the infection will be so deep in the inner ear it can go undected until the dog is in pain.

Pinched Nostril: In extreme cases surgery will be required to open the nostrils.

Dry Nose: Bulldog noses almost always go dry and flakey. Dab some petroleum jelly on the nose 2 or 3 times a day to restore a crusty nose and a couple of times a week to prevent it. The dog will try and lick the petroleum jelly off but enough will soak in to soften the nose again. In severe cases petroleum jellythe nose upto 6 times a day - you'll be surprised at how quickly the nose recovers.

THROAT

Elongated Soft Palate and other airway disorders: Every bulldog has an elongated soft palate to a certain degree, this is because of the shape of their heads (ie: brachycephalic - short nosed). In most cases this causes nothing more than snoring, but in severe cases may cause your bulldog difficulty in breathing. Heat and exercise will cause loud, gurgly breathing, (commonly known as "roaring") and your bulldog may appear to be "lazy". The severity can range from loud breathing when excited, during/after exercise to total exercise intolerance, regurgitation of food to permanent breathing difficulties. The condition can be corrected with surgery and you need to be sure that the vet you chose to carry out this surgery totally understand brachycephalic breeds.

Sore Wrinkles: Looking after a bulldog involves daily care of the face and the deep folds. Wash their faces on a daily basis with either a soft cloth and water or unscented baby wipes. Be sure to dry the face properly and then apply MSM cream to the folds, extra care is needed to the nose roll which in some bulldogs can be very deep.

Tear Stains: If your dog has a white face you may find that over time the tears from his eyes cause his face to stain red. This may be attributed to the red colouring in the food hes eating but this is not always the case, some bulldogs produce red tears and some dont, those with white faces will have these stains more than dark coloured faces. A daily wipe with "Diamond Eye" eye wash will help.

HEAD

Head Shakes: Rather like a fit, but effecting just the head, which will involuntary shake from side to side (or up and down), sometimes violently enough to cause their lips to flap about. The dog is conscious and aware of what is happening. We have always found them to be linked to stress which may cause the blood sugar level to drop enough to trigger the head shake. Giving some glucose or runny honey to bring the blood sugar level back up should help although distraction often stops the shaking. If you are unable to link the attack to a specific stressful incident or a recent period of over excitement then your bulldog may be in pain and it is advisable that you get your vet to check him over. Note, many vets are unfamiliar with this breed specific condition and sometimes mis diagnose epilepsy. 
Tail Problems: A true bulldog tail is a dream to look after, ideally he should have a nice straight spiked tail, moderate in length, that can be easily lifted away from the body - however, screw tails in bulldogs are not uncommon (many people assume the bulldog should have a screw tail which is not correct) and this and/or an inverted tail (where the tail is growing back into the body) can cause your bulldog a few problems. You should endeavour to keep tight tails clean and DRY, but if this proves to be a problem you should consult your vet. Bulldog tails ARE NOT docked and come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes, pay particular attention to tightly screwed or close fitting tails as these will need regular attention in order to prevent infection, some tails sit inside themselves (what I call a thumb in a belly button) and can look like there is no tail at all until you look closer.

CRUCIATE LIGAMENT DAMAGE

The bulldog can damage his cruciate ligament almost without even trying. The back legs are usually longer than the front and this puts pressure on the stifle joint (knee). A bad landing or a sudden turn can snap one of the cruciate ligaments. The vet will be able to confirm a damaged cruciate ligament by manipulating the knee joint, side to side movement is usually the sign. A dog with a damaged cruciate will hold his back leg with either just the toes touching the floor or with the leg fully off the ground bent at the knee. If the ligament is only stretched strict crate rest will almost always work, but you have to be very strict and keep the dog crated only allowing them out to the toilet on a lead. If there is no improvement after one week then surgery may be required.

OCD and Hip Displacia is incredibly rare in bulldogs and is very often mis-diagnosed in the breed. Due to the naturally very shallow joints the bulldog is sadly very prone to arthritic changes which can occur at a very young age, especially if as a puppy the dog underwent very rapid growth or was over weight or over exercise during this period. Sadly we hear of lots of puppies supposedly diagnosed with OCD or Hip displacia and in most cases this is not the case at all. The breed has naturally shallow elbow and hip joints and young bulldog hips are very loose as the adult dog relies heavily on muscle to hold the joint in place. In many cases the growth rate is so fast the long bones grow at different rates in the fore legs, and elbows in particular will show up as displacic on xrays taken under 18 months old, in most cases the bones will level out as the growth phase comes to an end. Displacia diagnoses should not be taken as red until the dog is at least 18 months old and surgical intervention should never be considered until the growth phase is over, even then it's more likely that the dog simply needs drug management to deal with the arthritic changes in the joint which in most cases are the result of the rapid growth as a puppy.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Shar Pei Health problems. Firsty Dr Vidts website health Issues in the Shar Pei
Dr Vidts is a Veterinarian who has interests in Shar pei Health.
Dr. Vidt's Website - Health Issues
Health Issues

Shar-Pei Breed Problems

There is no perfect dog breed... every breed has its problems and imperfections. The easiest way to discuss the problems seen in our breed is to list them according to the body system involved. Please remember that these problems are seen in a vary small number of dogs... not every Shar-Pei will be affected: 
RESPIRATORY 
stenotic (pinched) nostrils 
elongated soft palate 
pneumonia -- primarily in puppies 
EYES 
entropion -- rolling in of the eyelids 
retinal dysplasia 
glaucoma 
"cherry eye" -- prolapse of the gland of the third eyelid 
EARS 
stenotic (narrow) ear canals 
bacterial ear infections 
yeast over growth 
hyperplastic otitis 
GASTROINTESTINAL 
bite problems -- most commonly, an overbite 
inflammatory bowel disease 
megaesophagus 
hiatal hernia 
intestinal adenocarcinoma 
SKIN 
lip fold pyoderma 
skin fold pyoderma 
demodectic mange 
allergic skin disease -- alleric inhalant dermatitis, food allergy, insect allergy, contact allergy, etc. 
generalized pyoderma 
cutaneous mucinosis 
ENDOCRINE 
hypothyroidism 
MYSCULOSKELETAL 
inquinal hernias 
luxating patellas -- "loose" kneecaps 
elbow dysplasia 
hip dysplasia 
anterior cruciate ligament rupture 
GENITOURINARY 
renal amyloidosis 
immune - mediated kidney disease 
NEOPLASIA 
mast cell tumor 
histiocytoma 
lymphosarcoma 
intestinal adenocarcinoma 
MISCELLANEOUS 
Familial Shar-Pei Fever (FSF) 
abscesses -- bite wounds, other 
IgA deficiency 
Primary Multiple Immunodeficiency Syndrome of Shar-Pei 
amyloidosis

and fron a Shar Pei Website
Health issues with the Shar Pei

Health issues with the Shar Pei
Although the Shar Pei is a fairly robust breed of dog they still have some issues with 
their health, I would like to point out, before you read this article & begin to panic, 
that this is very much an in general theme. These are health problems that your 
Shar Pei might encounter.

Entropion is a condition of the eye that only fourteen breeds of dog can suffer from, 
the Shar Pei just happens to be one of the fourteen. The eyelid actually rolls in
towards the main eye this causes friction against the cornea, the eyes will water & 
infection could occur. There is a surgical procedure available for this condition. 
Shar Pei that suffer from this health problem should not be bred from, as, although 
it has not been categorically proved, there could be a genetic component involved.

Familial Shar Pei Fever is also named Swollen Hock Syndrome; this presents itself 
in episodes of fever. Shar Pei who suffer with this generally have an unexplained
fever attack where their temperature will soar to approximately 103-107 degrees. 
They can occur in Shar Pei less than eighteen months old however they may not 
happen until the Shar Pei is an adult, the fever usually continues for the minimum of 
twenty four hours & the maximum of thirty six hours. Unfortunately nobody knows 
the exact cause of this disorder but it could be linked with the Shar Pei immune 
system, the breed has an inability to actually regulate it. If your Shar Pei has this
problem then it must be taken very seriously as there is another disorder related to 
this one that can prove fatal. Amyloidosis causes an inability to break down certain 
chemicals that are released into the bloodstream, this occurs when inflammation is 
the result of abnormal amounts of Amyloid protein in the body.

The folds of skin on the Shar Pei can cause problems if not checked on a regular 
basis, especially during hot weather. Sweat is produced within the folds & can lead 
to rashes that in turn can lead to infection. Ensure that these are kept scrupulously 
clean, paramount during the Shar Pei twice-yearly hair shedding.

Cutaneous Mucinosis is a skin complaint, Mucin is the name given to the substance 
within the Shar Pei skin that induces the wrinkling of the skin. It is clear & similar to
glue. Occasionally a Shar Pei might produce too much Mucin this causes clear bubbles
to form on the skin that can rupture & seep. This is normally not problematic for the
Shar Pei, if it is then a low dosage of prednisone generally results in improvement.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Does everyone still think that The lot of people on here who didnt listen when it was explained how even the "High Profile Breeds" are actually very Healthy are still so very wrong?

Were us Non show fraternity a Tad too Hasty in believing everything shock horror in the media would have us believe?

Considering all the Health problems in the previous posts are all HPB and off specific Breed Websites not The shock Horror media perhaps it would seem not.?


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

not playing the list game again surely 

how about sheep

Sheep 201: Sheep diseases A-Z

or horses

http://www.arabianhorses.org/education/genetic/docs/11Genetic_Disorders_and_Arabians.pdf

or cats

http://catdnatest.org/pdf/heritable-diseases.pdf

should these and* all* other animals stop being bred ? - every living thing carries it's burden of health problems

here's the list for humans

List of genetic disorders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

pretty scary eh ? ....perhaps we too should simply stop breeding until we can guarantee perfect health !!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Does everyone still think that The lot of people on here who didnt listen when it was explained how even the "High Profile Breeds" are actually very Healthy are still so very wrong?
> 
> Were us Non show fraternity a Tad too Hasty in believing everything shock horror in the media would have us believe?
> 
> Considering all the Health problems in the previous posts are all HPB and off specific Breed Websites not The shock Horror media perhaps it would seem not.?


As usual, you have missed the point COMPLETELY. No-one is saying that any of these breeds do not have serious health issues. *The point is that the "shock horror" media would have you believe that SHOW DOGS are the unhealthiest possible example of the breeds - and now health checks by vets have proved otherwise.*The above poiint was self evident if you had read Elles posts and my replies properly. A lot of pointless arguing on this forum would be avoided if people read things properly. Here is what I actually said - which is totally different from what you have quoted me as saying above. I've outlined both the relevant bits in red:



Spellweaver said:


> Ah, I understand now. I don't think you'll be alone, if that's any consolation - I think a lot of people on here didn't listen when those of us who do show tried to explain how most show dogs - even the ones in the high profile breeds - are actually very healthy. Now, whether or not the vet checks at champ shows are fair, at least they are making the non-show fraternity realise that they were perhaps a tad hasty in believing everything the "shock-horror" media would have them believe


See - I never said that the high profile breeds were healthy at all - merely that most show dogs in the high profile breeds were healthy and that this has now been proved by vet checks. So why you reacted as you did is beyond me. You could have saved yourself all that cutting and pasting because NO-ONE was disputing any of what you posted. Bet you feel a bit silly now, don't you?

And actually, I ought to thank you for proving my point. I said the non-show fraternity didn't listen when those of us who show tried to explain the above fact - and, even after the vet checks have proved we were right, your several posts in reply have proved you are still not listening.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

If you read the 'horses' one you would see Egyptian arabs are singled out. Those are the inbred show mutants in the US. And I make no apology for calling them such, it's what they are, poor things.

Most horses are born healthy and genetic disorders are rare, other than in those bred for showing in the US, or bred for colour, HYPP is mentioned, again an American problem with a matador (popular) showing sire in the US called Impressive. It became a really bad problem, because although it caused all sorts of issues in the affected horses, it also made them have big muscles which was desirable in the show ring.

Horses with spots (dalmatians of the horse world) have issues with their eyes, that other horses don't.

So some of these health risks and omg horses need health testing are only in specific types or breeds of horse and not others. Most horses are what we'd think of in the dog world as crossbred or mongrel with very large gene pools. 



> perhaps we too should simply stop breeding until we can guarantee perfect health !!


What I thought and I'm still not convinced otherwise, so keep testing, is that some breeds of dog are guaranteed unhealthy and due to issues of conformation, not genetic disease as such.


----------



## cavmad (Jan 27, 2009)

The thing is that the non show people that watch Crufts before this year see the Peke waddling round the main ring doing a very small triangle compared with the rest of the dogs and they are puffing away.We hear that they have to sit on ice packs etc and these are supposed to be the best of the breed and they really dont look healthy to the novice eye.The eyes always look like they are going to pop out.I have picked on the Peke but the Bulldogs usually dont look as if they want to move and are huffing and puffing away infact most of the short nose dogs so and it doesnt look good. I know some of the chi breeders are breeding for the dome heads and now the skull doesnt fuse properly and they are getting to the point were it is border line hydrosephalis also they want the smaller and smaller dogs and my boy who is around 8lbs is considered too big and i think he is tiny and much smaller he might as well be a guinea pig and be kept in a hutch.It does need to be stopped and if a system for health checks can be set up for all breeds it would hopefully help to improve things but i think that it should be an independent vet that checks for them being a dog not to breed standards otherwise it will be a waste of time and nothing will change if need be change the breed standards.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Does everyone still think that The lot of people on here who didnt listen when it was explained how even the "High Profile Breeds" are actually very Healthy are still so very wrong?
> 
> Were us Non show fraternity a Tad too Hasty in believing everything shock horror in the media would have us believe?
> 
> Considering all the Health problems in the previous posts are all HPB and off specific Breed Websites not The shock Horror media perhaps it would seem not.?


Actually, I think this demonstrates clearly how much breeders ARE aware of health problems, what they are doing to lessen the risk and how much they do care. I don't show but sit with a foot in both camps I guess. I know the vast majority of show breeders care and are not trophy hunters (there will always be a few - it's part of human nature). However, I can also see, both from some of the problems as well as personal involvement and discussions that there is a big issue with not being able to see the wood for the trees. They have a lot of knowledge, and they are right about many things, but crucial things are overlooked and this has caused problems. Because these things are so deeprooted (in many ways BECAUSE they are so passionate about their respective breeds), it is hard to convince or get them to see otherwise. I suspect that is why such a harsh way has been taken to try to crack it.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> Actually, I think this demonstrates clearly how much breeders ARE aware of health problems, what they are doing to lessen the risk and how much they do care. I don't show but sit with a foot in both camps I guess. I know the vast majority of show breeders care and are not trophy hunters (there will always be a few - it's part of human nature). However, I can also see, both from some of the problems as well as personal involvement and discussions that there is a big issue with not being able to see the wood for the trees. They have a lot of knowledge, and they are right about many things, but crucial things are overlooked and this has caused problems. Because these things are so deeprooted (in many ways BECAUSE they are so passionate about their respective breeds), it is hard to convince or get them to see otherwise. I suspect that is why such a harsh way has been taken to try to crack it.


Precisely all I was trying to Hi-light is that some breeds really do have serious problems no two ways about it. Like you say some breeders are taking it on board and also there are others who are not. Example the Bulldog list mentions the creases and skin folds on the face and how they should be cleaned everyday, thats not normal or fit for function, but you still get the breeders saying its a feature so when they grasp on to the bull the furrows help the blood to run away. There are breeders on film saying they dont want the appearance of the bulldog changed.So not everyone as you say is embracing and trying to deal with the problem. The ones who are should be rewarded, but the ones that are not shouldnt be. If more breeds had such extensive problems, then the list would have likely been hell of a lot longer.

Once again It was just to hi-light some breeds ie the 15 High Profile breeds,
are Hi-profile for a reason, and yes some of the show breeders are trying to improve things and breed the problems out, but not all.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Bijou said:


> not playing the list game again surely
> 
> how about sheep
> 
> ...


We are not talking horses cats and sheep and everything else though are we the Title of the thread refers to Canine. Im not talking all breeds either, just the HPB, which just looking at the list of health problems for 5 only they are high profile for a reason. Again I repeat Im not talking all Breeders either.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Precisely all I was trying to Hi-light is that some breeds really do have serious problems no two ways about it. Like you say some breeders are taking it on board and also there are others who are not. Example the Bulldog list mentions the creases and skin folds on the face and how they should be cleaned everyday, thats not normal or fit for function, but you still get the breeders saying its a feature so when they grasp on to the bull the furrows help the blood to run away. There are breeders on film saying they dont want the appearance of the bulldog changed.So not everyone as you say is embracing and trying to deal with the problem. The ones who are should be rewarded, but the ones that are not shouldnt be. If more breeds had such extensive problems, then the list would have likely been hell of a lot longer.
> 
> Once again It was just to hi-light some breeds ie the 15 High Profile breeds,
> are Hi-profile for a reason, and yes some of the show breeders are trying to improve things and breed the problems out, but not all.


If I did a list of all the things Labradors *could* suffer from, it would make for pretty grim reading and make them look pretty unhealthy. Whereas there are obviously the welfare issues with the breeds you highlighted, it's the same for all breeds in reality, it's down to people who don't want to see these exaggerations creeping in, followed by the welfare problems they create, to try and prevent it from happening in the first place.

Your posts remind me of the sort of reports you see from surveyors for house purchases that make it sound like the house is about to fall down, when really all they're doing is giving an actual condition report that might *sound* grim, but really isn't. Sometimes with my work, when I've written a report for a structure, it makes it sound pretty awful, like it's about to fall down, when the reality is, they are expected defects, many that you see on the same sort of structure with the same types of materials, so it's not really a surprise and only once have I ever seen a defect so bad that it had to be called in from site when I was out with another examiner and saw some quite severe deflection from trains passing over a bridge in one direction


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Ah, I understand now. I don't think you'll be alone, if that's any consolation - I think a lot of people on here didn't listen when those of us who do show tried to explain how most show dogs - even the ones in the high profile breeds - are actually very healthy. Now, whether or not the vet checks at champ shows are fair, at least they are making the non-show fraternity realise that they were perhaps a tad hasty in believing everything the "shock-horror" media would have them believe





Spellweaver said:


> As usual, you have missed the point COMPLETELY. No-one is saying that any of these breeds do not have serious health issues. *The point is that the "shock horror" media would have you believe that SHOW DOGS are the unhealthiest possible example of the breeds - and now health checks by vets have proved otherwise.*The above poiint was self evident if you had read Elles posts and my replies properly. A lot of pointless arguing on this forum would be avoided if people read things properly. Here is what I actually said - which is totally different from what you have quoted me as saying above. I've outlined both the relevant bits in red:
> 
> See - I never said that the high profile breeds were healthy at all - merely that most show dogs in the high profile breeds were healthy and that this has now been proved by vet checks. So why you reacted as you did is beyond me. You could have saved yourself all that cutting and pasting because NO-ONE was disputing any of what you posted. Bet you feel a bit silly now, don't you?
> 
> And actually, I ought to thank you for proving my point. I said the non-show fraternity didn't listen when those of us who show tried to explain the above fact - and, even after the vet checks have proved we were right, your several posts in reply have proved you are still not listening.


So Your sentence "Most show dogs even the ones in High Profile Breeds are actually very healthy" Doesnt mean that you never said that the high profile breeds were healthy and that this has now been proved by vet checks"

Sorry but the Lists seem to beg to differ and so do the Crufts veterinary checks on how many was it about 6 of these high profile breeds.

Im still waiting for a reply btw to your response when you misread entirely a post I did on another similar thread, even though I made it clear what I was reffering to and it was you who worked on assumptions.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> If I did a list of all the things Labradors *could* suffer from, it would make for pretty grim reading and make them look pretty unhealthy. Whereas there are obviously the welfare issues with the breeds you highlighted, it's the same for all breeds in reality, it's down to people who don't want to see these exaggerations creeping in, followed by the welfare problems they create, to try and prevent it from happening in the first place.
> 
> Your posts remind me of the sort of reports you see from surveyors for house purchases that make it sound like the house is about to fall down, when really all they're doing is giving an actual condition report that might *sound* grim, but really isn't. Sometimes with my work, when I've written a report for a structure, it makes it sound pretty awful, like it's about to fall down, when the reality is, they are expected defects, many that you see on the same sort of structure with the same types of materials, so it's not really a surprise and only once have I ever seen a defect so bad that it had to be called in from site when I was out with another examiner and saw some quite severe deflection from trains passing over a bridge in one direction


They are not my reports though are they they are health issues from just 5 of the high profile breed specific websites. Ididnt write them just hi-lighted them.

What has surveyors reports to do with health problems in specific Breeds?
Some Breeds have a few health problems but no where near the the HPB
Thats probably why they are High profile in the first place. Considering a lot of the problems are due to breeding for exagerations and breeding for a specific look they are therefore man made. Natural evolution wouldnt have selected some of these traits. If you look at Naturally evolved feral and wild dogs none of those have flat faces, skin folds, mega short legs, over long backs etc.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I think a lot of people on here didn't listen when those of us who do show tried to explain how most show dogs - even the ones in the high profile breeds - are actually very healthy.


I think the difficulty is defining healthy. As far as these tests and this thread goes, we are ONLY talking about exaggerations that increase the risk of health problems - not inherited diseases. I agree in the sense that the majoriy of show dogs of the HP breeds do not suffer and as such are healthy. However, the exaggerations that have been bred into them makes the dogs prone to the related health problems. In my mind it's really quite simple and cannot understand why it can't be grasped. As I said in a previous post, the show breeders to have my sympathy to a certain extent. They've been in their breed, love their breed, do have the dog's welfare at heart and this is what they've learnt, been taught and been awarded for. Then they are told it's not good. It's a hard lesson but one they really do need to take on board. Yes, a start has been made, but I suspect it will take a while and gradually because it seems such a hard thing to make them see.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sled dog hotel said:


> They are not my reports though are they they are health issues from just 5 of the high profile breed specific websites. Ididnt write them just hi-lighted them.
> 
> What has surveyors reports to do with health problems in specific Breeds?
> Some Breeds have a few health problems but no where near the the HPB
> Thats probably why they are High profile in the first place. Considering a lot of the problems are due to breeding for exagerations and breeding for a specific look they are therefore man made. Natural evolution wouldnt have selected some of these traits. If you look at Naturally evolved feral and wild dogs none of those have flat faces, skin folds, mega short legs, over long backs etc.


Whoah there, no need to get defensive, I was just making the point that you could list what's potentially *wrong* or could go wrong with something, and it does make it sound pretty terrible. I was just comparing how that can be for all things, not just living breathing creatures, as an illustration.

If as I said, I listed all the health problems *associated* with Labradors, you might, if you knew nothing about them as a breed overall, be put off them without any real reason. I was agreeing with you, but also pointing out that this goes for all breeds, not just the ones you picked out from the high profile list.

Also, comparing to nature doesn't always work, there's only one raptor for example, that has developed double jointed knees, other raptors including close relatives don't have the same joints, and so nature has specialised in that one way by creating a bird that has a very different adaptation. And there are examples of extreme adaptations all through nature. Yes, dog breeds are man made, but generally speaking, there's a reason they look like they do, because a dog that retrieves game needs to work in a certain way, as an example, and *generally* speaking, another breed type wouldn't be best suited. So these adaptations have their place, it's when they become exaggerated beyond purpose and cause welfare issues that *can* result in health issues for some individuals, that I feel some people have really lost the plot with their dogs.

Having said that though, it's a case of extremes with the KC, because there is an awful lot of good things going on, pushing for health and welfare issues, which many breeders with pedigree dogs have supported for many years. At the same time, you have got some who are either blind to what's happened, or they know and have chosen that route for their own ends, not the dogs.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Whoah there, no need to get defensive, I was just making the point that you could list what's potentially *wrong* or could go wrong with something, and it does make it sound pretty terrible. I was just comparing how that can be for all things, not just living breathing creatures, as an illustration.
> 
> If as I said, I listed all the health problems *associated* with Labradors, you might, if you knew nothing about them as a breed overall, be put off them without any real reason. I was agreeing with you, but also pointing out that this goes for all breeds, not just the ones you picked out from the high profile list.
> 
> ...


Thats all I was trying to say. Look there is a problem bad ones too in some breeds. They need to be acknowleged, yes a lot of breeders and good ones are acknowledge/have acknowledged there is a problem and are doing something about it. Its not something that you can reverse overnight, its taken a long time for some of these breeds to develope the exagerations, and its going to take time knowledge and careful breeding to undo it.

There are however, people in these breeds who also wont/cant for whatever reason I cant personally fathom, seem to acknowledge it who are the ones that I and probably a lot of the others are getting so fraustated and angry about. Ive never said or meant that all breeders are bad, or all show dogs are unhealthy, Its the people who carry on when surely they can see there is problems that Im angry about and for the sake of the poor dogs themselves.

Surely if you have a breed who cant mate without assistance, who cant whelp naturally, have sore faces unless you clean and dry their skin folds every day, cant go out for a walk when it starts to get moderately warm, puffs pants and cant breath after the smallest amount of exertion, then surely you have got to think hold on a minute this isnt right.

Thats all Ive been trying to say.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sled dog hotel said:


> So Your sentence "Most show dogs even the ones in High Profile Breeds are actually very healthy" Doesnt mean that you never said that the high profile breeds were healthy and that this has now been proved by vet checks"


No. it doesn't  

When I said "Most show dogs even the ones in High Profile Breeds are actually very healthy and this has now been proved by vet health checks" I actually meant "Most show dogs even the ones in High Profile Breeds are actually very healthy and this has now been proved by health checks."

I did not say that this meant that all the high profile breeds were healthy.

Once more, the whole point you can't seem to be able to see (and god knows why because it's written clearly enough) is that the "shock horror" media tried to make out that the *show dogs* were *a lot more unhealthy *than their non-show counterparts. Those of us who show tried to point out that this was not true, and that most show dogs, even the ones from the high profile breeds, were actually very healthy. This has now been bourne out by vet checks at shows - show dogs that are unhealthy according to the "shock horror" media just because they *happen to belong to a particular breed* have actually been passsed as healthy by a vet. So while some breeds do have health problems, and while dogs within those breeds may be unhealthy, *they are much more likely to be non-show dogs than show dogs.* In other words, just because some breeds have health problems, it does not mean that every single dog within that breed suffers from the problems and NOW (contrary to what the shock horror media would have you believe) vet checks have shown show dogs are among those who are not sufferring.. NOW do you understand?



Sled dog hotel said:


> the high profile breedSorry but the Lists seem to beg to differ and so do the Crufts veterinary checks on how many was it about 6 of these high profile breeds.


Why are you only talking about Crufts? What about the ones who were tested and passed at UK Toydogs this weekend?



Sled dog hotel said:


> Im still waiting for a reply btw to your response when you misread entirely a post I did on another similar thread, even though I made it clear what I was reffering to and it was you who worked on assumptions.


I have no idea what you are talking about here. Tell me which post of yours I have ignored and I'll reply tonight when I've finished work.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

SDH I agree, definitely  

There's a lot of people who agree on this thread, even from very different viewpoints, which is nice to see, even if not 100% we've all said yes there's a problem with *some* breeds, and yes we all would like to see it rectified, it's just the how and when I think people are disagreeing on for the main part


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Once more, the whole point you can't seem to be able to see (and god knows why because it's written clearly enough) is that the "shock horror" media tried to make out that the show dogs were a lot more unhealthy than their non-show counterparts. Those of us who show tried to point out that this was not true, and that most show dogs, even the ones from the high profile breeds, were actually very healthy. This has now been bourne out by vet checks at shows - show dogs that are unhealthy according to the "shock horror" media just because they happen to belong to a particular breed have actually been passsed as healthy by a vet. So while some breeds do have health problems, and while dogs within those breeds may be unhealthy, they are much more likely to be non-show dogs than show dogs. In other words, just because some breeds have health problems, it does not mean that every single dog within that breed suffers from the problems and NOW (contrary to what the shock horror media would have you believe) vet checks have shown show dogs are among those who are not sufferring.. NOW do you understand?


I believe I've already said as much, and it is well understood. I think what people find hard to grasp is the 'apparent' reluctance by those, particularly in hp breeds, but generally, that the 'features' that have been bred into them for generations make them prone to these health problems. And far from 'appearing' to accept it, they simply say 'our show dogs are healthy'. In my limited experience this is for the most part true. However, because the breeds appearance has changed so much, it is the pet bred ones who are trying to get the same look, but do not understand what goes into breeding a healthy dog, where many of the problems occur. And the folds in the bulldog are a good illustration of the point. IMO, if a dog requires it's skin folds cleaning every day so it does not have skin problems/infections, then it should not be bred to look like that - I don't care what the breed standard says or any judge's /breeders (including non showing breeders) interpretation of the breed standard. It is wrong and it is the reluctance to accept or see this that is frustrating.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> No. it doesn't
> 
> When I said "Most show dogs even the ones in High Profile Breeds are actually very healthy and this has now been proved by vet health checks" I actually meant "Most show dogs even the ones in High Profile Breeds are actually very healthy and this has now been proved by health checks."
> 
> ...


The shock Horror media, didnt make out ALL show dogs are unhealthy though did they. They highlighted that in certain breeds, there were a lot more problems then in others, and some breeders within those certain breeds didnt seem to be acknowledging a problem or couldnt see anything is wrong.

Looking at those 5 lists that came from actual breed specific websites, not some media shock horror, it looks like the reports are true for some breeds.

Its also been highlighted, that there is also a resistance when some people try to make changes. Example Fiona the LUA Dallies, it had aleady been proven that including these in the breeding could stop the painful if not fatal urinary tract problems, that the Dalmatian has little genetic escape from otherwise, were they welcomed with open arms? No the argument raged in Dog World for weeks, certain members of the Breed clubs didnt want to accept it, were totally against it, and tried all they could to stop it.

When the KC put the block on registering close matings, mother to son etc.
Letters went on for weeks to the Dog World letters page from long established pedigree show breeders, saying they had done it for years no problems, berating the new ruling. Close Matings were only done anyway because its the quickest way of fixing type to get and reproduce desired traits, along with the looks though any genetic or hereditary problems got
fixed with it.

Bruce Cattanach, a Boxer Breeder since what the 50s and a geneticist to boot
has done extensive work and seems to have traced the Juvenile kidney disease in Boxers and needs blood samples and Data, is he getting the stuff he needs that might be able to isolate the gene last I heard he wasnt.

The Breeds that cant self Whelp, didnt it occur to breeders who were having problems in their lines when it first started occuring that something was up, and it might have something to do with the conformation and way they were being bred that something needed to be changed?

This is my gripe, that things just didnt get bad overnight, someone somewhere must have realised, but still carried on regardless so the problem just got worse and worse. Further to this there are breeders that still wont acknowledge that the exagerations they know and love so much are causing problems, and its those that this is all about. Ive never ever said that all show dogs are sick either, or all show breeders are bad simply because they are not. Neither as far as I can see did the shock horror media.


----------



## cavmad (Jan 27, 2009)

I know that in cavs that some of the top breeders are still breeding not within the protocol that the breeed clubs have stated. The BOB winner at Crufts this year has sired over 100 pups most before he was two and a half which is the age that the clubs have said is the youngest that they should be breed so the health tests can be more acurate.On the first PDE there was the breeder who carried on using her dog at stud even though he had a failed scan for SM. Unfortunatly to many cav breeders argue that the scans arnt needed and now pups as young as 4 months are being diagnosed with CM/SM


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Bijou said:


> not playing the list game again surely
> 
> how about sheep
> 
> ...


Actually there is some interesting Data on all the links that you put up.
The sheep one is very interesting, at first quick scan it does look like sheep suffer from a terrible amount of diseases. However once looked at closer, they are in fact very healthy it seems as far as genetic and hereditary diseases, or in so much as what is mentioned on this link anyway.
Most of the diseases are aquired, either Bacteria, Protozoan parasites, viral diseases, insect transmitted disease, Dietry diffiencies or eating too much of a specific diet,fungal and organisms found in the soil.

The Human ones although the list seems horrendous most are mutations and some look extrememly rare diseases I cant remember the last time I heard of someone suffering with Angelman Syndrome, Pradeer Willi Syndrome, Klinefelters syndrome and a host of others on a quick look and the Majority in a lot of cases.

The Cat one which from what I can work out a lot of refers to pedigree breeds since its by the Cat Fancy which Im assuming is the equivalent to the kennel club (cats are not my forte) there was some interesting data on there

ASYMETRICAL FACIAL STRUCTURE: If cats are allowed to breed randomly, the resulting facial
structure is a moderate one with a medium nose, curved profile, and moderate chin. The lower
jaw is squarely below the upper jaw and does not protrude or recede. The teeth are strong and
stay in the mouth a long time. These cats have moderate sized eyes that do not stick out (protrude).
This is nature selecting for animals that can eat well, chew well and see well. The eyes
do not protrude and make the animal susceptible to having an eye poked out. Ears are moderate
in size and have hair in them to keep out bugs and other matter. Not a pretty picture you
say? Nature selects for things that make these animals strong and gives them superior ability to
survive. Nature puts survival above a pretty picture.
When breeders selectively breed cats with very long noses or very short ones, with very
large and/or protruding eyes, and with jaws that do not squarely sit together, they are not doing
this on purpose, but in truth they are selecting for things that will make this animal less able to
survive naturally. What we mean to be "pretty" can also sometimes distort tear ducts, nasal passages,
and other structural parts of the head and face so that these animals are less able to do
things normal animals do. As was stated early in this article, the trick is to select breeding stock
that is beautiful and that produces more beautiful offspring without enhancing the detrimental
qualities.

Interesting too that several breeds of pedigree cat suffer from entropian

ENTROPION: Entropion is an Inward turning of the eyelid margin so that eyelashes and hairs
rub on the cornea causing conjunctivitis and corneal ulceration. It usually requires surgical
repair. It has been reported in the literature in the Persian and related breeds, although it occurs
in many breeds, and is thought to be due to mutations in several genes controlling structure of
eyelid, fit of globe to socket, and facial skin.

Quite interesting reading.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> The Human ones although the list seems horrendous most are mutations and some look extrememly rare diseases I cant remember the last time I heard of someone suffering with Angelman Syndrome, Pradeer Willi Syndrome, Klinefelters syndrome and a host of others on a quick look and the Majority in a lot of cases.


I've taught children with severe and profound learning disorders for nearly 30 years many of them with the kind of genetic disorders mentioned in that list - in addition there is the inexorable rise in Autistic Spectrum disorders over the last 50 years with all it's attendant problems - sadly humans are amongst the most compromised of all species genetically .


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Bijou said:


> sadly humans are amongst the most compromised of all species genetically .


Yet in many parts of the world, probably the most genetically diverse


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

swarthy said:


> Yet in many parts of the world, probably the most genetically diverse


some cultures also marry cousins on a regular basis as well apparently.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Sled dog hotel said:


> some cultures also marry cousins on a regular basis as well apparently.


I didn't say globally they were the most genetically diverse  I said "in many parts of the world".

I am fully aware there is much closer relationships in many cultures.

Doesn't explain the growth of auto-immune conditions, genetically linked cancers and many other health-problems running and often exacerbating with each generation in cultures where people generally don't tend to "marry close" - sadly, an area I know far more about than I would like because of what's happened in our own family


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Bijou said:


> I've taught children with severe and profound learning disorders for nearly 30 years many of them with the kind of genetic disorders mentioned in that list - in addition there is the inexorable rise in Autistic Spectrum disorders over the last 50 years with all it's attendant problems - sadly humans are amongst the most compromised of all species genetically .


I as well have taught children with severe and profound learning disorders, most commonly children with Aspergers and Autism. It is well recognised that the 'rise' in diagnosis in the last 50 years has very much to do with recognition of the syndromes, whereas in the past they were often ignored. We have better screening now. Better diagnosis, screening behind rise in autism - Health - Children's health - msnbc.com---http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/29/10925941-experts-wide-autism-spectrum-may-explain-diagnosis-surge

I would like to understand what is meant by "amongst the most compromised of all species genetically"?

Humans are the species in which the most named anomalies have been found, but that is not an indication that we are the most compromised or that we carry the highest genetic load. It is an indication that we are, of course, very interested in ourselves and are therefore prone to wanting to figure out what ails us!

Number of named conditions compared also ignores prevalence rates. If a species only has one condition, but it affects 99% of that species, that is a highly compromised species! Another can have 5000 named conditions, but if they affect only 2% of the population that is NOT a highly compromised species.

So I'd love some clarification about what is meant by that statement, as I believe I don't agree with it. Prevalence rates are extraordinarily important when speaking about which species are or are not more compromised.

Chiari Malformation has a prevalence rate of 0.1%-0.5% in humans, yet it affects 99% of Cavaliers.

Mitral Valve Prolapse - early onset - 50% of Cavaliers, and 2-3% of humans.

The rate of epilepsy in some breeds is many, many times that of humans, and I'm sure there are far more that could be mentioned.

_". . . However, the intense selection pressure applied in closed populations of limited size (in addition to indirect selection associated with morphological breeding goals), obviously constitutes one of the main reasons why over 1000 inherited conditions have been reported in dogs (Mellersh, 2008). This highlights the necessity for breeding organisations and individual breeders to improve management of genetic diversity in dog breeds. . ."_​
http://www.prodinra.inra.fr/prodinra/pinra/data/2011/10/PROD2011b96e0a0e_20111012110358607.pdf



> Doesn't explain the growth of auto-immune conditions, genetically linked cancers and many other health-problems running and often exacerbating with each generation in cultures where people generally don't tend to "marry close" - sadly, an area I know far more about than I would like because of what's happened in our own family


If you follow the studies much of this is linked to our extended life expectancy and the chemicals which we are now exposed to. My families Parkinson's disease has been directly linked to a) a genetic susceptibility and b) a chemical that was widely used between the 40s and mid sixties. My mother and brother (both early onset Parkinsonians) both worked with this chemical commonly, my brother did daily through his early twenties. Our ancestors might have had the genetic susceptibility, but did not suffer the trigger.

I'd also like to mention that we are not considered a diverse species in comparison to many others - _ "humans are much less genetically diverse than other primates, even though there are many more of us on the planet."_ - Culture Shock May Explain Similarity Between Humans - ScienceNOW --- http://www.ashg.org/education/pdf/geneticvariation.pdf

CC


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

swarthy said:


> I didn't say globally they were the most genetically diverse  I said "in many parts of the world".
> 
> I am fully aware there is much closer relationships in many cultures.
> 
> Doesn't explain the growth of auto-immune conditions, genetically linked cancers and many other health-problems running and often exacerbating with each generation in cultures where people generally don't tend to "marry close" - sadly, an area I know far more about than I would like because of what's happened in our own family


I must admit I have read up more on Canine Immune mediated and auto immune disease, but I cant see why a lot of it doesnt apply to humand as well.

Although there maybe a genetic predispostions to Immune mediated and auto Immune diseases in the main it requires a trigger. 
triggers Include
Hormonal influences inluding sex hormones, infections, viruses, stress, vaccinations especially with Combination Modified live vaccines, certain drugs there is a link too especially with immune and blood disorders, even monthly flea treatments in dogs.Even diet and artificial additives seem to play a part.

Dr Jean Dodds, had published a lot of studies, on Immune mediated and auto immune diseases, vaccinations, Endocrine disorders especially Thyroid.
If you havent read anything of Dr Dodds, the following may be of interest to you. its just one of her articles.
http://www.itsfortheanimals.com/Adobe/Dodds Immune System -Autoimmune.pdf


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

DT said:


> Do not have either the time, patience or concentration required to read the entire content of this thread, but just wanted to say have read some cracking posts made by Devil-Dogz. Who irrespective of her tender age had put both sides forward in a professional manner
> Well Done Kerry.
> x


aaw thanks DT 

Havent had time to read the whole thread, but can just about guess all thats been said 
- with regards to handling others dogs, whats the issue? I have handled my mums dogs with great success for years, because I am simply a better handler   - folk have handlers for various reasons, they dont have the confidence themselves, cant attend the show...ect'

Although believe me some do PAY others to handle their dogs simply because this PRO handler is a 'known' face  

Its brilliant that two Pekes passed their tests at UK Toy having watced the judging, I myself was pleased with the dogs put up. ALSO FAB that the CC passed its test, having no CC failed yet. I hope folk will start to realise there isnt a problem (as such). Just because something CAN be their doesnt mean it IS!

not sure if others have heard but at this show the best bitch and dog in the pug ring refused to compete for their best of breed title..so this smacks all your snotty comments about titles, and cards being the be all and end all.. They refused a good title, for their principles... Regardless if me and you agree...


----------



## Ewan (Mar 1, 2012)

Devil-Dogz said:


> not sure if others have heard but at this show the best bitch and dog in the pug ring refused to compete for their best of breed title..so this smacks all your snotty comments about titles, and cards being the be all and end all.. They refused a good title, for their principles... Regardless if me and you agree...


They refused for principles or on the knowledge that their dogs would fail the vet checks? That's how the public at large will see this, regardless of the truth. If the Canine Alliance get their way and the kc back down over vet checks it's not really a very big leap to see the whole dog world been placed under an official body like the BVA or RSPCA who would have real powers to control every aspect from breeding to showing. The Canine Alliance seem to think very little of the general public but they do have a far greater voice than the CA could ever hope to achieve which could be used to impose a real regulatory body on them. People already have a bad opinion of them, I can't see one supporter of theirs that isn't involved in breeding or showing. They really don't help themselves with the tone of a lot of stuff they put on their website.


----------



## Devil-Dogz (Oct 4, 2009)

Ewan said:


> They refused for principles or on the knowledge that their dogs would fail the vet checks? That's how the public at large will see this, regardless of the truth. If the Canine Alliance get their way and the kc back down over vet checks it's not really a very big leap to see the whole dog world been placed under an official body like the BVA or RSPCA who would have real powers to control every aspect from breeding to showing. The Canine Alliance seem to think very little of the general public but they do have a far greater voice than the CA could ever hope to achieve which could be used to impose a real regulatory body on them. People already have a bad opinion of them, I can't see one supporter of theirs that isn't involved in breeding or showing. They really don't help themselves with the tone of a lot of stuff they put on their website.


we will never know, however any handler knowing their dog will fail would be stupid to waste money attending a show 

The CA has only called for tests to be stopped until something more fairer has been put in place, including all breeds.

The CA doesnt need the public to support them, those not invloved in breeding or showing, after all it was set up to act as a voice for those INVOLVED!


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Sled dog hotel said:


> I must admit I have read up more on Canine Immune mediated and auto immune disease, but I cant see why a lot of it doesnt apply to humand as well.
> 
> *Although there maybe a genetic predispostions to Immune mediated and auto Immune diseases in the main it requires a trigger.
> triggers Include
> ...


Well, my knowledge is more about humans, for what it's worth, but there are similar causes for auto immune disease - it's believed that there's a genetically inherited disposition involved, but that it requires the kind of triggers you mention: environment; dietary deficiencies; exposure to a virus; even your geographical location. 
Some of the auto immune disorders are highly unlikely to be on the rise as such, it's more a case of advances in technology enabling more accurate diagnosis than were previously possible.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> I can't see one supporter of theirs that isn't involved in breeding or showing.


but do you not question why so many of us that *do * breed support them ? ....could it be that just perhaps they have a point ?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> but do you not question why so many of us that do breed support them ? ....could it be that just perhaps they have a point ?


I think I've said it before, but the objections are not that they don't have a point (some of their points may well be valid), but that they fail to see the exaggerations in their own breeds and from so many of the comments (not necessarily even from members) they cannot accept that there is a problem with them. That, for me, is the biggest problem because all the time they will not accept these exaggerations there will be a constant battle between the show world and the vet/kc world, both of whom think they are right.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I don't think the vet tests will discourage many of the exaggerations to be honest. Reading the lists, cleaning between wrinkles, using drops in the eyes, keeping the dogs cool etc. means the dogs don't have a problem. So although some might think the dogs are disabled, so long as their disability is catered for and the dogs well cared for, they are healthy and will pass the checks.

The average pet owner not attending to the issues on a daily basis might end up with an unhealthy infected dog, but the show people shouldn't.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Elles said:


> I don't think the vet tests will discourage many of the exaggerations to be honest. Reading the lists, *cleaning between wrinkles, using drops in the eyes, keeping the dogs cool etc. means the dogs don't have a problem. So although some might think the dogs are disabled, so long as their disability is catered for and the dogs well cared for, they are healthy and will pass the checks.*
> The average pet owner not attending to the issues on a daily basis might end up with an unhealthy infected dog, but the show people shouldn't.


That's part of the problem for me though. If this kind of daily care is required, then humans have still created a disability for the dog, and (for me) have an ethical duty to uncreate it.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I agree Myshkin, my heart sank once I realised, however, just stating the facts as I see them. :frown2:


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Elles said:


> I agree Myshkin, my heart sank once I realised, however, just stating the facts as I see them. :frown2:


I "liked" because I agree, rather than actually liking the facts, if you see what I mean


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> The average pet owner not attending to the issues on a daily basis might end up with an unhealthy infected dog, but the show people shouldn't.


But the show people don't - and that is the whole point of my earlier posts. Don't forget the lists you speak of (which I presume are the ones Sled Dog posted from the various websites) are written for ALL owners of the dogs, not just show owners.

This kind of discrimination against show owners/breeders is exactly what I mean when I talk about the idea that has been fostered by the "shock horror" media - ie the idea that of all the dogs in a breed, the small percentage that are actually show dogs are the most unhealthy.

Look at the facts. The facts are now proving this to be untrue.

You cannot get away from the fact that vets have checked these breeds for health at three championship shows now (BUBA, Crufts and UK Toy) and in all those shows, only 6 dogs were deemed to be unhealthy by vets - and two of those results are being vigorously disputed. The rest were deemed healthy. And "healthy" means free from the kinds of exaggerations you are talking about above, not just "disabled with the disability hidden" as you and Myshkin seem to be suggesting.



rocco33 said:


> I think I've said it before, but the objections are not that they don't have a point (some of their points may well be valid), but that they fail to see the exaggerations in their own breeds and from so many of the comments (not necessarily even from members) they cannot accept that there is a problem with them. That, for me, is the biggest problem because all the time they will not accept these exaggerations there will be a constant battle between the show world and the vet/kc world, both of whom think they are right.


I disagree with you about this. I'm not sure who you mean when you say "they" - but whether you are talking about the things the members on the alliance fb page are saying, or pedigree show breeders in general, it's a huge sweeping generalisation to say that "they" fail to see the exaggerations.

If you had said "some" people fail to see the exaggerations then I would have agreed with you.

There are people on the alliance fb page who are speaking directly against exaggerations, and who want health test for ALL breeds. They want healthy dogs as much as you do. How can you tar those people with the "can't see the exaggerations" brush?

There are many, many breeders who are breeding away from exaggerations and producing healthy dogs in the high profile breeds. There must be - or else how would any of the dogs in the high profile breeds passed their vet health checks? How can you tar those people with the "can't see the exaggerations" brush?

No-one is saying there is no problem, but tarring everyone with the same brush and refusing to acknowledge all the work that is being done is helping no-one - least of all the dogs.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Devil-Dogz said:


> we will never know, however any handler knowing their dog will fail would be stupid to waste money attending a show
> 
> The CA has only called for tests to be stopped until something more fairer has been put in place, including all breeds.
> 
> The CA doesnt need the public to support them, those not invloved in breeding or showing, after all it was set up to act as a voice for those INVOLVED!


Well said - especially the last paragraph.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> free from the kinds of exaggerations you are talking about above


I'm not sure we'd agree on what an exaggeration is.  For example Elmo the GSD from dorset, he passed, I'd say he was exaggerated. I'd also say there are far more exaggerated GSDs and he's not too bad, but he's not what I like to see. He's probably what I would consider the least exaggerated of the dogs whose pics I've seen who passed the tests and I think he's exaggerated..

Hence I'm just as biased as everyone else and as I'm not a vet and know more about horses than dogs, I'll bow out and stick to my collie with her exaggerated exercise and mental stimulation requirements that I have to cater for.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Devil-Dogz said:


> we will never know, however any handler knowing their dog will fail would be stupid to waste money attending a show
> 
> The CA has only called for tests to be stopped until something more fairer has been put in place, including all breeds.
> 
> The CA doesnt need the public to support them, those not invloved in breeding or showing, after all it was set up to act as a voice for those INVOLVED!


Well said - I don't think most of the people here not involved in showing have any concept of how expensive it can be.

A single dog entered at Crufts didn't give much change from £40 - before fuel etc and there are many shows with even higher entry fees than Crufts - if you only have one dog entered and want someone to go with you, they have to pay the entry fees.

I entered two shows last week - same two dogs, one an open show, the other a CH show - entry costs - £15 and £67 respectively - add another £50 to £60 on for fuel to each of those, and even the Open show isn't cheap (but obviously cheaper than the CH show).

We unusually have 4 shows in early May - with fuel, we won't get much change from £400  (I try not to add it up because of how much it frightens me )

Now you tell me who, particularly in the current economic climate, is going to be willing to enter knowing that their dog may get "struck out" at the final hurdle (and usually before there is any sign of any prize money - which generally won't cover entry fees, never mind fuel costs).

At Champ shows, the rest of us who are fortunate enough to get placed will get a piece of card (this is happening increasingly at Open shows as well).


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Yep - to be quite honest the Kc should refund the entry money and travel expenses etc from exhibitors in all breeds where haw is written into their breed standard ...they cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds on this - if a breed has KC 'acceptable ' traits which inherently make it unhealthy in the view of the vets doing the health checks then the Kc should STOP making money out of exhibitors in the full knowledge that they cannot compete on a level playing field with other breeds - and refuse their entries ...

...and is it not completely nonsensical for the Kc to continue to issue CC's stating that haw affected dogs are 'clearly of champion quality when they are subsequently automatically disqualified on health grounds ?


if only a tight eye is acceptable then this must be clearly stated and applied to ALL breeds - then either stop penalising loose eyes until breeders have had the time to breed to the new standards or refuse to accept the entry money form affected breeds - they cannot in all fairness do both !!


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> I'm not sure we'd agree on what an exaggeration is.


..and that's the nub of the matter ...one person's exaggeration is a thing of beauty to others ....as most of you know I have a 'naturally' shaped breed , with moderate angulation, bone, head/skull ratio and proportions -but that's not what the public are looking for - the rise and rise of the many 'Bull breeds' shows that people like their dogs with smooshed up faces - the GSD remains hugely popular despite having the proportions of either a wardrobe ( English Type ) or a frog ( continental ) - and it's appears not enough to breed toy dogs small they now have to be 'tea cup' sized - even breeders of designer breeds don't breed for 'moderation' - cuteness is king even if it means combining two heavily coated breeds with all grooming problems this will bring

You cannot legislate for people's taste and all the time they buy exaggerated dogs, they will be bred - the show world is at least breeding away from extremes of type and this could clearly be seen at Crufts this year ..... but they are not the main suppliers of pet dogs ......

there are 200 plus breeds to choose from many of which are free moving, moderate breeds - if the public genuinely want breeding for exaggeration to stop they should look at some of these alternatives instead of feeding the demand for the unusual, extreme and downright bizarre .


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Bijou said:


> ..and that's the nub of the matter ...one person's exaggeration is a thing of beauty to others ....as most of you know I have a 'naturally' shaped breed , with moderate angulation, bone, head/skull ratio and proportions -but that's not what the public are looking for - the rise and rise of the many 'Bull breeds' shows that people like their dogs with smooshed up faces - the GSD remains hugely popular despite having the proportions of either a wardrobe ( English Type ) or a frog ( continental ) - and it's appears not enough to breed toy dogs small they now have to be 'tea cup' sized - even breeders of designer breeds don't breed for 'moderation' - cuteness is king even if it means combining two heavily coated breeds with all grooming problems this will bring
> 
> You cannot legislate for peoples taste and all the time they buy exaggerated dogs, they will be bred - the show world is at least breeding away from extremes of type and this could clearly be seen at Crufts this year ..... but they are not the main suppliers of pet dogs ......
> 
> there are 200 plus breeds to choose from many of which are free moving, moderate breeds - if the public genuinely want breeding for exaggeration to stop they should look at some of these alternatives instead of feeding the demand for the unusual, extreme and downright bizarre .


Hit the nail on the head!!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> ..and that's the nub of the matter ...one person's exaggeration is a thing of beauty to others ....as most of you know I have a 'naturally' shaped breed , with moderate angulation, bone, head/skull ratio and proportions -but that's not what the public are looking for - the rise and rise of the many 'Bull breeds' shows that people like their dogs with smooshed up faces - the GSD remains hugely popular despite having the proportions of either a wardrobe ( English Type ) or a frog ( continental ) - and it's appears not enough to breed toy dogs small they now have to be 'tea cup' sized - even breeders of designer breeds don't breed for 'moderation' - cuteness is king even if it means combining two heavily coated breeds with all grooming problems this will bring


I agree, but since when did show or any other reputable breeder breed for the public? Sorry, but it is always said they do it it improve the breed, not in response to what the public want. And in fairness, I don't know any breeder (show or working) that takes such account of what the public want in their puppies over what they think is correct themselves.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> I agree, but since when did show or any other reputable breeder breed for the public? Sorry, but it is always said they do it it improve the breed, not in response to what the public want. And in fairness, I don't know any breeder (show or working) that takes such account of what the public want in their puppies over what they think is correct themselves.


Surely they are also part of the public, and I disagree to some extent in that people do see a squashed nose, wrinkley eyes and think not only is that cute, but *correct*, because they subconsciously want a caricature of a dog, rather than something plain and brown and unexceptional with no excesses at all from the dog pound, because it's not *cute* and it's not different, thankfully, there are also lots of folks who do rehome because they see the real picture. Maybe *some* show people have that perception to an excess in itself, but it's a bit like the pot calling the kettle very black really, or that's how I see it.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Surely they are also part of the public, and I disagree to some extent in that people do see a squashed nose, wrinkley eyes and think not only is that cute, but *correct*, because they subconsciously want a caricature of a dog, rather than something plain and brown and unexceptional with no excesses at all from the dog pound, because it's not *cute* and it's not different, thankfully, there are also lots of folks who do rehome because they see the real picture. Maybe *some* show people have that perception to an excess in itself, but it's a bit like the pot calling the kettle very black really, or that's how I see it.


I agree that the public play their part and many do find these exaggerated features appealing. And yes, we only have to see how the public are prepared to buy from pf and byb to get what they want to know that they do have an influence on how puppies are produced. My point was that I can't see how this would affect show breeders, in the same way it wouldn't influence working breeders. I breed a litter for what *I* want. I don't do it for what the general public want - and if some of them who are used to heavier dogs think they aren't 'chunky' enough so be it - I don't care. And the same for those show breeders I know, so I don't see how what the general public wants and finds attractive would have any influence in breeding for the show ring. That was all.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

breeders must sell their surplus pups - most only keep one or perhaps two from each litter - if people voted with their feet and refused to buy breeds with exaggerations of type then breeders could no longer breed them. 

You don't like the way that Pugs, GSD or BUlldogs look ?...then STOP buying them !!


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Personally I think it is a bit of a double edged sword. The public do play a part and can be very fickle in what they want and dont want, but they also tend to be led to a degree too. Dogs that are celebrity choices and winning breeds do start a trend too. 

I remember reading in dog world when the Obamas decided to get a portugese water dog i believe it was, within days/weeks all of a sudden considering at the time too I think it was quite an unknown and out the ordinary breed to some people, breeders started getting a big upsurge in enquirys both here and europe as well as the USA.

There also seemed for example a big increase suddenly round and about me of
Vislas soon after a Visla won crufts at least 3 appeared when previously there was none. So between celebrities and the show world high achievers the breed does look like it can be influenced as to what the public choose.

Therefor IMO its probably more of a catch 22, The dogs have to be bred like it in the first place, for the public to buy, but maybe if the public didnt buy them then some breeders may change what they bred.

However we are still back to the fact that Some Breeders cannot see anything wrong with their dogs and their lines and the way they are breeding
anyway, so it goes on in ever increasing circles.


----------



## PippaM (Jun 5, 2011)

> ...one person's exaggeration is a thing of beauty to others


which is why the vets were asked to look for _clinical problems_ arising from exaggerated conformation.

The KC and the public at large has little interest in exaggerations that do not harm the dogs themselves.

I might not want a pink dog, but if you can breed one, that is up to you.

But when people breed dogs that are so exaggerated that clinical problems arise, that is where the line needs to be drawn. And that (according to Steve Dean) is why the tests were launched.

Pippa


----------



## Ewan (Mar 1, 2012)

Kennel Club response to Mr Mike Gadsby's points raised in relation to the Crufts 2012 vet checks - The Kennel Club

Looks like the Kennel Club are standing firm on this issue, good on them!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Ewan said:


> Kennel Club response to Mr Mike Gadsby's points raised in relation to the Crufts 2012 vet checks - The Kennel Club
> 
> Looks like the Kennel Club are standing firm on this issue, good on them!


IMO the KC response is much more measured and sensible - done in the way it is, ie quoting specific points from the Canine Alliance, the CA come across as petulant and ill-informed


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Point 4

:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

I guess that the KC really want to try and brazen this one out. However, behind the scenes word is that the KC AGM is going to be somewhat lively. There is talk of a large number of members rebelling against the measure, people are talking of resigning, there are potential legal cases pending and the measure has already been thwarted at the Toy Dog Club last weekend when the 2 CC winners in the Pug group refused to compete for BOB - hence not undergoing the vet check.

But what's really stupid is that the KC issued a joint press statement with the CA - and now issue a totally separate step by step rebuttal. That is simply going to put backs up in the CA. As there are about 7,000 people in the Facebook group dedicated to the CA that's a LOT of people to upset.

I look forward to the next round.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Interesting comment in the KC link above from Steve Dean:

_"As has been well documented, the 1995 European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals listed some 30 breeds detailing deleterious conditions which, it claimed, if not addressed could warrant action to prevent further breeding. The Kennel Club considered the list and reduced it to 14 breeds in line with available evidence in the UK. "_

If anyone does read it, they would notice that the Clumber Spaniel, Dogue de Bordeaux, GSD, Mastiff and Pekingnese are not actually mentioned in it. So I'm not sure how they whittled it down to include them. The BIS winning breed, the newfoundland is mentioned for ectropian though.

_"For some considerable time, judges of all the high profile breeds have been required to submit a report regarding the health of the breed on that day, and this is compared with a report prepared by an independent observer. Where discrepancies exist, these are taken up with the judge and the process is considered an important part of the education of judges. Ongoing education has included an eye seminar for the high profile breeds in November 2011, incorporating a presentation on the veterinary checks and how to recognise discomfort in dogs in the show ring." _

Not been asked (yet) to submit a report or have been independently observed, wasn't asked to or aware of the eye seminar in November 2011.

Still disappointing that it is not across the board for all breeds and that in a few years when hoops have been jumped through to have breeds removed from the HPB list then the health checking will be a thing of the past and not ongoing as the CA wish.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

AlbertRoss said:


> I guess that the KC really want to try and brazen this one out. However, behind the scenes word is that the KC AGM is going to be somewhat lively. There is talk of a large number of members rebelling against the measure, people are talking of resigning, there are potential legal cases pending and the measure has already been thwarted at the Toy Dog Club last weekend when the 2 CC winners in the Pug group refused to compete for BOB - hence not undergoing the vet check.
> 
> But what's really stupid is that the KC issued a joint press statement with the CA - and now issue a totally separate step by step rebuttal. That is simply going to put backs up in the CA. As there are about 7,000 people in the Facebook group dedicated to the CA that's a LOT of people to upset.
> 
> I look forward to the next round.


You don't think at least half of them are just rubber necking and just there for the drama?
I think the true number are those that have given money


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

rona said:


> You don't think at least half of them are just rubber necking and just there for the drama?
> I think the true number are those that have given money


I think that a lot of people are playing 'wait and see'. If the CA manage to get any changes made to the process then I think it may change. But I also think that there are large numbers of people who are totally fed up with the whole dog-showing/registration/rule-making body being unaccountable to those it serves.

In the Cat world the GCCF were in the same position and thought they'd never be challenged. Big mistake.

In the world of Horse racing the Jockey Club operated in pretty much the same way as the Kennel Club - and then got threatened by possible legislation to take their toys away, so they made a LOT of changes.

The Kennel Club is under threat from the CA, from vets, from the general public who think Jemima Puddleduck's TV programmes represent everything that goes on in the pedigree dog world, from the Government's own group looking at dog health... Yet, in the 21st century we are supposed to accept that this self-perpetuating, unelected body can continue to hand out edicts which people who pay them find unacceptable?

I'm all in favour of rules that generate healthy dogs. I think that the KC are right to take action to ensure this. But I think they are 100% wrong in the high-handed and badly thought-out way in which they started. In some of the high profile breeds there aren't many dog registrations. In those like the GSD there are thousands (approx 9,000 last year - the 3rd or 4th most popular breed I believe). If those breeds start pulling out of the KC it will lose a huge amount of income. I've read the KC instruction to vets re the GSD - it's totally non-specific and seems designed to alienate GSD people. And the GSD breed clubs are pretty well organised. They've already threatened to pull away once. I don't think it would take much for them to do so again.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

AlbertRoss said:


> . . . As there are about 7,000 people in the Facebook group dedicated to the CA that's a LOT of people to upset.
> 
> I look forward to the next round.


Many of us joined that facebook group to watch the goings-on and make our own judgements. The number on it does not indicate the number that support the CA. I believe there are a little over 1000 paid CA members however.

CC


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> Many of us joined that facebook group to watch the goings-on and make our own judgements. The number on it does not indicate the number that support the CA. I believe there are a little over 1000 paid CA members however.
> 
> CC


As I said - I think people will play wait and see. I'm not happy with some of the actions of the group so far and I'm pretty sure that there's at least one person there who is more interested in self-glorification than results. But the fact that 300 odd people made the effort to travel back to Birmingham for an inaugural meeting seems to indicate quite a lot of support.

Lip service - at the least - is being paid to the idea of promoting healthy dogs. Whether that will hold up for individual breeds is another matter. I'm not sure everyone will stick together and I certainly think the KC believes it is all powerful in this. Time will tell.

Oh - 1000 paid up members of the CA is approaching the number of members the KC has. But it took the CA a few weeks - the KC has had quite a bit longer.....


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Coincidentally the vet at the Toydog Show who this time passed the Peke entered (the peke he'd failed at crufts was entered but not shown), was Will Jeffels who was also the vet at Crufts who failed the Peke and Bulldog and was the vet in the report about the Pug who passed at Crufts. He is the usual vet for the toy dog show.

News >Dog World >Dog World Home >Dogworld

So it seems the show people are generally happy with his services tbh.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> Coincidentally the vet at the Toydog Show who this time passed the Peke entered (the peke he'd failed at crufts was entered but not shown), was Will Jeffels who was also the vet at Crufts who failed the Peke and Bulldog and was the vet in the report about the Pug who passed at Crufts. He is the usual vet for the toy dog show.
> 
> News >Dog World >Dog World Home >Dogworld
> 
> So it seems the show people are generally happy with his services tbh.


It's illogical to say that all show people are happy with a vet just because he is the regular vet for the UK Toy show. What about all the people whose dogs aren't in the toy group (ie the working, pastoral, hound, terrier, utility and gundog groups)? And even in the toy breeds the pug people would disagree with you - they refused to compete for BOB at UK Toy - and did you not read their disgust at the way the vet carried out his duties at Crufts in the post by Snoringbear?

I think there were two much more interesting points from the article you quoted.

The first one was that the peke the vet disqualified from Crufts was entered but did not attend. Obviously the owner could see no point in his dog being failed again by the same vet. We've already discussed the possibilities of exhibitors picking and choosing the shows they enter depending upon the vet (as they do with judges) and here it is, happening already - a very clear indication that the tests as they are are not working properly.

And the second one was that this time the vet did not use a pen torch. Who knows what dogs with scars on their eyes from previous injuries may have been prevented from going on to the group if he had done so? This is an important inconsistency - either torches are to be used, or they aren't. Had this not been a toy show, but a general show, would the bulldog who was failed at Crufts have passed without the use of a pen torch? The scarring was invisible without the use of that instrument.

There has to be some consistency, some sort of level playing field, otherwise it all descends into farce.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

The test at the Toy Dog show was also much shorter than the one the vet did at Crufts - 4 minutes as opposed to 20.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> You don't think at least half of them are just rubber necking and just there for the drama?
> I think the true number are those that have given money


I think you are probably right about this. However, those 1000+ who have given money are made up of many very influential people both in the show world and in the KC itself. If the KC continues to refuse to listen to what they are saying and they come to the conclusion that the only way forwards is to break away from the KC, then they would take a large percentage of show people away with them. I think the KC should open their eyes and be very worried. It's not often I agree with AlbertRoss, but I do on this occasion.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> Who knows what dogs with scars on their eyes from previous injuries may have been prevented from going on to the group if he had done so


Do you think the kennel club, who have copies of the vet reports, are lying when they say no dog failed due to previous injury and old scars on their eyes?

The KC have confirmed that no pen torches will be used, but rather that show organisers will have to provide adequate lighting. It's one of the issues raised that has been addressed by the KC, so it's no longer relevant to future testing.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> Do you think the kennel club, who have copies of the vet reports, are lying when they say no dog failed due to previous injury and old scars on their eyes?


Unless the reports are made public, then we'll never know for sure. All we have is the combined words of the exhibitor and the British Bulldog Club, against the word of the KC. The non-publication of vet reports is yet another factor of the health testing that is unfair and needs to be sorted out.



Elles said:


> The KC have confirmed that no pen torches will be used, but rather that show organisers will have to provide adequate lighting. It's one of the issues raised that has been addressed by the KC, so it's no longer relevant to future testing.


This is good (from a consistency point of view) for future shows - but that decision was made after UK Toy


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Neither the KC nor the vet have the authority to make the vet report public. The exhibitor/owner does and refuses to do so. It's already been said. 

I don't see why it's unfair tbh. I don't agree that the vet and KC should be able to publish a vet report about someone's dog. That should be up to the owner. 

As it is possible to nurture the exaggerated dogs and present them as healthy on the day, I don't see that these checks are going to make much difference. We could say that the dogs are show dogs needing specific and specialised care and are not suitable for novice owners.

If these dogs are perfectly healthy despite their exaggerations, due to the special care and attention they receive, then I'm not sure I personally would think they were the kind of fit and healthy I'd want, but hey ho. 

KC brought in vet tests, dogs pass the vet tests, the vet tests are being looked at for improvement. What more can anyone ask for?  (don't answer that lol)


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> Neither the KC nor the vet have the authority to make the vet report public. The exhibitor/owner does and refuses to do so. It's already been said.
> 
> I don't see why it's unfair tbh. I don't agree that the vet and KC should be able to publish a vet report about someone's dog. That should be up to the owner.


I suppose I'm coming at this from the angle that I would never show a dog that is not healthy - so if I were an exhibitor whose dog had been classed as unhealthy by a show vet then I would want EVERYTHING made public because I would be contesting it all the way!



Elles said:


> As it is possible to nurture the exaggerated dogs and present them as healthy on the day, ................I don't see that these checks are going to make much difference. ..........


I don't agree with you about this. A dog is either healthy or unhealthy. You can't suddenly make them healthy for a day so that they can show well. And no matter how well you look after a very wrinkled bulldog, for example, the breed standard still says

_Over nose wrinkle, if present, whole or broken, must never adversely affect or obscure eyes or nose. Pinched nostrils and heavy over nose roll are unacceptable and should be heavily penalised_
The Kennel Club

and a heavily exaggerated dog will not be put forward by the judge - and if it is, will be penalised by the vet. If you believe the KC that no dog was penalised for old injuries, you have to accept that the stystem worked for the bulldog at Crufts - even though this dog was so much less exaggerated than the breed has been previously that even JH commented on it.



Elles said:


> We could say that the dogs are show dogs needing specific and specialised care and are not suitable for novice owners.


Or we could tell the truth and say that show dogs are being bred away from over-exaggeration and that the dogs with the most exaggeration are being bred for the pet market


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> so if I were an exhibitor whose dog had been classed as unhealthy by a show vet then I would want EVERYTHING made public because I would be contesting it all the way!


Me too. Why do you think the bulldog owner isn't?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> Me too. Why do you think the bulldog owner isn't?


They are. Have you seen this:

_The Facts .
The top winning Bulldog in question has an old eye injury, it is not visible to the naked eye in the normal manner of being examined by the judge nor is it visible without pulling the dogs eyelid down and a light being used.

It was an accidental injury to the eye that the dog had as a puppy it had suffered no ill effects . The exhibitor had not given this a second thought as a reason the dog would not be classed as healthy by the independent veterinarian on the day.

It seems the Kennel Club are assuming that any mark on the cornea of any Bulldog is due to damage caused by eye disease, in this case this is simply not true, and will be taken up with the Kennel Club by representatives of the Bulldog Breed Council at a meeting on 23rd March which we hopefully will prevent situations like this re-occurring in future. In all other areas this bulldog is healthy and passed all requirements._
Bulldog Breed Council

Looking at the picture on this link of the bulldog who failed the tests - what exaggerations can you see that make you think the dog is not healthy?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

What happened on the 23rd March? Why are the KC still insisting that the dog didn't fail due to an old injury?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> What happened on the 23rd March? Why are the KC still insisting that the dog didn't fail due to an old injury?


No idea, sorry - perhaps someone in the bulldog world might know.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> It's not often I agree with AlbertRoss, but I do on this occasion.


Crikey! Things must be serious.


----------

