# Crrufts to allow 'cosmetics'



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Crufts allow dog owners to treat their pets with hairspray after lifting ban on 'performance-enhancing' substances | Mail Online

What amazes me is that chalk, hairspray etc has actually been banned since the 1920's but it's all had a blind eye turned to it, and when the competitors were pulled up on it there was such fuss that instead of standing their ground that the KC has decided to allow it.

I loved my trip to crufts a few years ago - but I must admit the spraying and powdering that was going on did shock me a little


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

I'm very ignorant of the showing world - what is the purpose of spray and chalk?


----------



## babycham2002 (Oct 18, 2009)

Phoolf said:


> I'm very ignorant of the showing world - what is the purpose of spray and chalk?


spray to keep hair where you put it

chalk to make white bits look whiter


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

babycham2002 said:


> spray to keep hair where you put it
> 
> chalk to make white bits look whiter


Seems a bit odd to me, but what do I know? I'm sadly not competitive.

Doesn't the chalk come off in the judges hands as they examine, and we all know what hair spray is like surely?


----------



## LahLahsDogs (Jul 4, 2012)

I love Crufts. There are alot of negative views on it, and to be honest, I see their points. It's become a bit.. OTT. I don't like the way some breeds are bred for looks even though it effects health (although I believe this is starting to get better..), and I don't like the use of cosmetics like hair spray to tart the dogs up.

Don't get me wrong though, I still watch it and would like to visit again one year. I love to see all the breeds, but I would prefer to see them as nature intended as some of them just don't look happy with having everything done to them. They're primed and then stood there like objects.. I like to see them having a nice time. We used to take our Giant Schnauzers, but it was very much a hobby, and the dogs seemed to enjoy it. It wasn't taken seriously. The dogs just had a bath, and my Dad groomed them, and we took them to the show and had a nice day. Sometimes they won, sometimes they didn't, but we went for a nice family day rather than the competition. That's what I like to see.. people having a nice time with their dogs and visa versa. You don't need hair spray for that!


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

> Sandy Vincent, the secretary of the Standard Poodle Club of Great Britain, told the Sunday Telegraph: 'The Kennel Club's position was ridiculous. The majority were using hairspray anyway.
> 
> 'It made us look foolish in the eyes of everybody overseas. In the US they think nothing of using hairspray.
> 
> *'It's a beauty competition.* [The hairspray ban] is like Miss World being made to go on without her make-up.'


Finally someone admits it.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

picaresque said:


> Finally someone admits it.


This is why I've never been a fan of crufts, I always wonder what goes on back stage and tbh (I'm sure many will disagree) I don't think it's healthy to be as competitive as a lot of people are, some of the dogs undoubtedly love the show world but many don't and it's purely for the owners own ego.


----------



## WeedySeaDragon (Oct 7, 2012)

I don't get all the ridiculous amounts of what I consider to be over grooming done to some breeds.

Thankfully my breed of choice is wipe clean so no worrying about all that with mine :lol: 

One thing I have always wondered though is whether breeds like poodles have to be shown in those clips. Are they a requirement or just a trend and if someone decided to show a poodle in a simple short clip would they immediately be overlooked because of it?


----------



## babycham2002 (Oct 18, 2009)

Phoolf said:


> Seems a bit odd to me, but what do I know? I'm sadly not competitive.
> 
> Doesn't the chalk come off in the judges hands as they examine, and we all know what hair spray is like surely?


I dont know, either it doesnt or it does and they are so used to it they ignore it.
For showy little punks like mine. Surprisingly They have nothing in their hair except a a dog shampoo which was washed out like normal. They were at a show today.



WeedySeaDragon said:


> I don't get all the ridiculous amounts of what I consider to be over grooming done to some breeds.
> 
> Thankfully my breed of choice is wipe clean so no worrying about all that with mine :lol:
> 
> One thing I have always wondered though is whether breeds like poodles have to be shown in those clips. Are they a requirement or just a trend and if someone decided to show a poodle in a simple short clip would they immediately be overlooked because of it?


They allowed clips for poodles to be shown in has just been extended to include a T trim and another one I cant recall. There was already several apart from the continental that they could be shown in
The full continental actually stems from, the poodle being a water retrieving dog was part shaved for movement and less wet and then the 'balls' were left to keep important joints and parts warm and protected.


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

picaresque said:


> Finally someone admits it.


I don't quite understand that remark... everyone knows that showing is about looks and conformation, that IS the entire point of it, nothing to 'admit' about it.

I don't really agree with the hair spray and the chalk, I think a dog should be shown as it is (obviously still in show trims, just without the spray & other 'extras') and if there are imperfections then that's how the dog should go into the ring, it shouldn't be penalised if it isn't absolutely perfectly white. Mabel's coat has faults (the tan on her bum is too wide and her thumbprints bleed into her tan too much) but I wouldn't ever try and cover it with a black marker or anything, I just accept that she has a fault and hope that the judge doesn't pick up on it too much. To me, that's no different to a bit of a tear stain under a Westies eyes or beard... that just shows that they are an ordinary dog living an ordinary life.



Phoolf said:


> This is why I've never been a fan of crufts, I always wonder what goes on back stage and tbh (I'm sure many will disagree) I don't think it's healthy to be as competitive as a lot of people are, *some of the dogs undoubtedly love the show world but many don't* and it's purely for the owners own ego.


If a dog doesn't enjoy being in the ring then you can certainly see it in their body language. A competitive person wouldn't show a dog that didn't enjoy being there because they wouldn't get placed. The dog needs to want to be there and needs to enjoy the attention, it sounds silly unless you have actually sat and watched a show, but the dogs that do well are the ones that have a natural sort of 'showmanship' about them. If a dog wasn't happy and skulked its way around the ring or refused to walk, it wouldn't get very far


----------



## WeedySeaDragon (Oct 7, 2012)

babycham2002 said:


> They allowed clips for poodles to be shown in has just been extended to include a T trim and another one I cant recall. There was already several apart from the continental that they could be shown in


Thanks for that. Just had a quick Google and I do think they look nicer in the t-trim.


----------



## hazel pritchard (Jun 28, 2009)

Such a shame the KC can not allow dogs to be shown as nature intended.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Tigerneko said:


> If a dog doesn't enjoy being in the ring then you can certainly see it in their body language. A competitive person wouldn't show a dog that didn't enjoy being there because they wouldn't get placed. The dog needs to want to be there and needs to enjoy the attention, it sounds silly unless you have actually sat and watched a show, but the dogs that do well are the ones that have a natural sort of 'showmanship' about them. If a dog wasn't happy and skulked its way around the ring or refused to walk, it wouldn't get very far


Well I don't know about that, they don't judge dogs by how happy they are to my knowledge, and it's not like many people won't be using aversive methods for their dogs in show, and winning titles to boot. Been seeing a lovely picture floating around facebook about how they are now hiding prong collars underneath flat leather so judges won't notice the dog is being forced around, not at Crufts of course, but in other dog arenas round the world.


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

Tigerneko said:


> I don't quite understand that remark... everyone knows that showing is about looks and conformation, that IS the entire point of it, nothing to 'admit' about it.


I've found that most show people go to great lengths to stress that what they do is anything but a beauty contest. The 'Miss World' comment speaks volumes.


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

Phoolf said:


> Well I don't know about that, they don't judge dogs by how happy they are to my knowledge, and it's not like many people won't be using aversive methods for their dogs in show, and winning titles to boot. Been seeing a lovely picture floating around facebook about how they are now hiding prong collars underneath flat leather so judges won't notice the dog is being forced around, not at Crufts of course, but in other dog arenas round the world.


Well you did say you were very ignorant to the show world  what sort of aversive methods are you referring to? A judge doesn't judge them by how happy they are as nobody can measure happiness in a dog, but they do judge them by the way they move, and if a dog isn't comfortable with the show environment, then it will not move nicely and it will not show nicely, therefore it will not be placed well. Also, I am fairly sure a judge would notice a prong collar when he/she was going over the dog, they feel the dogs neck and look closely at the head so it would be difficult to go totally unnoticed. Of course there are bad people in the show world, as there are bad people in every other walk of life but you cannot tar everyone with the same brush. Saying that most dogs don't like it is rather misinformed, i'd like to see where you got that information from, and how you have managed to assess 'most' show dogs whilst still retaining your ignorance to the show world.



picaresque said:


> I've found that most show people go to great lengths to stress that what they do is anything but a beauty contest. The 'Miss World' comment speaks volumes.


Well obviously those people are a bit daft, the judge doesn't wear x-ray glasses and a stethoscope, they judge only with their eyes (apart from the high profile breeds that do require a vet check) so can only possibly be judging how the dog looks  of course they do also judge their bone structure (which again is only by sight on movement/very basic feel over) and movement, but it all boils down to the appearance of the dog. Just my opinion of course


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

Tigerneko said:


> Well obviously those people are a bit daft


Hey, you said it 

But seriously, if I referred to dog showing as a beauty contest (ie. all about looks) around most show people it would go down like a cup of cold sick. Either it is or it isn't.


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

picaresque said:


> Hey, you said it
> 
> But seriously, if I referred to dog showing as a beauty contest (ie. all about looks) around most show people it would go down like a cup of cold sick. Either it is or it isn't.


I did say it  it is the daft ones who go to great lengths to deny that it's a beauty contest, I don't - I think that's exactly what it is  even moreso for those who spend hours (or days) grooming, bathing, trimming, brushing, styling... I couldn't think of anything worse, all we do with our breed is wipe them down with a baby wipe to give the coat a bit of a sheen and into the ring we go  for people to spend so much time on grooming and use hairspray and chalk and stuff only to then deny the fact that it's a beauty contest..... that IS daft! Why else would they be doing it! So I do actually totally agree with you


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

picaresque said:


> Hey, you said it
> 
> But seriously, if I referred to dog showing as a beauty contest (ie. all about looks) around most show people it would go down like a cup of cold sick. Either it is or it isn't.


Of course looks play a huge part, however they are 'confirmation' shows at the end of the day

Take some of the HPB and the eye problems. I agree some of the eyes look awful with droopy lids. It's so difficult to word but they aren't being hauled over the coals for looks, it's about confirmation. Entropian can lead to ulcers, blindness etc.

Dogs who dislike showing just will not show. Exactly the same as a dog who doesn't like to play fetch.....it just won't fetch that ball!!


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

I love watching crufts and the day I had there was fantastic, all the dogs looked 'happy and healthy' to my eye and were comfortable being approached by strangers and seemed to enjoy their day as much as their owners 

But I do think stuff like this does nothing for the KC and pedigree dogs.
I understand grooming and trimming coats but using hairspray and what is effectively makeup to bring out the colour in the coat is just a little bit silly.
It's just seems tome to be part of this 'exageration' of features that has caused some breeds issues.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

I never showed my horse, but I've been around people who did for a number of years. Hairspray in the mane is common, as is chalk to give definition to the white markings. Anyone complaining? No!

Whilst I wouldn't put hairspray on Bess (can't stand it on my own hair) ill always use the best shampoos and conditioners to show her off as best I can.

Come on, it goes on everywhere that animals are shown.

And if you want to see how cruel we show dog owners are to our show dogs, here's one where I've forced Bess to have a mud bath!










(Sad thing is Daily Fail readers would believe that!)


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

BessieDog said:


> I never showed my horse, but I've been around people who did for a number of years. Hairspray in the mane is common, as is chalk to give definition to the white markings. Anyone complaining? No!
> 
> Whilst I wouldn't put hairspray on Bess (can't stand it on my own hair) ill always use the best shampoos and conditioners to show her off as best I can.
> 
> ...


I'm not saying show dog owners are cruel.

However I don't understand the use of hairspray, chalk etc - if it's about conformation then surely the natural colour, fall of the coat should be judged?
And the real point is that these things have been against the rules but for the last however many years the KC chose to turn a blind eye  And then when they finally tried to enforce the rules there was such a fuss they just rolled over


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

Fleur said:


> And the real point is that these things have been against the rules but for the last however many years the KC chose to turn a blind eye  And then when they finally tried to enforce the rules there was such a fuss they just rolled over


That's the KC all over, they are too worried about upsetting exhibitors and losing show entries and money. Although i'm sure if Jemima Harrison got on their case it'd be re-banned in no time!


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

It does seem silly to 'cover up' any 'imperfections' (sic) when you're trying to say 'hey, this is what this breed should look like!' because you're not showing that breed.....you're showing an edited version.
Its like showing a heavily photoshopped picture where all blemishes and discolourations are removed: its not the real thing. These girls in magazines are not the real thing, thats not what human beings look like.

You know those horrible 'puppy boutiques' you see online offering runty bug eyed tiny little handbag dogs for thousands of pounds? I've noticed a lot of 'photoshopping' on those pics, editing out any staining on white dogs so they almost glow with this insane white light.
Maybe some are sucked in by it, but when I look at them, its just horribly obvious the pics have been edited, because no white animal is ever that white.

I understand it is about looks, so you want your dog to look as flawless as possible, I understand bathing and grooming, as that is just tidying up what is already there. But chalk.....its kinda like covering up the dogs natural colour, like applying a filter to a photo and trying to pass it off as the real thing. I don't know but......is there any breed of dog that is _meant_ to be glaringly perfectly white?

I know some rat people use chalk in their pink eyed white rats at shows, which I didn't ever really like either. 
I showed a white rat once, never bothered putting anything on him to whiten him up. If he was gonna place, I wanted it to be for what he actually was, not what I'd covered him in.

I guess its not a huge issue really, as long as the dogs don't care and it doesn't affect them. But I don't know if I'd get a sense of pride out of winning anything with a dog I'd basically 'masked' with products and tricks.
It'd be like winning a beauty pageant for a photo of yourself that you'd worked on in photoshop to remove all your zits, scars, fat bits and bumps and evened out your skin tone....its not you, and you won because you'd artificially changed the way you really look! I wouldn't get any self satisfaction from that.

But then I guess thats what it is, and if everyone else is doing it, you probably have to in order to stand a chance. 
And with it being so competitive, Im sure people will do whatever they have to to achieve success. 
There are a few reasons I don't show rats any more (a big one being that since I began primarily rescuing, I don't have anything that is serious show quality any more! Most of them are either crap examples of their variety, or have bits missing, or ear notches, and so on) And one of the big ones was the competitiveness of it....even rats, where there is no money or fame to be made even if you win big. 
Even then, it was still quite bitchy at times, and I often found the animals referred to like 'items' rather than individuals, valued on their colouring or type rather than their wonderful personalities, referred to by their colour and description of their looks rather than their name and so on.
Not all show people, some were lovely. But its not something I am into.

So I guess I just don't 'get' the showing thing anyway, for me personally.
I can see how it must be exciting, especially if you've bred the animal yourself and worked hard on that line and produced something deemed a wonderful example of the breed, I get that.
It must be nice to have an expert in the breed tell you the one you've produced is awesome. Makes sense.
And obviously notoriety and acclaim that can come with a big win in dogs, and money possibly?
But beyond that....I don't really see it. 
I've judged pet classes at rat shows before, and THAT was so much more fun! You get to judge the animals purely on personality and temperament, nothing to do with looks. They can be the ugliest, most non-standard rat on earth and still win. 
I kind of wish dog shows included this a little, it being if only a tiny bit about their temperament and personality and ability.

Someone might be able to educate me on this but.....the breed standards always list temperament of the breed. And yet all they do is have it stand, be checked over, then trot about a little. They don't actually do anything that would demonstrate the breed character......do they? Im no expert on dog shows, maybe they do and I'm unaware. 
You can't tell if a dobe, for example, has the 'correct' dobe temperament and character just by watching it trot about and stand there while you run your hands over it. It could have a completely non-dobe temperament (or any breed, take your pick), but you wouldn't know. So why is the temperament of the breed included in the standard at all, if that is not something they even judge for?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I don't know about dogs, but I do know horses and I know that any white would be scrubbed so hard, washed in chemicals, covered in blankets and preened and pampered so much that many horses would be very miserable if chalk was banned. Many show horses already lead unnatural and miserable lives, but many don't and being able to chalk their white bits back to white from mud, pee and poop stain yellow saves them a lot of grief. Could be the same with some dogs?

People like to show dogs. They like to tart them up and trot them around show rings, a bit of chalk and hairspray isn't going to kill them. What's an alternative? Line breed special dogs whose coats repel dirt, come ready clipped and stand on end? At least in the UK, show dogs don't get their actual ears shaped with scissors, just the hair.  

Personally I detest showing and everything that goes with it, but I think there's far worse things than hairspray and chalk to worry about, even if superficially tarting up animals is a 'worse thing' and I don't think it is. 

jmho and ymmv.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

The alternative is for the KC to stand its ground and for the people who 'like' to cheat by altering the coat of their dog to get over themselves, quite frankly. 

That is what it is to me. Cheating. Plain and simple. I can't see how it can be considered anything differently.

If my child had a tantrum cuz they 'liked' to do something and it was something they shouldn't I certainly wouldn't cave. I don't see how this is any different.

Just cuz someone 'likes' to tart a dog up and show it unnaturally doesn't mean it should be done.

I agree there are far worse things that can be done and therefore this is not something I'll have kniptions over, but I have a strong opinion about 'letting' people do things just cuz they 'like' to when I believe those things are detrimental.

I do believe it is detrimental to breeds to have dogs win because their owners have cheated and changed how that dog looks. The dog is now a misrepresentation. If all the dogs in that group have been powdered or sprayed then they all are misrepresentative of the dogs they should be. I can't believe people call themselves 'competitors' when cheating is allowed like this.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Absolutely agree with CC, and I wish the KC would stand it's ground. Dogs should be shown without the aid of chemicals that alter how they look naturally, why on earth do people insist on treating it as a beauty pageant only, it's about functionality, and it should also be about character, dogs that show any signs of aggression or poor temperament, should be marked down, and many are, rightly so. 

I've got a couple of shows this weekend, I'll be trimming the bits on the flatcoat that the judge needs to see, so feet, end of tail and ears, to show their shape/size and where they end. For the Lab its just a quick trim of the tail twizzle so it doesn't look longer than it is. Other than that they get a groom, and any dead hair is stripped out, they don't get bathed or anything else. 

And I don't think anyone can say my dogs lead a miserable life.


----------



## Dober (Jan 2, 2012)

As an alternative opinion, I don't really mind some types of show preparation so long as they enhance what the dog does have and not to blatantly hide faults, so long as is not cruel to the dogs.

I know a few people who use chalks and I have no issue with how they use them. For example, there was someone assisting a breeder showing her shelters and the breeder asked to take her dogs out to the toilet in the morning when they arrived at the show. So the assistant takes the dogs out on to the freshly cut lawn outside which to the horror of the breeder stains the dogs normally bright white feet bright green. Now you could wash the dogs feet but the stain wouldn't come out, so the assistant gets out the white chalk and brushes it in, then out, then in, then out maybe 10 times until the feet are the right colour again 

I also know someone who uses it on their bearded collie who uses a powder because he drools down his chin and it makes the coat soggy.

I agree with what was said before about a dog that doesn't enjoy showing isnt competitive and people wouldn't spend that amount of time and money showing a dog that doesn't want to. In addition to this, a lot of dogs like getting groomed. Someone at my ringcraft class told me she gets out her grooming table in front of the tv and will groom him for hours, he loves the attention and it's calming and a good bonding experience.

I do think there is a lot wrong with the showing world, but IMO some people are so critical of everything to do with it when they've never even been involved with the show scene or met the people there. Personally, I like to see people doing things with their dog other than taking them for a walk around the block and sitting on the sofa watching tv with them.


----------



## Flamingoes (Dec 8, 2012)

REALLY stupid question but is the spray a special dog type or human? If it's human could it be toxic if they licked it? 

Sorry for the ignorance


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

Dober said:


> I do think there is a lot wrong with the showing world, but IMO *some people are so critical of everything to do with it when they've never even been involved with the show scene or met the people there.* Personally, I like to see people doing things with their dog other than taking them for a walk around the block and sitting on the sofa watching tv with them.


Precisely! I just don't understand why people spout rubbish about it being cruel when they obviously don't have any real knowledge or experience, other than watching Pedigree Dogs Exposed 

It would be akin to someone from the show world saying that ALL rescues are cruel because they keep their dogs in kennels all the time and have them PTS for no reason.... i'm sure the rescue folk would have a dicky fit to hear someone slagging off rescue like that and show folk feel the same when their hobby is slated so badly. I would really recommend anyone who is so dead against dog showing to actually go along to one and look at the dogs and talk to the people - do some real research before making ill-informed statements about the show world.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> And I don't think anyone can say my dogs lead a miserable life.


Absolutely SL and I'm sure the majority of show dogs don't lead miserable lives either.

The point I was trying to make is how will the owners of show dogs who do use hairspray and chalk get the desired effect without it? Will their dogs spend their lives wrapped in bandages and kept in a gilded cage to keep them sparkly clean and white? Would the KC then have to start penalising people for having clean dogs because they had to have been incarcerated and body wrapped to be that way?

That little long haired dog that won a top prize was kept in all the time so it didn't damage its hair wasn't it? Little dogs shouldn't be kept in all the time any more than larger dogs, but a standard poodle would really suffer if he was kept in and wrapped up to keep him clean imo.

As it is, like the dog on the cut grass, they can lead happier lives and have the stains removed with chalk instead. I really don't see how chalk or hairspray can be considered cruel tbh. and it may actually be beneficial, if it means a white or coat shaped dog can lead a more normal life than he would without it.

To see an extreme of the lengths some sick people will go to for the prestige of show winning, one only has to look to horses in the US and in particular the big lick. I advise that if you don't know, you don't look.  But if you think dogs will be treated normally and just shown with stains on them, I think you're probably mistaken.


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

Tigerneko said:


> I would really recommend anyone who is so dead against dog showing to actually go along to one and look at the dogs and talk to the people - do some real research before making ill-informed statements about the show world.


Agree so much with this and what Dober's saying. It's a little bit difficult to criticise something you don't know anything about, in the same way I can't really go about criticising dressage competitions because I don't know how horses are prepared for, or compete in, dressage.

I was at a packed Open show yesterday, and all I saw were happy, comfortable dogs who were being paid loads of attention and getting to meet lots of other dogs. Sure, there's competitive breeders and exhibitors, but you get that in every walk of life. I don't quite see the need for hairspray, but I don't own a breed that needs specific show grooming. I'm sure a Poodle or Bichon show owner sees things very differently.


----------



## Tollisty (May 27, 2008)

At a show yesterday, had to walk through mud and puddles in the car park and Ember was mud splattered underneath and had brown feet! After about 30 mins being inside she was white again  I didn't need to do anything! mud and dirt just falls off 

The toller should be - Kind, confident, intelligent, easy to train. Playful. This can be judged in the show ring, they shouldn't be stood like statues, you need to see their character.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Just to clear up, in case any one thought I was anti-showing: Im not. I certainly don't think its cruel as long as the dog enjoys it, and some certainly seem to.
And its far better to 'do' something with your dog (again, assuming they like it) than people who stuff them in a crate all day and chuck a ball for 10 minutes here and there.
Im not anti show, I love watching crufts, and even entered Dresden in a little local show when he was a pup. Its just not something I've ever wanted to do personally, but Im not against it as long as the dog is cool with it. And as people say, they must be otherwise they wouldn't 'perform'.


----------



## Sosha (Jan 11, 2013)

I'd have thought that if a dog's coat required Hairspray then there'd be something "Wrong" with it...


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

Sosha said:


> I'd have thought that if a dog's coat required Hairspray then there'd be something "Wrong" with it...


Well not really - if you're entering a dog that needs to look like this;










Is it any surprise you'd want to squirt a bit of hairspray to keep it all intact?


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

With so much 'real' abuse going on in the world, I think a little bit of hairspray and chalk aren't cruel.
However I still don't think it should be needed.
And thinking about how the KC reputation is struggling at the moment the fact that competitors have been breaking the rules for years doesn't help - it makes the 'lay person' question what else has been swept under the rug.
If it's been against the rules for years why haven't judges been disqualifying entrants where they can see/feel chalk, hairspray etc. What else have they let 'go'?
I think this is what bothers me most about this story


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Dober said:


> I agree with what was said before about a dog that doesn't enjoy showing isnt competitive and people wouldn't spend that amount of time and money showing a dog that doesn't want to. In addition to this, a lot of dogs like getting groomed. Someone at my ringcraft class told me she gets out her grooming table in front of the tv and will groom him for hours, he loves the attention and it's calming and a good bonding experience.


I believe there are many dogs being dragged around shows that actually hate the whole day.
Something to do with the ignorant not noticing that their dog is miserable 

There's a lot of people like that in this world. You see them every day out in the streets or breeding endless litters. No reason to think that that type of person doesn't show dogs



Dober said:


> I do think there is a lot wrong with the showing world, but IMO some people are so critical of everything to do with it when they've never even been involved with the show scene or met the people there. Personally, I like to see people doing things with their dog other than taking them for a walk around the block and sitting on the sofa watching tv with them.


I did spend several years in and around the show world


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

rona said:


> I believe there are many dogs being dragged around shows that actually hate the whole day.
> Something to do with the ignorant not noticing that their dog is miserable
> 
> There's a lot of people like that in this world. You see them every day out in the streets or breeding endless litters. No reason to think that that type of person doesn't show dogs
> ...


Apparently only happy dogs who love it win though rona. :yesnod:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> Apparently only happy dogs who love it win though rona. :yesnod:


I know for a fact that's not true.

Not some that I've seen win anyway.

You keep a dog confined for a whole day and apart from a wee walk all it gets is out in the ring. It's going to look happy isn't it?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Pezant said:


> Well not really - if you're entering a dog that needs to look like this;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well yes, quite frankly, poodles were bred to retrieve, and although the cut is done based on keeping them warm for working, the sculpting today with some breeds is too OTT for me personally. I'm sure it takes an awful lot of dedication and time etc, but what exactly for? I'd rather spend my time enjoying my dogs, not doing topiary 

Ok, ok, slightly tongue in cheek, but surely slightly mucky paws or a bit of drool shouldn't cost the dog a place in the ring if it is the better dog? The cynical side of me would imagine there are faults that could be hidden with practised grooming, and a bit of chalk white, such as excessive tear staining.


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

rona said:


> I believe there are many dogs being dragged around shows that actually hate the whole day.
> Something to do with the ignorant not noticing that their dog is miserable
> 
> There's a lot of people like that in this world. You see them every day out in the streets or breeding endless litters. No reason to think that that type of person doesn't show dogs
> ...


Personally I know very very little about the show world but I am looking forward to going to Crufts this year.

Whilst you know about the show world I can help but think theres plenty on this thread who dont know much about it or even anyone who shows and are giving it a hard time which seems a little harsh.

Personally I would want to have a pretty good understanding of something before having such strong views.

Alot of these owners devote a huge chunk / all of there spare time on there dogs and do alot more than just 'showing'. And quite frankly theres alot worse going on in the world than using a little talc or hairspray. 

Good on them I say for ahving a hobby which revolves around there dogs :yesnod:


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Milliepoochie said:


> Personally I know very very little about the show world but I am looking forward to going to Crufts this year.
> 
> Whilst you know about the show world I can help but think theres plenty on this thread who dont know much about it or even anyone who shows and are giving it a hard time which seems a little harsh.
> 
> ...


If this bit is aimed at myself, and any others who haven't praised showing to high heaven then I don't need to have spent my life around show rings to know that egotistical people force their dogs to do things for their own ego, and often by using uncomfortable methods regardless of whether it's in the world of showing or shutzhund or any other discipline. I think showing is fun, but I also think there's a lot of people, as in any other discipline, who don't care too much about their dogs likes and dislikes, just that they get the ribbons at the end of it.


----------



## Dober (Jan 2, 2012)

rona said:


> I know for a fact that's not true.
> 
> Not some that I've seen win anyway.
> 
> You keep a dog confined for a whole day and apart from a wee walk all it gets is out in the ring. It's going to look happy isn't it?


There may be some people like that, but it is not the norm. I show and I have *a lot * of friends who show, and the dogs are always pets first.

Yes, there are 'bad eggs' who are in it for the winning and may not have their dogs best interest at heart, but every single sport is going to have these types of people. I'm sure there are people who are exactly the same in obedience, agility, heel work to music, gundog training, Schutzhund, French ring, tracking, sled-pulling and any other sport you can think of. Taking it further, there are people who do are the exact same outside the dog world and outside the animal world.

My point is that most people who show love their pets and treat their pets very well, and get tarnished with the same brush as the minority by people who generally read comments like the above and make their assumptions on that, rather than going to shows and meeting the dogs and the people and deciding for themselves.

If that wasn't your experience of the show world, then I am sad to hear that. I have seen things I've disliked at shows as I've met people I've disliked, but on the whole for me I meet happy, friendly people and happy, active dogs. If something upset me or I felt there was any kind of behaviour that was detrimental to a dog, I would report it to the relevant person.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

*
Did you find though that those dogs who actively looked like they didnt want to be there were actually placed?

You would of thought the owners would get bored of doing the circuit once its obvious the dog isnt doing to well - Im assuming a dog dragging its heels - scared and skitish wouldnt get placed much? Completely different but I competed in Slalom racing when I was younger - People who didnt achieve / couldnt get it quickly left within a season*

I quote this MP as I have a lot of experience in the dance world.

The slalom racing is a personal thing that when you yourself are no good you would quit.

In the world of dancing I can't tell you how many people make their child continue at something they hate and are not very good at all for the attention they themselves desire.

I danced from four when the teacher pulled me up when I was watching my cousin as she 'saw something in me!'. Well I started to love it and was actually very good. I went on to acheive quite a lot through it. Anyway, the amount of children who would scream not to be put on stage and bribed was beyond anything.
My mother always disliked it and always said it was up to me, she never asked me to start and when I enjoyed it she got into it and said if ever I didn't feel like doing it, it was up to me.
There was children who were given computers to go on! For me, I just liked to go out there!

Some dogs love the ring and you can tell their joy, others are like the children I just described. You can see the ones who just love to be out there with their handler.

I have nothing against show dogs, I have been to a good few and I admire them and I may show if I get another dog, but only if the dog takes to it, just highlighting how it works both ways.


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> If this bit is aimed at myself, and any others who haven't praised showing to high heaven then I don't need to have spent my life around show rings to know that egotistical people force their dogs to do things for their own ego, and often by using uncomfortable methods regardless of whether it's in the world of showing or shutzhund or any other discipline. I think showing is fun, but I also think there's a lot of people, as in any other discipline, who don't care too much about their dogs likes and dislikes, just that they get the ribbons at the end of it.


Not speciafically at yourself unless you think you it is lol

Just reading through this thread people do seem to be putting anyone who shows under the same umbrella. I know people who show both cats and dogs and they all live amazing lives. Most likely better than Millies!

Every sport has people who take it to far  Animal related or not.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I show my dogs, I've got two shows this weekend, I've got lots of friends who show as well. I don't know one of them who has the view that every dog shown enjoys it and has a wonderful time, because that clearly isn't the case. I'm also not naieve enough to think every person showing does put their dog(s) first, some clearly don't, I've seen someone haul a dog up by it's scruff at a show, and chastise it for daring to lie down because it was bored. And it was not a small breed of dog! Winning is not paramount, for me it's about enjoying the day out with my dogs and talking to other people about dogs, because we have a common interest.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Dober said:


> There may be some people like that, but it is not the norm. I show and I have *a lot * of friends who show, and the dogs are always pets first.
> 
> Yes, there are 'bad eggs' who are in it for the winning and may not have their dogs best interest at heart, but every single sport is going to have these types of people. I'm sure there are people who are exactly the same in obedience, agility, heel work to music, gundog training, Schutzhund, French ring, tracking, sled-pulling and any other sport you can think of. Taking it further, there are people who do are the exact same outside the dog world and outside the animal world.
> 
> ...


I do think it differers from breed to breed, or even group to be perfectly honest.
I think the working group is the least affected and the Utility or toy the worst

By the way. I've seen a few horrendous things done to one or two gundogs in my time, but the majority aren't like that at all.

Fleur: As far back as I can remember, people were using hairspray and Talcum powder. You should have been near the Old English Sheepdogs back in the 70s   You couldn't breath for powder


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

rona said:


> Fleur: As far back as I can remember, people were using hairspray and Talcum powder. You should have been near the Old English Sheepdogs back in the 70s   You couldn't breath for powder


That's exactly my point, the use of such things was banned in the 70's but the rules were ignored then as they have been for decades 
What other competitions to the competitors make up their own rules or pick and choose which rules they want to abide by and get away with it?


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Milliepoochie said:


> Not speciafically at yourself unless you think you it is lol
> 
> *Just reading through this thread people do seem to be putting anyone who shows under the same umbrella. *I know people who show both cats and dogs and they all live amazing lives. Most likely better than Millies!
> 
> Every sport has people who take it to far  Animal related or not.


I haven't seen that at all.

Where?

Most on this thread that have commented have done so over specifics. The comments have been about the ones that take it too far. There hasn't been blanket generalizations.

CC


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Fleur said:


> That's exactly my point, the use of such things was banned in the 70's but the rules were ignored then as they have been for decades
> What other competitions to the competitors make up their own rules or pick and choose which rules they want to abide by and get away with it?


Anglers?


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

rona said:


> Anglers?


Really   What do they do?
I must be naive  I just assume people enter competitions/sport because they enjoy it and want to be the best they can honestly


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Fleur said:


> Really   What do they do?
> I must be naive  I just assume people enter competitions/sport because they enjoy it and want to be the best they can honestly


No........make their own rules


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

rona said:


> No........make their own rules


Oh  I thought you had some inside information on how to cheat at angling


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

ahem ....

Retail - Professional Collection - Make up and Highlighters - SUPREME PRODUCTS ( note the false tails ! )

cattle grooming products and showing equipment for use with pedigree and commercial cattle in the show and sale ring

Styling Mousse for Goats










whitening shampoo for sheep










....just google* livestock grooming products* and you'll see that the dog world is far from alone in using grooming products ...despie what some would have you believe 

Quite frankly if a bit of chalk or spray is the worst thing to be happening in the world of dogs then I'd understand this witch hunt but come on folks

This is the REAL problem










I bet this poor mite would swap places with any of the pampered pooches seen at Crufts in a heart beat !

OTT presentation may be ridiculous, unnnecessary and oh so easy to mock but cruel ? ...nope.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I think my problem with it is that if it's ok to start using cosmetics on dogs or any animal for that matter, where do you draw the line? That might sound a bit overdramatic, but cosmetics are all about appearance, and improving aesthetic looks, correct conformation, good temperament, coat, movement etc, should all be the absolute priority, it shouldn't be a grooming/whitening competition.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Bijou - I totally agree with you. 
Cruelty is a different issue - no animal should be treated as the one in the picture you showed - puppy farmers etc need to be stopped

My question s are:
If it is/was against the rules why weren't competitors disqualified?
Why when the KC finally decided to try to enforce the rules they gave up?
What else has been swept under the carpet/ignored?

And I know similar products are used in the majority of animal shows - but is it against the rules?
And just because it's not cruel doesn't make it right - IMO if a white dog suffers from tear staining is a 'fault' surely covering it up is cheating  (I've no idea if tear staining is considered a fault or not, if it's not then why cover it up?)
A bull, sheep, horse, cat, rabbit or dog should be shown true to it's coat/fur colour and type not falsely covered up with whitener or hairspray - cleaned and trimmed but natural to fully see the animal for what it is and for it to be judged on it's merits.


----------



## metaldog (Nov 11, 2009)

I just don't get it.

This is ok










and this isn't










#worldsgonemad

Disclaimer: This is not a dig at anyone on this thread or the other thread I just wanted to mention the irony


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think my problem with it is that if it's ok to start using cosmetics on dogs or any animal for that matter, where do you draw the line? That might sound a bit overdramatic, but cosmetics are all about appearance, and improving aesthetic looks, correct conformation, good temperament, coat, movement etc, should all be the absolute priority, it shouldn't be a grooming/whitening competition.


I reckon as far back as to when people first starting wanting to get a good price for their prime example of livestock - be it pig, goat, sheep, cow, horse or dog - people were pimping and preening and hiding bad points and emphasising good. I also reckon in centuries past probably some pretty horrific things used to be done by today's standards.

I don't see it being anything new at all.

And don't forget, half the fun for many people - including myself - is preparing the dog for the showring. I don't have to do much at all, but I usually bath Bess, dry her and give her a really good groom, which as much as anything is quality time together. Quite often first she'll have a good muddy dirty walk as I don't mind taking her home filthly when she's going into the bath!

As for dogs enjoying showing or not, I have wondered whether Bess's bad behaviour in the show ring is down to her not enjoying it. But when we get to a show she leaps out of the car and pulls like mad to get into see all the other dogs (some of whom have now become her 'friends' as she sees the same ones at a lot of shows - though she doesn't seem fussed, she'll meet, greet and sniff with anyone! ). I think it's the discipline of the ring she doesn't like - she'd rather continue romping around with her pals. But if that's what it is then in my view she's got to do that 10 minutes of work to enjoy herself the rest of the time. No different to taking a dog to training class and expecting it to concentrate.

If I ever thought she hated going to shows I wouldn't take her, but I've not seen that yet. And she absolutely loves going to Coventry as they do amazing bacon rolls - a fact she's learned pretty quickly!! (with six rashers of bacon in one roll she gets her fair share).


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Well yes, quite frankly, poodles were bred to retrieve, and although the cut is done based on keeping them warm for working, the sculpting today with some breeds is too OTT for me personally. I'm sure it takes an awful lot of dedication and time etc, but what exactly for? I'd rather spend my time enjoying my dogs, not doing topiary
> 
> Ok, ok, slightly tongue in cheek, but surely slightly mucky paws or a bit of drool shouldn't cost the dog a place in the ring if it is the better dog? The cynical side of me would imagine there are faults that could be hidden with practised grooming, and a bit of chalk white, such as excessive tear staining.


Of course there are faults that can be hidden. Do you think sheep and cattle go in the ring straight out of the field. They are trimmed to accentuate their good points and to hide their bad points - and I am sure the same is very true of dogs. It is not cheating, it is showmanship and correct use of the aids available to the person presenting the animal. Even simple things like how many plaits you put in a horse's mane can change the shape of the neck or accentuate a good shaped neck or conceal a bad shape.

Showing is an art, why should it be any different for dogs.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I groom my dogs, I don't shampoo them though, as I don't like to strip the natural oils out of their coats. I've even been in the ring and found a bit of heather stuck in Rhuna's coat before. There's nothing wrong with grooming a dog, or any animal, in fact not grooming a dog can be cruel as you're leaving the coat to possibly become tangled, or old coat stuck in there which could cause problems with getting too hot, or trapping nasties in there. But there's got to be a line drawn on how much is acceptable. For me, and I'm talking about working dogs here, if the grooming exceeds what's required for the dog to function as a working dog, then it's gone too far. One problem I have with the show equivalent of working breed types is that they are often over coated, which requires more grooming. Some of the dogs I've seen would end up looking like a tumbleweed with the amount of twigs, burrs etc that would get stuck in their coat! And I'd be surprised if some of them made it out the other side of a bramble patch


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I groom my dogs, I don't shampoo them though, as I don't like to strip the natural oils out of their coats. I've even been in the ring and found a bit of heather stuck in Rhuna's coat before. There's nothing wrong with grooming a dog, or any animal, in fact not grooming a dog can be cruel as you're leaving the coat to possibly become tangled, or old coat stuck in there which could cause problems with getting too hot, or trapping nasties in there. But there's got to be a line drawn on how much is acceptable. For me, and I'm talking about working dogs here, if the grooming exceeds what's required for the dog to function as a working dog, then it's gone too far. One problem I have with the show equivalent of working breed types is that they are often over coated, which requires more grooming. Some of the dogs I've seen would end up looking like a tumbleweed with the amount of twigs, burrs etc that would get stuck in their coat! And I'd be surprised if some of them made it out the other side of a bramble patch


It is horses for courses though. I have to say that personally I do not enjoy showing though I have dabbled with dogs, horses and cattle.
But if you are going to do it successfully you have to have the right tools at hand to present your animal correctly for its breed and the class it is in.
Of course a working labrador does not need the same presentation as a yorkshire terrier - but a show dog has a job of work to do just the same as a gundog does, just with rather different criteria.

A lot of pet owners would hate the way that a kennel of gundogs are kept, or a farm collie - but they are often kept purely for working. A show dog is more often a pet as well but it does have to conform if it is going to do well.
This is why showing is not for everyone. I have never been bothered with turning out really well so have never done that well. Other people go the whole hog and can often win with a dog that would not be looked at with a less experienced presenter and handler.

What is wrong with wanting to do well at your chosen hobby. Is breed showing that much different to agility or obedience as far as the dog is concerned. 
The performance competitor puts in hours of training, travels many miles to shows, the dog hangs around all day and gets a couple of minutes in the ring.
The show dog has hours of preparation put in, travels many miles to shows, hangs around all day and actually gets a lot more than a couple of minutes in the ring.

I repeat that I do not enjoy showing - and I do enjoy obedience and agility - but what I prefer is not the point, those that prefer breed showing have just as much right to do it properly with the appropriate aids.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

But you just said doing it properly with the approprate aids.

We are speaking about aids that are 'inappropriate' as they were determined to be, and now some have stretched the rules and are pushing to not be called cheats!

Just cuz everybody does it also does not make it any less cheating.

There were rules determined and they were and are flaunted.

How is that not cheating!

Has anyone put thought into why the rules were established in the first place? My thought is because the shows were supposed to put up dogs that best represented their breeds . . . not ones that misrepresent their breeds but have the best hairdos and groomers.

If presenters want a 'grooming' competition to best show off their grooming skills then that is what they should enter. A dog show is and was not established to be a 'grooming' competition.

Watching what has happened to American Cockers over the last 50 years solidifies me in that point of view.

I have had an American Cocker girl here get so caught up in brambles that I had to cut her out. Please don't tell me her awful coat can be blamed on BYBs cuz I know it was directly caused by those that have delighted in the 'grooming' competition shows have become for some breeds.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Blitz said:


> It is horses for courses though. I have to say that personally I do not enjoy showing though I have dabbled with dogs, horses and cattle.
> But if you are going to do it successfully you have to have the right tools at hand to present your animal correctly for its breed and the class it is in.
> Of course a working labrador does not need the same presentation as a yorkshire terrier - but a show dog has a job of work to do just the same as a gundog does, just with rather different criteria.
> 
> ...


Because the dog doesn't have the choice, if you choose to primp and preen a dog it's not really got much say in it. If you want to have a go at agility, you can't force your dog to be any better than it is. It has it's ceiling limit of ability at any competition that requires it to run around and do something, which, combined with your handling skills limits how successful you will be. If you are showing your dog to be judged against the breed standard by the KC, why on earth would you want to groom it within an inch of it's life and stick cosmetics on it? Surely that should be the preserve of a grooming competition, not to see if your dog matches the breed standard, and is a good example of the breed?


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> > Because the dog doesn't have the choice, if you choose to primp and preen a dog it's not really got much say in it


dogs don't have a choice in any of the activities we do with them ....fox hounds and grey hounds are put down if they don't perform well enough ..... I've seen plenty of agility dogs hit because they made mistakes and the use of electric collars is endemic when training dogs for sports that involve bite work....how much say do dogs have in those activities ?

you can primp and preen a show dog to to within an inch of it's life but if it hates the show ring it'll never 'perform' and be succesful just the same as an obedience or agility dog - the old adage " you can lead a horse to water..." is very true ...nothing is more off putting to a judge tahn to see a dog cringing round the ring - not matter how fabulous it's top knot is or how sparkling it's coat.

The reason that the KC have given up on the ban is because it was unenforceable - only water was allowed for preparation and NO-ONE ever prepared their dogs with just water -Before a show my own dogs are bathed with a texturising shampoo, blasted dry to create volume and finished with a grooming spray and Mason Pearson brush - however if they are not well constructed have good breed type and enjoy the show ring then I will simply have wasted my time - grooming and preparation is the icing on the cake but you have to have all the ingredients there in the first place !


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Bijou said:


> dogs don't have a choice in any of the activities we do with them ....fox hounds and grey hounds are put down if they don't perform well enough ..... I've seen plenty of agility dogs hit because they made mistakes and the use of electric collars is endemic when training dogs for sports that involve bite work....how much say do dogs have in those activities ?
> 
> you can primp and preen a show dog to to within an inch of it's life but if it hates the show ring it'll never 'perform' and be succesful just the same as an obedience or agility dog - the old adage " you can lead a horse to water..." is very true ...nothing is more off putting to a judge tahn to see a dog cringing round the ring - not matter how fabulous it's top knot is or how sparkling it's coat.
> 
> The reason that the KC have given up on the ban is because it was unenforceable - only water was allowed for preparation and NO-ONE ever prepared their dogs with just water -Before a show my own dogs are bathed with a texturising shampoo, blasted dry to create volume and finished with a grooming spray and Mason Pearson brush - however if they are not well constructed have good breed type and enjoy the show ring then I will simply have wasted my time - grooming and preparation is the icing on the cake but you have to have all the ingredients there in the first place !


If my dogs didn't want to retrieve a dummy, there's no way I could be fast enough to sellotape it into their mouths!

Sorry Bijou, I do not agree with you on this one, two wrongs do not make a right, and for me, the KC is backing down because of the feeling of competitors, and that it doesn't want to actively enforce the rule for whatever reason, most likely it can't!

After the revelations from Lance Armstrong, this sort of *cheating* really is at the forefront of the news. Performance enhancing your dog may not be new, I don't agree that it's right though.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

It would be interesting to hear from someone who has used chalk/hairspray or other 'banned' items in a KC dog show and if they knew they were banned at the time or not?
If they did know they were breaking the rules why they chose to go ahead anyway?
What really bothers me is the turning a blind eye to the rule breaking.
I'll never understand the need for the cosmetic 'enhancers' if a coat needs hairspray then the cut is most likely over exagerated - and exageration is something the KC should be moving away from.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> It would be interesting to hear from someone who has used chalk/hairspray or other 'banned' items in a KC dog show and if they knew they were banned at the time or not?


everything apart from water is banned ...so yep I use shampoo and grooming spray knowing that I'm breaking the rules ..and so does everyone else - and whats the point of having a rule that is unenforceable and universally ignored ? -whats more go to any KC licensed dog show and you'll see 'banned' grooming products sold on almost every trade stall and whole areas set aside by the show organisers for the sole purpose of grooming - figure that one out 

As to why I won't only use water - it's simple - I want to present my dogs as well as I can and that means clean, sweet smelling and beautifully groomed.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Bijou said:


> everything apart from water is banned ...so yep I use shampoo and grooming spray knowing that I'm breaking the rules ..and so does everyone else - and whats the point of having a rule that is unenforceable and universally ignored ? -whats more go to any KC licensed dog show and you'll see 'banned' grooming products sold on almost every trade stall and whole areas set aside by the show organisers for the sole purpose of grooming - figure that one out
> 
> As to why I won't only use water - it's simple - I want to present my dogs as well as I can and that means clean, sweet smelling and beautifully groomed.


I didn't realise shampoos etc were banned to - does seem strange to have trade stalls selling the very products the KC had banned


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Because the dog doesn't have the choice, if you choose to primp and preen a dog it's not really got much say in it. If you want to have a go at agility, you can't force your dog to be any better than it is. It has it's ceiling limit of ability at any competition that requires it to run around and do something, which, combined with your handling skills limits how successful you will be. If you are showing your dog to be judged against the breed standard by the KC, why on earth would you want to groom it within an inch of it's life and stick cosmetics on it? Surely that should be the preserve of a grooming competition, not to see if your dog matches the breed standard, and is a good example of the breed?


A dog that does not enjoy agility or obedience will not do any good in it but neither will a dog that does not enjoy showing. Handling skills are equally important for agility, obedience and showing. You will see badly handled and unhappy dogs in all 3 disciplines.

If you are showing your dog it has to be turned out correctly. A lot of people dont like obedience because the dogs and handlers do not move in a natural way and perform exercises that have no practical application - but they move in the way needed to win. That is what it is all about - winning or doing your best to win. And you cant do that unless the dog is enjoying itself, the handler is enjoying itself and the dog is trained/turned out correctly for the discipline it is competing in.

I dont want to show, I do not want to primp (or pimp) my dog but I do accept that those that do have to do it to the standard that is expected and if that means using hair spray then so be it. I use enough sprays and stuff on my ponies just to make them look smart let alone when they are in the show ring and if ever you go to a cattle show you will smell all the stuff that is sprayed on the show cattle.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Blitz said:


> A dog that does not enjoy agility or obedience will not do any good in it but neither will a dog that does not enjoy showing. Handling skills are equally important for agility, obedience and showing. You will see badly handled and unhappy dogs in all 3 disciplines.
> 
> If you are showing your dog it has to be turned out correctly. A lot of people dont like obedience because the dogs and handlers do not move in a natural way and perform exercises that have no practical application - but they move in the way needed to win. That is what it is all about - winning or doing your best to win. And you cant do that unless the dog is enjoying itself, the handler is enjoying itself and the dog is trained/turned out correctly for the discipline it is competing in.
> 
> I dont want to show, I do not want to primp (or pimp) my dog but I do accept that those that do have to do it to the standard that is expected and if that means using hair spray then so be it. I use enough sprays and stuff on my ponies just to make them look smart let alone when they are in the show ring and if ever you go to a cattle show you will smell all the stuff that is sprayed on the show cattle.


Just because a dog doesn't enjoy another discipline, does not make it right to partake in another discipline with a dog.

I have to be honest, both Rhuna and Zasa are not as enthusiastic about showing, as they are about training to do gundog stuff. But why should they be? They aren't bred to trot around a ring, they are bred to work. And, despite failing ultimately at a show at getting Rhuna to move nicely, I at least had the satisfaction of watching her just let the judge go all over her, not moving one iota, where as I've been at shows where dogs have almost been backing under the table to get away from the judge.


----------



## Wiz201 (Jun 13, 2012)

I admit to using talcum powder to dry Bonnie in a very short time, but I don't think it was a cosmetic to make her win, we didn't win anyway :rolleyes5:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sigh. And so it begins.

We are in the run up to Crufts and so there will be more and more articles like this, taking a little kernel or truth and twisting it to make the show world the epitome of evil. And, as this thread has shown, there will always be people who jump straight onto the bandwagon and believe every word they hear, and make up even more.

Is anyone interested in the truth - the real truth, and not the truth as presented by the Daily Wail? For those who are, read on.

As Bijou has already said, the rules are quite clear; nothing is allowed other than water in coat preparation. The KC has always performed random coat tests and disqualified dogs who failed. (And remember, this is all championship shows, not just Crufts) However, at the 2011 AGM Mike Gadsby tabled a motion that the KC cease testing for powder, lacquer and silicone-based grooming products. An amendement was proposed by David Cavill that the matter of coat testing be discussed fully and frankly both within and outside the KC before a decision is made, and that coat testing be suspended until this had taken place. So coat testing has been suspended at all shows (not just Crufts!) since the 2011 AGM.

And that's it. Nowhere near as juicy as Crufts allowing the use of cosmetics, or the poor old KC bowing down to the nasty exhibitors who want to smother their dogs in hairspray and chalk, is it? But heigh ho, such boring old details don't sell newspapers - except for serious dog newspapers, of course.
News >Dog World >Dog World Home >Dogworld


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

I'd be very interested to know what' Performance enhancing substances' they might reccomend for a pair of working gundogs. I have no real issues with the world of showing but for me a dog, above all else. should be fit for purpose. I have a pal who works a standard poodle, it's a cracking dog, great on water..........It doesn't look too much like the powered specimens I see at dog shows. Come to think of it, my lads dont look much like the goldies and springers at these venues either, but on the shooting field I'd back them against anything on four legs. For me.''Fit for purpose'' is the yardstick that's really important, not the shade of my goldies coat or the length of my spaniels feathering.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

So after all that even shampoo isn't allowed.  I suppose you might not want 40,000 people using hairspray at a show, but I presume you are allowed to shampoo your dogs at home? I hope they allow ketchup for fox poo.  I can see the Mail headlines now. 

Ketchup in recipe for Doggie dinner at Crufts. 

A Kennel club spokesman confirmed that an exhibit at the Crufts Dog Show was yesterday found to have traces of tomato ketchup in its coat. The owner and handler, 45 year old blonde, Mrs Blahah Parson-Symes, claimed that the dog rolled in fox poo when hunting foxes the previous weekend and she had used the ketchup to remove the smell. However, a reliable source informed us that she intended to eat the dog if it didn't win. :dita:

The Kennel Club eliminated Mrs Parson-Symes for the use of unauthorised substances to enhance the flavour of her dog. A spokesman for Heinz insist that their ketchup is comprised of entirely natural and safe ingredients and accuse the Kennel Club of a knee-jerk reaction in banning their product's use in the enhancement of show dogs. A spokesman for Tesco insisted that dog dna was not discovered in their economy beef burgers. rrr:


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Thank you spellweaver for that article 

I understand the need to take the Daily Mail with a pinch of salt so reading the article you posted was very interesting.

Yes the rules sound like that as they stand they are unenforcable, I understand the use of shampoos, detanglers, clippers, scissors and using talc to freshen up a coat.
I hadn't really thought of the silicon in shampoos as well as hairspray and how a test would work, I had assumed it would of been by feel/eye not forensic testing.
A judge can surely feel a heavily hairsprayed coat or the white of the chalk must come off in their hands so as a Judge is it not their judgement to enforce the rules?
But I'm struggling with why show dogs need to have hairspray and whitening chalks used - if a coat won't naturally hold a clip/cut then surely the cut/clip is wrong? If the white bits aren't naturally white then what does that matter?

And as I've said I love watching Crufts, had a great time when I went, really enjoyed seeing all the dogs and talking to some of the competitors


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> I have no real issues with the world of showing but for me a dog, above all else. should be fit for purpose. I have a pal who works a standard poodle, it's a cracking dog, great on water..........It doesn't look too much like the powered specimens I see at dog shows. Come to think of it, my lads dont look much like the goldies and springers at these venues either, but on the shooting field I'd back them against anything on four legs. For me.''Fit for purpose'' is the yardstick that's really important, not the shade of my goldies coat or the length of my spaniels feathering.


...the purpose of conformation showing is to preserve the over 200 different and separate breeds we currently enjoy - aesthetics may not matter to you but they DO count when it comes to distinguishing a Norfolk from a Norwich or a Field Spaniel from a Sussex - given that that's the purpose then to be 'fit for purpose' a show dog must above all look like the best example of the breed it's suposed to be....and that includes presentation -

Personally I consider this to be as much if not more valid a 'raison d'etre' than using dogs to pick up the dead and dying bodies of birds that someone else has shot - but each to their own.


----------



## pod (Jun 24, 2010)

Bijou said:


> ...the purpose of conformation showing is to preserve the over 200 different and separate breeds we currently enjoy - aesthetics may not matter to you but they DO count when it comes to distinguishing a Norfolk from a Norwich or a Field Spaniel from a Sussex - given that that's the purpose then to be 'fit for purpose' a show dog must above all look like the best example of the breed it's suposed to be....and that includes presentation -
> 
> Personally I consider this to be as much if not more valid a 'raison d'etre' than using dogs to pick up the dead and dying bodies of birds that someone else has shot - but each to their own.


The intention to 'preserve' a breed should be focused on retaining the original function. After all, it is function that dictates form, not the other way round, as the showring presumes.

The problem is that most owners have very little opportunity to work dogs in modern times, so aesthetics play a major part in selection of breeding stock for most breeders. Unfortunately for our dogs, this has led to extremes of conformation and also an increasing focus on presentation in the showring, where the best coiffure and performance often takes precedence over breed type and conformation.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Sigh. And so it begins.
> 
> We are in the run up to Crufts and so there will be more and more articles like this, taking a little kernel or truth and twisting it to make the show world the epitome of evil. And, as this thread has shown, *there will always be people who jump straight onto the bandwagon and believe every word they hear, and make up even more.*Is anyone interested in the truth - the real truth, and not the truth as presented by the Daily Wail? For those who are, read on.
> 
> ...


Where's that been happening then?


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> After all, it is function that dictates form,


Pod ...if this was true then why would there be so many breeds performing the same function ? why the need for Japanese Chins and Papillons ? Welsh and Lakeland Terriers ,? Irish, Gordon and English Setters or indeed German, Belgian and Dutch Shepherd dogs ? if form *only* followed function then we would simply have a handful of generic types instead of the huge individual range of breeds we have - our breeds are partly created because of their aesthetic qualities i.e people LIKED their form and wanted to preserve it indeed many breeds are named because of the way they look ( West Highland White, Flat coat and Golden Retrievers, Irish Red and White setters etc etc - the Kerry Blue's unique colour does not help it one iota in it's function - but it is possibly the single most defining feature of the breed - what purpose does the spotting on a Dalmatian serve or the fine bone of the Italian Greyhound - yet people have alsways valued the distinct way these breeds LOOKED rather than what they did

The show ring is the Ark of the dog world serving to preserve and maintain this uniqueness - now YOU may not care if we do not have individual pedigree breeds in the future but many people do and it's thanks to the show world that we continue to have the glory of the Borzoi, the cheekiness of the Affenpinscher and the elegance of the Deerhound - personally I would weep to lose such a heritage because they are no longer 'functional'


----------



## pod (Jun 24, 2010)

Bijou said:


> Pod ...if this was true then why would there be so many breeds performing the same function ? why the need for Japanese Chins and Papillons ? Welsh and Lakeland Terriers ,? Irish, Gordon and English Setters or indeed German, Belgian and Dutch Shepherd dogs ? if form *only* followed function then we would simply have a handful of generic types instead of the huge individual range of breeds we have - our breeds are partly created because of their aesthetic qualities i.e people LIKED their form and wanted to preserve it indeed many breeds are named because of the way they look ( West Highland White, Flat coat and Golden Retrievers, Irish Red and White setters etc etc - the Kerry Blue's unique colour does not help it one iota in it's function - but it is possibly the single most defining feature of the breed - what purpose does the spotting on a Dalmatian serve or the fine bone of the Italian Greyhound - yet people have alsways valued the distinct way these breeds LOOKED rather than what they did


Bijou, I don't know the ins & outs of all the breeds you mention but the tendency of closed registries is to 'create' breeds from landrace populations. For example, the continental herding breeds. These are said to have originated from a generic type that probably had minor differences that had a regional theme and these differences became established because of founder effect. There would no doubt have been inter-breeding between regions, so variation in type would exist within.

The closed registry system has taken individuals from a region, focused on one particular type within that and created a breed in a closed gene pool by refining that type.

It's the refining of type that has caused the problems. Not associated with function at all, it's just how the showring alters breeds. The GSD for example. Originated from the very same continental herding type which the Belgian shepherd originated. The GSD exhibitors truly believe that they have improved the breed but could you imagine anything more different from the functional dog they originated from?

The focus on particular colours was probably to give their dogs distinction but this is one thing that has been over refined for the showring. The Maremma Sheepdog for example was not a purely white dog at its origin. And... sorry the GSD provides such a brilliant example again..... the standard allows for a variety of colours, as the founder population would have had, most of which have fallen out of favour in the ring. If you don't have a 'black & red' saddle marked dog, your chances of winning are reduced. Purely fashion that has a negative impact on diversity.



> The show ring is the Ark of the dog world serving to preserve and maintain this uniqueness - now YOU may not care if we do not have individual pedigree breeds in the future but many people do and it's thanks to the show world that we continue to have the glory of the Borzoi, the cheekiness of the Affenpinscher and the elegance of the Deerhound - personally I would weep to lose such a heritage because they are no longer 'functional'


The way I see it Bijou, is that we have already lost that heritage in many breeds. Even the 'look' of many breeds has changed out of all recognition. But, breeds should and do evolve with changing times. I would just prefer it if health consideration were put before aesthetics for the showring.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Bijou said:


> ...the purpose of conformation showing is to preserve the over 200 different and separate breeds we currently enjoy - aesthetics may not matter to you but they DO count when it comes to distinguishing a Norfolk from a Norwich or a Field Spaniel from a Sussex - given that that's the purpose then to be 'fit for purpose' a show dog must above all look like the best example of the breed it's suposed to be....and that includes presentation -
> 
> Personally I consider this to be as much if not more valid a 'raison d'etre' than using dogs to pick up the dead and dying bodies of birds that someone else has shot - but each to their own.


............................................


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

I agree with pod. Personally I would be happy to see dog breeds lumped together into types. Yes there would be a lots to lose but I see there being a lot to gain in overall genetic health and to me that is more important than the barely perceptable difference between a Norfolk and Norwich terrier. I guess it all comes down to whether you are lumper or a splitter. 

Back to the thread topic; I don't know the ins and outs of the actual rules re:cosmetics but if the purpose of showing is to "improve" the breed then anything that is not heritable should not be judged.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> I would just prefer it if health consideration were put before aesthetics for the showring


.

Hang on a cotton picking minute ! ...just which sector of the dog world is routinely health testing, collating data, funding research, importing new blood lines, sitting on health committees and liasing with overseas breeders ?

Was it the working world who funded reasearch and took DNA samples of their dogs so that a marker could be found for epilepsy in my own breed ( BSD ) - was it the working world that informed other breeders via a world wide database so that we can begin to eliminate this horrible condition from the breed ? - is it the working world that is most likely to even USE the test once it's finally established - hell no !

Don't spin me the false presumption that if it looks ok it must be healthy -that belongs in the same dustbin as " if it's an Oodle Doodle it must be healthy" !!


----------



## pod (Jun 24, 2010)

Bijou said:


> .
> 
> Hang on a cotton picking minute ! ...just which sector of the dog world is routinely health testing, collating data, funding research, importing new blood lines, sitting on health committees and liasing with overseas breeders ?
> 
> ...


Yes, it is true that the show world has been at the forefront of health testing and research for DNA testing. Hip scoring, eye screening etc have all been religiously followed and promoted by the majority in many breeds.

What the show world now has to recognise is that this is not enough. There is overwhelming and increasing evidence to support the belief that breeding within a closed gene pool is detrimental to breed health in the long term. The showring adds confounding factors to this by further diminishing the gene pool by way of refining type (eg GSD colour).

It's this genetic narrowing that causes the high frequency of defects in particular breeds. The more we breed in this way, the more health tests will be required. It's a losing battle.

Then we have breed exaggeration for the showring that actually cause health problems. There has been some effort to reverse this but the problem still remains because many breeders are reluctant to accept that breeding the way they have done for decades has actually been detrimental to their breed.


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

Phoolf said:


> If this bit is aimed at myself, and any others who haven't praised showing to high heaven then I don't need to have spent my life around show rings to know that egotistical people force their dogs to do things for their own ego, and often by using uncomfortable methods regardless of whether it's in the world of showing or shutzhund or any other discipline. I think showing is fun, but I also think there's a lot of people, as in any other discipline, who don't care too much about their dogs likes and dislikes, just that they get the ribbons at the end of it.


You keep referring to these "uncomfortable" and "aversive" methods yet you haven't told us exactly what these methods are? Of course there are bad people involved in showing, there are bad people involved in every other area, including rescue, and pet owners in general - there are a LOT of horrendous pet owners out there who neglect and harm their dogs on a daily basis and personally I have seen and heard far more horror stories from the pet world than I ever have and ever will in the show world.

I have nothing to hide with my show dog - she gets filthy on her walks, she charges around the park like an idiot every day, she lives in our home, sleeps on my lap and in our beds, she gets kisses and cuddles, she's spoiled rotten with treats and toys, she ENJOYS going to shows - she loves meeting up with her breeder (I seriously need to film her reaction to the breeder, she goes nuts!), she loves meeting her doggy friends and being in the ring with them, yes she does have to 'behave' in the ring, but it's not 10 minutes of standing still - it's a couple of minutes of standing still, waiting for a treat - the rest of the time the dogs are allowed to relax, they play with each other in the ring (your dog only needs to be 'stood' in the first minute as the judge takes their first look at the dogs, then whilst the dogs are being judged individually and walked around the ring, the rest of the dogs are allowed to relax until it is their turn to walk around the ring, then they relax again until all dogs have been individually judged - then they have to be stood again for a minute or two as the judge makes their final decision. Mabel always gets her treat when she has stood, and always gets a few treats at the end of the class, regardless of whether or not she has won!). We don't tie her up to her bench all day or keep her crated all day, if we go wandering or shopping around, we take her with us (where she gets MORE free treats from the trade stands!) and she gets very regular (every 15-30 minutes) toilet breaks. If she's tired, we will pop her in her crate and cover it up with a blanket, so that she is allowed to sleep without being disturbed. She always leaves a show having had a lovely time, having met LOTS of different dogs (without going to ringcraft and shows she would not have had half the socialisation she has had with such a variety of dogs) and LOTS of different people, every judge we have ever been under has commented on what a sweet, happy dog she is - when up on the table she constantly wags her tail, and contrary to the "rules", she doesn't stand very still and has a habit of trying to kiss the judge  which might have cost us a place or two, but I would rather she went in and had a great time and come out with just a 4th. Please feel free to point out where that makes me egotistical 

In our breed we are lucky to make more than 5 entries in a class, so it's actually quite hard in Manchesters to leave without a rosette


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Tigerneko said:


> You keep referring to these "uncomfortable" and "aversive" methods yet you haven't told us exactly what these methods are? *Of course there are bad people involved in showing, there are bad people involved in every other area,* including rescue, and pet owners in general - there are a LOT of horrendous pet owners out there who neglect and harm their dogs on a daily basis and personally I have seen and heard far more horror stories from the pet world than I ever have and ever will in the show world.
> 
> I have nothing to hide with my show dog - she gets filthy on her walks, she charges around the park like an idiot every day, she lives in our home, sleeps on my lap and in our beds, she gets kisses and cuddles, she's spoiled rotten with treats and toys, she ENJOYS going to shows - she loves meeting up with her breeder (I seriously need to film her reaction to the breeder, she goes nuts!), she loves meeting her doggy friends and being in the ring with them, yes she does have to 'behave' in the ring, but it's not 10 minutes of standing still - it's a couple of minutes of standing still, waiting for a treat - the rest of the time the dogs are allowed to relax, they play with each other in the ring (your dog only needs to be 'stood' in the first minute as the judge takes their first look at the dogs, then whilst the dogs are being judged individually and walked around the ring, the rest of the dogs are allowed to relax until it is their turn to walk around the ring, then they relax again until all dogs have been individually judged - then they have to be stood again for a minute or two as the judge makes their final decision. Mabel always gets her treat when she has stood, and always gets a few treats at the end of the class, regardless of whether or not she has won!). We don't tie her up to her bench all day or keep her crated all day, if we go wandering or shopping around, we take her with us (where she gets MORE free treats from the trade stands!) and she gets very regular (every 15-30 minutes) toilet breaks. If she's tired, we will pop her in her crate and cover it up with a blanket, so that she is allowed to sleep without being disturbed. She always leaves a show having had a lovely time, having met LOTS of different dogs (without going to ringcraft and shows she would not have had half the socialisation she has had with such a variety of dogs) and LOTS of different people, every judge we have ever been under has commented on what a sweet, happy dog she is - when up on the table she constantly wags her tail, and contrary to the "rules", she doesn't stand very still and has a habit of trying to kiss the judge  which might have cost us a place or two, but I would rather she went in and had a great time and come out with just a 4th. Please feel free to point out where that makes me egotistical
> 
> In our breed we are lucky to make more than 5 entries in a class, so it's actually quite hard in Manchesters to leave without a rosette


That was the only point I've made. I don't quite understand why people who show are taking umbridge at me making a comment about people who care more about ribbons than their dogs enjoyment, who do by your own admittance exist?

It's not a personal attack, it's not me judging YOU, it's not me judging the whole show world, it's saying some of the people involved make me personally uncomfortable. I took Kes to a mongrel show last year for example and even that being a mongrel show so not exactly 'up there' in serious stakes (at least from where I was sat as I thought it was quite a laugh) had a few people who were in it to compete seriously and who forced their dog through the motions, grooming them continually, getting frustrated if their dog put a foot out of line (this was in the puppy class btw :rolleyes5: ) and instead of enjoying the experience they just wanted gold. That kind of thing doesn't interest me in the slightest, I don't care about winning, all I care about at the end of the day is if my dog enjoys the experience and has a nice day, for some people this isn't a consideration.

If your dog enjoys it great, it's when dogs don't enjoy it that I'm not keen at all, just as I am with any other kind of exercise that you can force your dog to do, some people would rather force a round peg into a square hole than find a good fit for their dog.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Pod - all pedigree breeding involves working within a closed gene pool that holds true not just for dogs but for horses, pigs, cats or poultry - are you saying we should not have different breeds at all ?

I'm a pedigree dog breeder - I'm producing active, healthy, well constructed, beautiful dogs with good temperaments who on average live for 12-14 years - the proof of what I'm doing is lying at my feet as I write - yet you believe that what I'm doing is wrong 


Does it not strike you as just a tad bizarre that your way of 'helping' my pedigree BSD is to eliminate them in favour of a generic Shepherd dog !.


----------



## pod (Jun 24, 2010)

Bijou said:


> Pod - all pedigree breeding involves working within a closed gene pool that holds true not just for dogs but for horses, pigs, cats or poultry - are you saying we should not have different breeds at all ?
> 
> I'm a pedigree dog breeder - I'm producing active, healthy, well constructed, beautiful dogs with good temperaments who on average live for 12-14 years - the proof of what I'm doing is lying at my feet as I write - yet you believe that what I'm doing is wrong
> 
> Does it not strike you as just a tad bizarre that your way of 'helping' my pedigree BSD is to eliminate them in favour of a generic Shepherd dog !.


Bijou, don't take this personally. This isn't about your dogs or mine but breeds in general.

As I've said, there is overwhelming evidence to support the concept of diversity breeding. We just need breeders to accept this and introduce diversity where possible and appropriate. And no, this doesn't mean abandoning breeds!

A generic shepherd dog is going a bit far. How about a generic Belgian Shepherd with open breeding between varieties? Or Norwich/Norfolk Terriers as one breed, as they originally were? Plenty of other examples Rough/Smooth Collies, Corgis etc etc...

ETA: I do see that my idea of helping my seem bizarre to you, and at one time I would have agreed with you completely but I do now see that preserving the health of the individual come before preserving the breed as a whole.... as, without healthy individuals you have no breed.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

...................................


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

I'm not a great fan of Crufts or the Kennel Club in general. Aren't they responsible for promoting breed standards?

What is good about dogs with the following traits:

such short/deformed snouts they can barely breathe

such short/deformed legs they can barely walk/jump/practically drag their bellies/genitals on the ground, etc.

coats so long they can barely see (and usually wear bands and clips at home)

ridiculously clipped coats (eg the poodle earlier in this thread. What possible reason is there for clipping a poodle in such a way?)

bitches that cannot deliver puppies without a c-section because the heads are too big to fit through the pelvis

eyes and mouths so droopy that quite severe and painful conditions prevail and they cannot be closed completely

ears so long the animal treads on them 

excessive wrinkles (as in the sharpei), causing skin problems

other bone structures which cause severe arthritis and other problems

chopping off a dog's tail

to name but a few. All of these IMO should be things that breeders should be breeding out not in.

Also I am not a fan of showing per se. It is completely subjective. If you do not follow all the same daft practises as everybody else you don't stand a chance. It seems to be if you can't beat them, join them.

Animals should be shown as close to natural as possible.

Why do handlers pick up a dog by the cord lead high up on the dog's throat and its tail? Why is that acceptable?

Why are they allowed to hold the dog up so high, that it's front feet are barely touching the ground?

Once the dog is in the ring, why is the handler allowed to constantly primp and fiddle with the dog. Pulling it's head up and holding it's tail erect?

I think SCRUFTS is the way to go 

Showing in the horse world is not much better.

IN MY OPINION


----------



## sharloid (Apr 15, 2012)

Lurcherlad said:


> Why do handlers pick up a dog by the cord lead high up on the dog's throat and its tail? Why is that acceptable?
> 
> Why are they allowed to hold the dog up so high, that it's front feet are barely touching the ground?
> 
> Once the dog is in the ring, why is the handler allowed to constantly primp and fiddle with the dog. Pulling it's head up and holding it's tail erect?


Yep, this is the part of showing that I don't understand. I'm more than willing to listen if someone could explain?


----------



## GermanShepardOwner (Aug 20, 2012)

Lurcherlad said:


> I'm not a great fan of Crufts or the Kennel Club in general. Aren't they responsible for promoting breed standards?
> 
> What is good about dogs with the following traits:
> 
> ...


Completely agree.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Glad to see some agree with me. To be honest though, I'm not interested in explanations cos I don't think there is any valid argument supporting any of the things I have listed. Same as with fox hunting....... nothing anyone could say that would change by opinion on that! 

Like I said ........ IN MY OPINION


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

Lurcherlad said:


> I'm not a great fan of Crufts or the Kennel Club in general. Aren't they responsible for promoting breed standards?
> 
> What is good about dogs with the following traits:
> 
> ...


This is why some people get heated. I know it's your opinion but several statements do have reasons!

The poodle clip has been explained as to why, protecting joints when in water etc
Tails were docked again for a working dogs protection
Excessive wrinkles doesn't cause skin problems
Etc etc

I'm not saying I agree with things but they did have reasons for doing certain things in certain ways


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

pearltheplank said:


> This is why some people get heated. I know it's your opinion but several statements do have reasons!
> 
> The poodle clip has been explained as to why, protecting joints when in water etc
> Tails were docked again for a working dogs protection
> ...


Soz, still not convinced! 

That poodle clip has nothing to do with protecting joints. When the coat is wet it goes flat and really doesn't offer much protection at all.

Most working dogs would cope perfectly well with tails. Most dogs of working breeds do not work but many still have their tails docked.

Excessive wrinkles do cause skin problems in a lot of cases. Exzema, dragging down of eyes, etc.


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2013)

Gonna say surely a dog with all its fur on it would still have its joints protected as well as the rest of its body?? So no point in the clip?


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

Lurcherlad said:


> Soz, still not convinced!
> 
> Excessive wrinkles do cause skin problems in a lot of cases. Exzema, dragging down of eyes, etc.


That's fine, we all have our own opinions

I assume you are experienced in the breed then??


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

No, but then most people who post on here are not experts in the relevant field/topic. But I am entitled to my opinion and I have expressed it. Not asking anyone to agree and I am not telling anyone else that they are wrong.

Have a look at the Royal Sharpei website - some info on there re skin problems.

Perhaps they have made it up?


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

ah well there's nothing like a well informed unbiased viewpoint - of COURSE you're right and all show dogs are freakish mutants and their breeders are the spawn of the devil

oh wait ......




























Still don't let a little thing like the truth stand in the way of your rant !


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

Lurcherlad said:


> No, but then most people who post on here are not experts in the relevant field/topic. But I am entitled to my opinion and I have expressed it. Not asking anyone to agree and I am not telling anyone else that they are wrong.
> 
> Have a look at the Royal Sharpei website - some info on there re skin problems.
> 
> Perhaps they have made it up?


Ok, so my 20 years in the breed obviously aren't relevant


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2013)

Here's an article on the shar pei and its wrinkles
Very interesting regardless on where you stand.

PLOS Genetics: A Novel Unstable Duplication Upstream of HAS2 Predisposes to a Breed-Defining Skin Phenotype and a Periodic Fever Syndrome in Chinese Shar-Pei Dogs


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Bijou said:


> ah well there's nothing like a well informed unbiased viewpoint - of COURSE you're right and all show dogs are freakish mutants and their breeders are the spawn of the devil
> 
> oh wait ......
> 
> ...


I assume you are asking me?

Have you read my posts? Obviously not. 

I have not ranted. But I think you just did 

I couldn't care less what you think of my opinion. Not seeking anyone's approval.

Gotta larf :rolleyes5:


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

LurcherOwner said:


> Here's an article on the shar pei and its wrinkles
> Very interesting regardless on where you stand.
> 
> PLOS Genetics: A Novel Unstable Duplication Upstream of HAS2 Predisposes to a Breed-Defining Skin Phenotype and a Periodic Fever Syndrome in Chinese Shar-Pei Dogs


I am well aware of that article and the authors! If you read it and understand it then the wrinkles are now thought to be the cause of FSF, a different ball game indeed. Not excess and the like

Anyway, that's not what this thread is about


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2013)

Not all show dogs are mutants. But the ones who are bred who cannot breathe properly or whelp properly then yes, they are mutants. IMO.

I can honestly say that independent vet checks are good thing in my eyes.

Anyway, back to cosmetics, lifting the ban makes the KC seem even more spineless.


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2013)

pearltheplank said:


> I am well aware of that article and the authors! If you read it and understand it then the wrinkles are now thought to be the cause of FSF, a different ball game indeed. Not excess and the like
> 
> Anyway, that's not what this thread is about


Thats why I said it was interesting regardless of where you stood. Calm down please. Besides it says the wrinkles are thought to be the cause, which surely could lead to the thought that excess wrinkles could be worse? And that surely it'd be better to breed ones without? More like the traditional sharpei? Yes anyway we are going off topic.

BACK TO THE HAIRSPRAY.

Is it a special doggy hairspray? OR a human one used? Wouldn't a people one be harmful?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Tail shortening is something that the show world completely abused, I do have to agree with that, there's no point in any dog that never sees cover having their tail shortened. If you work your dogs, that's another matter, but the docked to a stump examples seen in the show ring were awful. I'm glad it's banned, I just wish that those who work their dogs, and choose to buy pups that have had this procedure, can show on the same level playing field. Excluding good working examples does nothing for the gene pool, too many varieties of working dogs are like separate breeds in comparison to the show strains. 

There are two ways the KC could prevent people using banned products, or at least discourage them. Disallow the sale of banned products at their shows, monitor grooming areas including placing bottles of water to use on their dogs, and confiscating any bottles people brought in themselves.


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

LurcherOwner said:


> Thats why I said it was interesting regardless of where you stood. Calm down please. Besides it says the wrinkles are thought to be the cause, which surely could lead to the thought that excess wrinkles could be worse? And that surely it'd be better to breed ones without? More like the traditional sharpei? Yes anyway we are going off topic.
> 
> BACK TO THE HAIRSPRAY.
> 
> Is it a special doggy hairspray? OR a human one used? Wouldn't a people one be harmful?


I have PMed you, so we stay on topic


----------



## WeedySeaDragon (Oct 7, 2012)

Lurcherlad said:


> Glad to see some agree with me. To be honest though, I'm not interested in explanations cos I don't think there is any valid argument supporting any of the things I have listed.


I think statements like this are part of the problem. There are far too many people on both sides of the argument who are absolutely not prepared to enter into any kind of discourse as they are adamant that their opinions will never, ever change. This goes for the breeders and exhibitors who refuse to accept there are any issues within their breed and those who are convinced that breeding and showing is the root of all evil within the dog world.

I don't agree with many things the KC does but I can also appreciate they're in quite an awkward position. If they push too hard they risk breed clubs splitting off at which point they lose all ability to effect any kind of change within that breed. At the same time if they don't do enough they're risking alienating the rest of the dog owning and loving public which could potentially result in people actively avoiding KC registered dogs.

Personally I think the dog world could learn a lot from some of the breed registries and studbooks within the sport horse world where inclusion in the studbook or approval for breeding is not necessarily based only on the purity of the pedigree but on inspections and performance testing to ascertain whether individuals possess the appropriate characteristics and abilities of the breed. I also think outcrossing is something which should be very seriously investigated for certain breeds, both to widen gene pools and reduce health issues.

Very little can be done at all though if people are unwilling to have open and honest discussions with each other and as I said at the start of this post I think there are far too many people on both sides who are unwilling to do so.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Phoolf said:


> Originally Posted by Spellweaver
> _Sigh. And so it begins.
> 
> We are in the run up to Crufts and so there will be more and more articles like this, taking a little kernel or truth and twisting it to make the show world the epitome of evil. And, as this thread has shown, *there will always be people who jump straight onto the bandwagon and believe every word they hear, and make up even more*._
> ...


Working backwards from your post:

here


comfortcreature said:


> , and now some have stretched the rules and are pushing to not be called cheats!


and here


Phoolf said:


> I don't need to have spent my life around show rings to know that egotistical people force their dogs to do things for their own ego, and often by using uncomfortable methods regardless of whether it's in the world of showing or shutzhund or any other discipline. I think showing is fun, but I also think there's a lot of people, as in any other discipline, who don't care too much about their dogs likes and dislikes, just that they get the ribbons at the end of it.


and here


rona said:


> .
> Something to do with the ignorant not noticing that their dog is miserable


and here


hazel pritchard said:


> Such a shame the KC can not allow dogs to be shown as nature intended.


and here


Phoolf said:


> Well I don't know about that, they don't judge dogs by how happy they are to my knowledge, and it's not like many people won't be using aversive methods for their dogs in show, and winning titles to boot. Been seeing a lovely picture floating around facebook about how they are now hiding prong collars underneath flat leather so judges won't notice the dog is being forced around, not at Crufts of course, but in other dog arenas round the world.


and here


Phoolf said:


> This is why I've never been a fan of crufts, I always wonder what goes on back stage and tbh (I'm sure many will disagree) I don't think it's healthy to be as competitive as a lot of people are, some of the dogs undoubtedly love the show world but many don't and it's purely for the owners own ego.


to list but a few!


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2013)

WeedySeaDragon said:


> .
> 
> I don't agree with many things the KC does but I can also appreciate they're in quite an awkward position. If they push too hard they risk breed clubs I think statements like this are part of the problem. There are far too many people on both sides of the argument who are absolutely not prepared to enter into any kind of discourse as they are adamant that their opinions will never, ever change. This goes for the breeders and exhibitors who refuse to accept there are any issues within their breed and those who are convinced that breeding and showing is the root of all evil within the dog worldsplitting off at which point they lose all ability to effect any kind of change within that breed. At the same time if they don't do enough they're risking alienating the rest of the dog owning and loving public which could potentially result in people actively avoiding KC registered dogs.
> 
> ...


I agree with this completley, I may have come across as anti-showing, I'm not honestly, the dedication some showers/owners show to their dogs is magnificent and their dogs are wonderful to see strutting their stuff. 
But its the people who breed show dogs from knowingly unhealthy dogs who need a severe kick up the backside.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Working backwards from your post:
> 
> here
> 
> ...


Don't quote my words out of context please.

If you are feeling guilty that's nothing to do with the people here trying to have a conversation


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> And, as this thread has shown, there will always be people who jump straight onto the bandwagon and believe every word they hear, and make up even more.





Spellweaver said:


> Working backwards from your post:
> 
> here
> 
> ...


Oh I see, so the quotes are made up? I wish I had your optimism and believed everything was airy fairy alright in the show world and every dog owner does it for altruistic reasons.

Who's making up the truth?


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Would you like to look at this thread I found regarding using prong or 'control' collars in the ring SW so you can deny people are aversive to gain compliance (note I never said in Crufts, I said 'in the showing world' which doesn't exclude everywhere but Crufts or indeed the UK)?

THE BULLY SHOP / Pinch collar in the ring???


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Phoolf said:


> Would you like to look at this thread I found regarding using prong or 'control' collars in the ring SW so you can deny people are aversive to gain compliance (note I never said in Crufts, I said 'in the showing world' which doesn't exclude everywhere but Crufts or indeed the UK)?
> 
> THE BULLY SHOP / Pinch collar in the ring???


I'm not sure which is worse to be honest

How to liven up a bored Bulldog: scrotum tickling in the Crufts showring - Telegraph Blogs


----------



## Crankyhorse (Sep 18, 2011)

Finally my decision to use extreme lash mascara on my Bichon has been vindicated.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Lurcherlad said:


> I'm not a great fan of Crufts or the Kennel Club in general. Aren't they responsible for promoting breed standards?
> 
> I think SCRUFTS is the way to go
> 
> IN MY OPINION


Everyone is entitled to their opinion - but I don't think you realise that the organisation you are denigrating (ie the Kennel Club) actually runs the competition you advocate ( ie Scruffts)


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm not sure which is worse to be honest
> 
> How to liven up a bored Bulldog: scrotum tickling in the Crufts showring  Telegraph Blogs


Wow.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

For clarification:

BIJOU - I never said that "all show dogs are freakish mutants and their breeders are spawn of the devil". 

PEARLTHEPLANK - your 20 years in the breed makes no difference to my views. Presumably, the extreme wrinkling in the skin of sharpeis has been bred in within that period, so a lot of breed experts have been involved along the way?

SLEEPINGLION - the voice of reason!! 

WEEDYSEADRAGON - I never said I was right. I simply listed a number of well documented and recognised problems with certain breeds. I have yet to hear anything from anyone that would convince me they are a positive trait of any breed.

Like I said, I have based my opinion on information in the public domain that I have heard/read over the years. I have not heard/read anything to date to change that opinion. I am willing to listen to and consider any new information that comes my way. If something convinces me otherwise then I am happy to change. I am not compelled to change my opinion just because others do not agree with it.


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

Aah, everything on the Internet is gospel  I forgot


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> Everyone is entitled to their opinion - but I don't think you realise that the organisation you are denigrating (ie the Kennel Club) actually runs the competition you advocate ( ie Scruffts)


Maybe they do, but surely under different rules/requirements?

I personally wouldn't enter my dog into Scruffts either. I couldn't care less what anyone thinks of him. It's just not my bag. Each to their own. If people enjoy it, great.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

pearltheplank said:


> Aah, everything on the Internet is gospel  I forgot


Who said that?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Phoolf said:


> Oh I see, so the quotes are made up? I wish I had your optimism and believed everything was airy fairy alright in the show world and every dog owner does it for altruistic reasons.
> 
> Who's making up the truth?


If you knew anything at all about me you would know I do not believe that. There are good and bad people in the show world, just as there are good and bad people in every walk of life. But the vast majority of people who show dogs do not ill treat their dogs - but reading some posts on here you would be forgiven for thinking everyone who showed bred their dogs into unnatural shapes, forced their dogs to do it when they were obviously unhappy, smothered them in cosmetics, and all to feed their own ego.

And if you read properly the quote you highlighted from my first post, it said

"*there will always be people who jump straight onto the bandwagon and believe every word they hear*, and make up even more"

Most of the quotes I gave you were about jumping on the bandwagon. I wonder why you chose to think that they - and your post in particular - referred to the "making up" part?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> If you knew anything at all about me you would know I do not believe that. There are good and bad people in the show world, just as there are good and bad people in every walk of life. But the vast majority of people who show dogs do not ill treat their dogs - but reading some posts on here you would be forgiven for thinking everyone who showed bred their dogs into unnatural shapes, forced their dogs to do it when they were obviously unhappy, smothered them in cosmetics, and all to feed their own ego.
> 
> And if you read properly the quote you highlighted from my first post, it said
> 
> ...


I thought the opposite, I thought the KC is giving in to a minority who want to primp and preen their dogs, above and beyond what's necessary really to show them. Does it say in any breed standard you know of that dogs must have sufficient hair spray and chalk to disguise any faults the judge may otherwise see?

And yes, I know, no BS states anything about grooming requirements, but the more we allow the worse it gets. This has been shown with the way some people breed for exaggeration, are we now going to allow them to groom to exaggeration?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> Don't quote my words out of context please.
> 
> If you are feeling guilty that's nothing to do with the people here trying to have a conversation


I haven't quoted you out of context - and as for feeling guilty, what peculiar thing to say! I have no reason to feel guilty - my dogs are happy, healthy dogs who live a full life and who love showing - what on earth can you possibly imagine I have to feel guilty about?

There you go Phoolf - a prime example of someone making something up!


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

Lurcherlad said:


> BIJOU - I never said that "all show dogs are freakish mutants and their breeders are spawn of the devil".


No, I don't think anyone on this thread has. It is possible to criticise/question aspects of the show world without writing off the whole thing.


----------



## WeedySeaDragon (Oct 7, 2012)

Lurcherlad said:


> To be honest though, I'm not interested in explanations cos I don't think there is any valid argument supporting any of the things I have listed.





> I am willing to listen to and consider any new information that comes my way. If something convinces me otherwise then I am happy to change.


But only if the new information doesn't concern those issues that you listed? :blink:


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

The KC has been bred to conform to any practice that keeps the money rolling in..what will be next? Best of breed my phat ***.


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2013)

pearltheplank said:


> Aah, everything on the Internet is gospel  I forgot


Indeed!  :lol:

I think people do get offended a bit when people don't agree with them.

"Ohh noooooooo someone on the internet doesn't agree with me Ooooh nnoooooooooooo. I MUST PUT MY VIEW ACROSS EVEN STRONGER!"

:lol:

We're all guilty of it.

Besides I thought we were on about Hairspray and Chalk?


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

WeedySeaDragon said:


> But only if the new information doesn't concern those issues that you listed? :blink:


Whaaaaaat? 

IF IT DOES, I WILL! So far, it hasn't and so I haven't!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

5rivers79 said:


> The KC has been bred to conform to any practice that keeps the money rolling in..what will be next? Best of breed my phat ***.


Sorry, but that really is not true. The KC has it's faults, but for starters it hasn't been bred. Dogs are bred, not the KC. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not show my dogs thinking naievely that it's all a level playing field, I've been very vocal about the fact that it isn't. Nor do I think that the KC is perfect. However, I'd love for people to come up with an alternative that is better. Constructive criticism is good, but there is nothing as *well rounded* as the KC out there, and as for ensuring you buy from KC registered parents that are health tested, nothing will convince me otherwise that this is the best route for the majority of first time puppy owners.


----------



## WeedySeaDragon (Oct 7, 2012)

Lurcherlad said:


> IF IT DOES, I WILL! So far, it hasn't and so I haven't!


Ah, I was simply confused by the fact you initially stated you weren't interested in any explanations which suggests that although you're aware of the potential for arguments which could alter your opinion you're not interested in hearing them.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

LurcherOwner said:


> Indeed!  :lol:
> 
> I think people do get offended a bit when people don't agree with them.
> 
> ...


Well, speaking for myself: I am not offended if people don't agree with me. I do get a bit peeved though when they tell me I am wrong, simply because they don't agree with me :yesnod:

Oh yes, and accuse me of saying things I have not.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

WeedySeaDragon said:


> Ah, I was simply confused by the fact you initially stated you weren't interested in any explanations which suggests that although you're aware of the potential for arguments which could alter your opinion you're not interested in hearing them.


Because, to my knowledge, at this time no new evidence/argument has been put forward to change my opinion on the list of arbitrary points that I gave. If you know of any, please share ..........


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

5rivers79 said:


> The KC has been bred to conform to any practice that keeps the money rolling in..what will be next? Best of breed my phat ***.


I hope they do keep money coming in. More to distribute through the Charitable Trust to research canine diseases and other endeavours that benefit dogs in general.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I thought the opposite, I thought the KC is giving in to a minority who want to primp and preen their dogs, above and beyond what's necessary really to show them. Does it say in any breed standard you know of that dogs must have sufficient hair spray and chalk to disguise any faults the judge may otherwise see?
> 
> And yes, I know, no BS states anything about grooming requirements, but the more we allow the worse it gets. This has been shown with the way some people breed for exaggeration, are we now going to allow them to groom to exaggeration?


If you read the quote from "Dog World" rather than the rubbish from the Daily Wail, you will see that the question of testing was brought to the AGM not for cosmetic reasons, but because some of the tests are coming back with false readings because silicone is in found many things - including shampoo, conditioner (and even as someone else has posted, tomato sauce!).

This is what has been under discussion since the 2011 AGM - and because it is under discussion the rule has been suspended while the discussions take place. Don't you think it is a bit hypocritical for people to be suddenly jumping on the bandwagon about it now, nearly two years later, just because it is the run up to Crufts 2013 and some journalist has realised that anything dissing Crufts at this time of year will sell newspapers?

And because the rule has been suspended since May 2011, with no great proliferation in the use of "cosmetics", don't you think it's a bit hysterical to start talking of grooming to exaggeration?


----------



## WeedySeaDragon (Oct 7, 2012)

Lurcherlad said:


> Because, to my knowledge, at this time no new evidence/argument has been put forward to change my opinion on the list of arbitrary points that I gave. If you know of any, please share ..........


I have never at any point said that I don't agree with you about the issues that you listed. I simply think that being unwilling to even entertain potential explanations which do not support your opinions is never a good thing.

I also think there's a big difference between dogs so severely brachycephalic they struggle to breathe and the clipping of a poodle's coat. It may look silly but it certainly does no harm to the dog. It's an unfair comparison.

The KC do not write the breed standards, they are written by the breed club then approved by the KC. Many of the things you have listed do _not_ fit with the breed standards, following the standards most would be considered faults so the question must be asked how are dogs with these issues placing at shows (if indeed they are, I'll be honest and say don't follow any breeds with such issues) and doing well enough to be desirable within breeding circles.

I've already said I'm aware there are plenty of issues with showing, however I don't believe conformation showing is, in and of itself, always detrimental. There are plenty of breeds which are shown and are healthy and without exaggeration to the point of deformity.

We need open discussion on both sides of the debate to ascertain exactly what is going wrong with the breeds that are suffering.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

WeedySeaDragon;
I have never at any point said that I don't agree with you about the issues that you listed. I simply think that being unwilling to even entertain potential explanations which do not support your opinions is never a good thing.

Lurcherland
* I am willing: what explanations are there that show the points I listed as positive?

WSD
I also think there's a big difference between dogs so severely brachycephalic they struggle to breathe and the clipping of a poodle's coat. It may look silly but it certainly does no harm to the dog. It's an unfair comparison.

LL
* I wasn't comparing the two, just put them on the list as separate examples. (If the poodle cut is aesthetic, fine, but why are people trying to convince us it's for joint protection?)

WSD
The KC do not write the breed standards, they are written by the breed club then approved by the KC.

LL
* What's the difference? The KC are therefore promoting those standards.

WSD
Many of the things you have listed do _not_ fit with the breed standards, following the standards most would be considered faults so the question must be asked how are dogs with these issues placing at shows (if indeed they are, I'll be honest and say don't follow any breeds with such issues) and doing well enough to be desirable within breeding circles.

LL
* ? Don't some bull breeds (for e.g.) have squashed faces, stumpy legs etc. Don't representatives of that breed, with those traits, show at Crufts?

? Don't some bull breeds puppies (for e.g.) have such large heads they cannot be delivered naturally? Don't representatives of that breed, with those traits, show a Crufts?

WSD
I've already said I'm aware there are plenty of issues with showing, however I don't believe conformation showing is, in and of itself, always detrimental. There are plenty of breeds which are shown and are healthy and without exaggeration to the point of deformity.

LL
* I agree.

WSD
We need open discussion on both sides of the debate to ascertain exactly what is going wrong with the breeds that are suffering.

LL
* I agree. I am open to debate. I look forward to someone giving me a reason to change my views.

In the whole of this thread, not one person has given me a valid explanation as to why any of the points I raised (I repeat they were arbitrary, I could have used any number of others) would be considered a positive trait for any breed to possess.

I can't make it any clearer.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Why do these threads always descend into he said, you said but my actual point was...but then you said...and my opinion is.....and you're obviously an idiot because....? 

For showing of horses, we use chalk on feathers, conditioning spray, shine spray, we plait, we primp, we ensure we wear the right gear, the horse wears the right gear or we get marked down. I don't think I'd want to give my horse a quick brush then pop in the ring with all the shiny horses!

This would not have won first place in the show:










But the picture in my signature did. He had chalk on his bum to cover the stable stains (wee/poo) and we bandaged his legs overnight, dampened with chalk on to make him look clean. The girl who took him in his second class used to be made to sit in a big plastic bag to keep clean before shows!

People want to win and if the welfare of the animal isn't compromised, the dog is well looked after etc, then why not? Any sort of deliberately bred for extreme features that affect the well being of the dog should be severely punished.


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

Okay, so I'll give a stab at answering these for you. I'm still new to the showing world, just as a disclaimer.



Lurcherlad said:


> Why do handlers pick up a dog by the cord lead high up on the dog's throat and its tail? Why is that acceptable?


It's done as the dog walks to make sure they keep their heads high and show the extension in the neck. Henry kicks up a fuss if we do that with him, so we don't, we walk him around the ring with a loose lead and are teaching him that it's a good thing to hold his head up. It varies from dog to dog as to how they're walked.



> Why are they allowed to hold the dog up so high, that it's front feet are barely touching the ground?


I'm not sure if you're think the dog is held like that the whole time it's in the ring or not, but initially the dog is lifted up from the front at first to place its paws straight and parallel on the floor/table. It's for more handsome composition and to show the judge the correct alignment of the shoulders rather than having them splayed out.



> Once the dog is in the ring, why is the handler allowed to constantly primp and fiddle with the dog. Pulling it's head up and holding it's tail erect?


Again, the head is held to show composition and the extension of the neck. Setter's tails are held up to show the shape of the tail feathering, but many breeds are 'free stood', with the handler in front not holding any part of the dog. Labradors and Retrievers are a good example of that style. The natural bone structure underneath the jaw allows fingers to be tucked under to hold the head up, so you're not pushing into the dog's mouth or windpipe or anything like that. Handlers correct their dog if the dog moves their feet, or will perhaps brush them a little.

I don't think there's anything 'unnatural' about moving your dog's feet or brushing their hair, is there? It might seem a little silly to outsiders, but it's like tweaking your child's clothes right before meeting someone important or taking a important photograph.



> I think SCRUFTS is the way to go


Scrufts is a great competition, and I'm glad the KC runs it alongside Crufts.



> Showing in the horse world is not much better.


Perhaps not - I'm sure child beauty pageants aren't much better either, but at least it happens across every spectrum


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Following on from the above  Different breeds are handled differently. In Dogues De Bordeaux, the correct way to move a DDB is on a completely loose lead so the dog moves freely with the correct head carriage, level with the top line. We also stack then head on, not sideways like most breeds. When stacked they don't need to be strung up with their feet off the ground, probably tricky with a possibly 80+kg dog. Quite easy to train them to hold a pose like that. Other breeds bait the dog to hold that pose, we generally don't.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

I would've thought that the "correct" head-carriage for _any breed_ of dog was the way it carries its head when moving unencombered by a lead. I hate seeing dogs with their heads being held up by a bit of string as they try to trot round a ring.


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

Werehorse said:


> I would've thought that the "correct" head-carriage for _any breed_ of dog was the way it carries its head when moving unencombered by a lead. I hate seeing dogs with their heads being held up by a bit of string as they try to trot round a ring.


Well, to be fair, a lot of it is going to be down to gravity, too. If you're walking a toy breed around the ring, you can't stoop as you walk or let the lead get in the way of the dog - you have a nice long lead taunt to the point of the dog's neck. It only looks like a piece of string because it's going to look clumsy to have a thick lead on such a little dog.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Werehorse said:


> I would've thought that the "correct" head-carriage for _any breed_ of dog was the way it carries its head when moving unencombered by a lead. I hate seeing dogs with their heads being held up by a bit of string as they try to trot round a ring.


Unfortunately Bess's natural head carriage is to run with her nose to the ground smelling smells left by other dogs.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

You can walk a toy breed on a loose lead without tripping it up.

There's no excuse for holding a dog up tight on a thin collar round the throat.

I've no objection to a thin lead or a thin collar so long as the lead is lose and never yanked.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

PEZANT
Point 1. I guessed as much, but is it acceptable/necessary? Clearly not, if you don't do it.
Point 2. I mean when it is running. I guessed it's to hold it's head up. But not nice for the dog. You don't do it.
Point 3. Once the judge has handled/checked the dog, surely that's enough.
I didn't say it's unnatural to brush/primp the dog constantly. Just unnecessary.
Point 4. Yey, we agree 
Point 5. Unless it's extreme. 

Thanks for explaining.  

SNORINGBEAR
Thank god! 

CINNAMONTOAST
Nothing you described particularly bothers me. I never said brushing and primping did.


----------



## pod (Jun 24, 2010)

Werehorse said:


> I would've thought that the "correct" head-carriage for _any breed_ of dog was the way it carries its head when moving unencombered by a lead. I hate seeing dogs with their heads being held up by a bit of string as they try to trot round a ring.


You're so right. I've been judging at top level - breed club since 1985 and CC level since 1990 (also Open level as non specialist) and it's becoming increasingly common in many breeds. I now often have to ask handlers to let their dogs move and stand naturally, without being strung up, even in herding breeds like the Border Collie, where a low head carriage is natural.

I'm sure some judges must tolerate or even desire this handling method but for me it alters the conformation, in stance and movement, for the worse.


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

But then you're getting into aesthetics. You can walk a toy breed with a loose lead, but it looks cleaner in the ring to have straight lines - one thin, unnoticeable line of the lead straight up from the dog to the handler looks better than a saggy lead getting in the way of the look of the dog. 

I will agree, however, that having the lead so taunt that it yanks the dogs head upwards is unnecessary, and I'm sure a lot of handlers do do it to extremes when they should allow their breed to hold themselves more naturally. 

And you can't say a lead is never yanked - just the other day we had a thread about 'correcting' a dog with a quick tug when they're out walking and loads of people agreed that it was something they did. Pinning something arbitrary like that on the show world is a little unfair.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Werehorse said:


> I would've thought that the "correct" head-carriage for _any breed_ of dog was the way it carries its head when moving unencombered by a lead. I hate seeing dogs with their heads being held up by a bit of string as they try to trot round a ring.


I agree. One of my friends got criticised at ringcraft for not holding her DDBs head up on the move. Don't like to see that prancing pony effect when a dog's strung up on their lead.


----------



## pod (Jun 24, 2010)

Pezant said:


> But then you're getting into aesthetics. You can walk a toy breed with a loose lead, but it looks cleaner in the ring to have straight lines - one thin, unnoticeable line of the lead straight up from the dog to the handler looks better than a saggy lead getting in the way of the look of the dog.
> 
> And you can't say a lead is never yanked - just the other day we had a thread about 'correcting' a dog with a quick tug when they're out walking and loads of people agreed that it was something they did. Pinning something arbitrary like that on the show world is a little unfair.


The difference in the ring is that many handlers keep the chain/lead tightly held right up behind the ears, for the duration of the class. I'm sure this must cause at least some discomfort, depending on how submissive to the lead the dog is. I once witnessed an Akita that was obviously untrained, struggling against the lead, throw up in the ring as he was choking.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

I don't think any yanking on any lead on any collar around a dog's neck by anyone is a good or acceptable way to handle a dog.

I can say that I have no objection to a thin collar IF the lead is never yanked. That's a perfectly fair comment, nothing arbitary about it.

Regards the aesthetics you can perfectly easily hold a lead up and away from the dog's outline and still have some slack in it. It should be the DOG being judged. The heritable qualities of the dog, nothing else. I appreciate that everything else should be clean and tidy and not detract from the qualities on display but if a judge decides a class based on whether a lead is slightly slack or not then they shouldn't be judging i.e. judges should have enough knowledge and skill to see through ring-craft and judge the dog in front of them.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> If you read the quote from "Dog World" rather than the rubbish from the Daily Wail, you will see that the question of testing was brought to the AGM not for cosmetic reasons, but because some of the tests are coming back with false readings because silicone is in found many things - including shampoo, conditioner (and even as someone else has posted, tomato sauce!).
> 
> This is what has been under discussion since the 2011 AGM - and because it is under discussion the rule has been suspended while the discussions take place. Don't you think it is a bit hypocritical for people to be suddenly jumping on the bandwagon about it now, nearly two years later, just because it is the run up to Crufts 2013 and some journalist has realised that anything dissing Crufts at this time of year will sell newspapers?
> 
> And because the rule has been suspended since May 2011, with no great proliferation in the use of "cosmetics", don't you think it's a bit hysterical to start talking of grooming to exaggeration?


I don't think they need to go as far as testing dog fur, they simply need to impose the two restrictions I mentioned, no selling of dog grooming products that aren't allowed in the ring, distrubute bottles of spray water and have stewards check grooming areas possibly spot checking bottle contents.

Just because people get away with it, doesn't make it right, and yes, although I did say it in a way to sensationalise it, grooming has gone to an extreme with some dogs and I hate to see it personally. And where does it stop? People are trimming Labradors to go in the ring these days, this shouldn't be happening.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm completely agreeing about the 'strung up' look, I try to keep a loose(ish) lead with mine, although Rhuna sometimes looks like an 80's disco champion on the move, I'd rather just have fun and laugh if she's in one of those moods.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

pod said:


> You're so right. I've been judging at top level - breed club since 1985 and CC level since 1990 (also Open level as non specialist) and it's becoming increasingly common in many breeds. I now often have to ask handlers to let their dogs move and stand naturally, without being strung up, even in herding breeds like the Border Collie, where a low head carriage is natural.


Border collies are shown on a long loose lead, running in front and to the side of their handler, with their heads low and their hind quarters driving. If, as a judge, you have seen really seen someone "stringing up" a border collie, I hope you would have had a word with the handler. I'm not saying it does not happen - there are always new and inexperienced handlers - but putting on an open forum like this that it is becoming "common" is just not true. If you would like to pm me with your details, I will pass your comments onto the Border Collie Club of GB. Do you award CCs in border collies? TBH, it worries me that someone who does can make such a comment on an open forum.


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I don't think they need to go as far as testing dog fur, they simply need to impose the two restrictions I mentioned, no selling of dog grooming products that aren't allowed in the ring, distrubute bottles of spray water and have stewards check grooming areas possibly spot checking bottle contents.
> .


But which products are you banning? Shampoo for baths before shows? How would that be checked if not by hair tests? Or just on-the-day grooming products? And then surely you're getting into the issue of restricting dog businesses who make their money from selling grooming products at shows.

I'm not saying I disagree with you - I think a dog's coat should be as natural as possible. I'm just saying, there are other barriers that can't be passed by outright bans on grooming products and the distribution of water.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Pezant said:


> But which products are you banning? Shampoo for baths before shows? How would that be checked if not by hair tests? Or just on-the-day grooming products? And then surely you're getting into the issue of restricting dog businesses who make their money from selling grooming products at shows.
> 
> I'm not saying I disagree with you - I think a dog's coat should be as natural as possible. I'm just saying, there are other barriers that can't be passed by outright bans on grooming products and the distribution of water.


Hair sprays and chalk specifically, but anything *on the day* that would alter the coat. I'd prefer to see the use of the majority of products discouraged, it seems to be going the other way though. As I said, people are now *tidying up* their Labradors, for a breed that requires the absolute minimum, usually just the tail twizzle snipping off, why on earth would you want to start trimming stray hairs or tidying up bits at backs of legs? There shouldn't be anything worth trimming on a Labrador for a start, I can see the point of trimming and tidying up a breed where hair covers things the judge looks at and judges the dog for, so trimming and tidying ears so the size and set can be easily seen for a flatcoat, same for feet, and tail again, to show where the end of it is, and so the dog can be seen in the correct proportions without guessing these things when you stand back. It's not *necessary* but it makes it easier because flatcoats have that much more hair.


----------



## pod (Jun 24, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Border collies are shown on a long loose lead, running in front and to the side of their handler, with their heads low and their hind quarters driving. If, as a judge, you have seen really seen someone "stringing up" a border collie, I hope you would have had a word with the handler. I'm not saying it does not happen - there are always new and inexperienced handlers - but putting on an open forum like this that it is becoming "common" is just not true. If you would like to pm me with your details, I will pass your comments onto the Border Collie Club of GB. Do you award CCs in border collies? TBH, it worries me that someone who does can make such a comment on an open forum.


Sorry, not much time to reply now, just posting the first video I've found. This is the world show so not UK but it illustrates well what I mean.

world dog show border collies - YouTube

The lead, often a fine chock chain, is held right up behind the dogs ears to prevent the head lowering in the stance. Most handlers don't keep the lead taught in movement but it is still right up behind the ears, a sensitive area for the dog.

This isn't how BCs were handled a few decades ago when they were first KC recognised.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Border collies are shown on a long loose lead, running in front and to the side of their handler, with their heads low and their hind quarters driving. If, as a judge, you have seen really seen someone "stringing up" a border collie, I hope you would have had a word with the handler. I'm not saying it does not happen - there are always new and inexperienced handlers - but putting on an open forum like this that it is becoming "common" is just not true. If you would like to pm me with your details, I will pass your comments onto the Border Collie Club of GB. Do you award CCs in border collies? *TBH, it worries me that someone who does can make such a comment on an open forum.*


Why? Surely judges should be the most honest people involved with showing? And are allowed, as are the rest of us, to express our opinion on a topic?


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

Phoolf said:


> Oh I see, so the quotes are made up? I wish I had your optimism and believed everything was airy fairy alright in the show world and every dog owner does it for altruistic reasons.


I don't see anyone who has said that EVERYTHING is alright and perfect and that everyone is nice and that it's all sunshine and rainbows - now you really are making things up


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Tigerneko said:


> I don't see anyone who has said that EVERYTHING is alright and perfect and that everyone is nice and that it's all sunshine and rainbows - now you really are making things up


I'll say what I feel and know I am not the only one who feels this way. Just the fact it's so common as to require a rule change shows the show world to be based on looks, not conformation or temperament. This has impact on a lot of areas. Progress in public awareness that pedigree breeders care more about health and other issues just took a step backwards in my opinion.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Goblin said:


> I'll say what I feel and know I am not the only one who feels this way. Just the fact it's so common as to require a rule change shows the show world to be based on looks, not conformation or temperament. This has impact on a lot of areas. Progress in public awareness that pedigree breeders care more about health and other issues just took a step backwards in my opinion.


I've not read the majority of the thread as it seemed to go off track a bit 
But this is what I was trying to say - but said in a much better way


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

pod said:


> Sorry, not much time to reply now, just posting the first video I've found. This is the world show so not UK but it illustrates well what I mean.
> 
> world dog show border collies - YouTube
> 
> ...


Can't see the video cos I'm at work - but I fail to see the relevance of how border collies are shown in another country would prompt a judge who gives CCs in this country to pretend that it is happening all the time in the UK - it isn't. I'm at shows where border colleis are shown and awarded CCs at least once or twice a month, every month, every year - and the only odd time I've seen it happen is if there has been a new or inexperienced handler. As a judge it is highly irresponsible of you to post on an open forum to say this is happening frequently in the UK when the only evidence you can post is from the US.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Why? *Surely judges should be the most honest people involved with showing?* And are allowed, as are the rest of us, to express our opinion on a topic?


My point exactly. If Pod is a judge giving CCs to border collies - which I somehow doubt from the lack of knowledge exhibited - then she/he should be honest and not try to pretend that what happens in the states happens in the UK.


----------



## pod (Jun 24, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Can't see the video cos I'm at work - but I fail to see the relevance of how border collies are shown in another country would prompt a judge who gives CCs in this country to pretend that it is happening all the time in the UK - it isn't. I'm at shows where border colleis are shown and awarded CCs at least once or twice a month, every month, every year - and the only odd time I've seen it happen is if there has been a new or inexperienced handler. As a judge it is highly irresponsible of you to post on an open forum to say this is happening frequently in the UK when the only evidence you can post is from the US.


You should watch the video before making such comments. What is shown in the handling technique commonly used in the UK.



> My point exactly. If Pod is a judge giving CCs to border collies - which I somehow doubt from the lack of knowledge exhibited - then she/he should be honest and not try to pretend that what happens in the states happens in the UK.


The World Show is held under the auspices of the FCI. That doesn't include the USA.


----------



## pod (Jun 24, 2010)

Crikey, so difficult to find breed judging videos in a search as there are so many other activities in the breed.

This is the BOB challenge at Crufts 2010, so no inexperienced or novice handlers here - Border Collie BOB challenge, Crufts 2010 - YouTube


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Never been a part of the show world and bl**dy glad of it. Seeing dogs pranced around a ring full of talc and all fluffed up makes me cringe and for what purpose? - just so as the breeder gets a feather in the cap and out does a rival! Dogs looking like freaks and owners actually proud of it - sickening!

I like a dog to look natural, not like some outrageous toy you win at the fairground!

Best thing about Crufts is agility and the mutts. :yesnod:


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> Never been a part of the show world and bl**dy glad of it. Seeing dogs pranced around a ring full of talc and all fluffed up makes me cringe and for what purpose? - just so as the breeder gets a feather in the cap and out does a rival! Dogs looking like freaks and owners actually proud of it - sickening!


and I've never been part of the shooting world and bl**dy glad of it. Seeing dogs getting snagged on bushes and barbed wire makes me cringe and for what purpose ? - just so their owners get to kill vast numbers of birds and out do their rival !. Dogs being deliberately mutilated and their owners actually proud of it - sickening !

....ah yes - why bother with a reasoned discussion when you can have a good old biased rant -


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

Malmum said:


> Never been a part of the show world and bl**dy glad of it. Seeing dogs pranced around a ring full of talc and all fluffed up makes me cringe and for what purpose? - just so as the breeder gets a feather in the cap and out does a rival! Dogs looking like freaks and owners actually proud of it - sickening!
> 
> I like a dog to look natural, not like some outrageous toy you win at the fairground!


That's a bit unfair, Malmum. We show Henry and he doesn't look tarted up - he just looks like a clean, happy, well-brushed and tidy English Setter. We show him because we think he's an extremely handsome dog and a good example of the breed, and if we get a rosette out of it, that's just a bonus.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Not to mention MM it's not all about rosettes and showing off, how are puppy buyers supposed to know how good an example of the breed the dam/sire are if they're not shown and the buyers are not breed specialists?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> Not to mention MM it's not all about rosettes and showing off, how are puppy buyers supposed to know how good an example of the breed the dam/sire are if they're not shown and the buyers are not breed specialists?


What should buyers be on the lookout for... real dog or barbie dog?

Now you could use the same dog for both but I for one would prefer to see a dog as would be expected in everyday life as an example of what to expect and look for in the breed.


----------



## Julesky (Feb 10, 2012)

I don't know much about the show world- BUT

I used to work in a place where we had animal safe spray paint cans for I.Ding individuals (sheep etc)

A girl i worked with did show and stole a can of black paint for her lab before a big show.

Bit stupid I thought.

Surely the whole point is to show the dog as it is? 

Frankly I could not be arsed with that if I had a dog I wanted to show- I can barely do make-up/hairspray on myself let alone find the need to use it on an animal!


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

Goblin said:


> What should buyers be on the lookout for... real dog or barbie dog?
> 
> Now you could use the same dog for both but I for one would prefer to see a dog as would be expected in everyday life as an example of what to expect and look for in the breed.


Every time someone comes on this forum asking about breeding their dog, or if they've been offered a stud or bitch, one of the first questions anyone asks (apart from health tests) is "Have they been proven in the ring?"

Showing is about proving that your dog meets the breed standard, NOT that they've been primped and preened. Showing demonstrates that your dog is healthy, with good teeth, good bone structure, good temperament and moves well. Think what you like about the show world (and yes, there are bad eggs there, like you get in any walk of life), but it ensures that the best of the breeds produces the best of the breeds.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Pezant said:


> Every time someone comes on this forum asking about breeding their dog, or if they've been offered a stud or bitch, one of the first questions anyone asks (apart from health tests) is "Have they been proven in the ring?"
> 
> Showing is about proving that your dog meets the breed standard, NOT that they've been primped and preened. Showing demonstrates that your dog is healthy, with good teeth, good bone structure, good temperament and moves well. Think what you like about the show world (and yes, there are bad eggs there, like you get in any walk of life),* but it ensures that the best of the breeds produces the best of the breeds.*


Unless there's a working branch of that breed


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

pod said:


> Crikey, so difficult to find breed judging videos in a search as there are so many other activities in the breed.
> 
> This is the BOB challenge at Crufts 2010, so no inexperienced or novice handlers here - Border Collie BOB challenge, Crufts 2010 - YouTube


That video was actually uncomfortable viewing - but quite demonstrative... the first chap could not stop yanking his dog! And was holding his head up on a tight lead - exactly what I was talking about in earlier posts. The second chap held the lead up and away from the outline of the dog but was allowing the dog to move freely, if the dog has gone to sniff he would have been restricted but when his head was up in a relaxed, natural position he had no pressure on his collar.

To be honest, thinking about the original topic of the thread - I think as long as the dog is not harmed I see no welfare problem with using grooming products on a dog - I use grooming products on my horse to make brushing out her tail easier and to remove stable stains. Not even for showing, just to make her look nicer in every day life! If I was doing a dressage competition lol: we can't even trot in a circle so fat chance of that happening!) I would want her as neat and tidy as possible so the judge could focus on our work, rather than being distracted by a stable stain on her bum. However I'd be pretty annoyed if someone rode a poorer test but was placed above us due to being better groomed!

The actual problem with grooming products is that the judge needs to be judging the dog and the dog alone and if the product (or the trimming etc) masks that the dog has an incorrect coat and the dog places highly and becomes a popular stud then that incorrect coat could be passed on...

Hopefully judges are experienced enough to see past the fru-fru to the dog underneath.

There are much more troubling things in the world of dog showing than a bit of chalk dust... which I think is why this thread has diverted off track.

I happen to think dog showing is valuable. However I think, in some areas, it has become less valuable by harvesting a distorted view of a desirable dog, in some breeds worse than others. If the people involved could take a step back and re-focus... But it is one of those self-perpetuating churches and people have become lodged in a bit of a rut within it...


----------



## pod (Jun 24, 2010)

Pezant said:


> Every time someone comes on this forum asking about breeding their dog, or if they've been offered a stud or bitch, one of the first questions anyone asks (apart from health tests) is "Have they been proven in the ring?"
> 
> Showing is about proving that your dog meets the breed standard, NOT that they've been primped and preened. Showing demonstrates that your dog is healthy, with good teeth, good bone structure, good temperament and moves well. Think what you like about the show world (and yes, there are bad eggs there, like you get in any walk of life), but it ensures that the best of the breeds produces the best of the breeds.


In an ideal world it would be as above.. but, the show world, like any other competitive environment, is far from perfect. It very often isn't the best dogs that win. In some breeds it is even a disadvantage if the dog actually complies with the standard eg the German Shepherd - overangulation and topline, Cavalier KCS - exaggerated head, Bichon Frise - trimming, over presentation.

And as for health and temperament, no guarantee there either. Only the HP breeds have any form of health check and this is only very cursory. Doesn't ensure the dogs have been health tested in any way.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

An excellent well balanced post Werehorse


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Pezant said:


> Showing is about proving that your dog meets the breed standard, NOT that they've been primped and preened.


So why primp and preen to the extent they do even when it was against the rules if not to give an advantage?



> Showing demonstrates that your dog is healthy, with good teeth, good bone structure, good temperament and moves well.


Judges only judge to their interpretation of the breed standards as well as their own tastes and preferences. They don't have time to really judge health or temperament.



> it ensures that the best of the breeds produces the best of the breeds.


No.. it produces dogs which matches someone's interpretation of a piece of paper expressing often individual preferences.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Goblin said:


> What should buyers be on the lookout for... real dog or barbie dog?
> 
> Now you could use the same dog for both but I for one would prefer to see a dog as would be expected in everyday life as an example of what to expect and look for in the breed.


And what if the breed has no real function? Or a dog that isn't worked very much anymore such as Dalmatians etc? How do you know you're getting a dog from good stock unless it's lines have been showing and winning for generations? Or do you just go on looks and whether you think they look okay? I'm no expert in any breed, I wouldn't be able to tell you whether a dog is a great example unless it had an obvious fault.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

pod said:


> In an ideal world it would be as above.. but, the show world, like any other competitive environment, is far from perfect. It very often isn't the best dogs that win. In some breeds it is even a disadvantage if the dog actually complies with the standard eg the German Shepherd - overangulation and topline, Cavalier KCS - exaggerated head, Bichon Frise - trimming, over presentation.
> 
> And as for health and temperament, no guarantee there either. Only the HP breeds have any form of health check and this is only very cursory. Doesn't ensure the dogs have been health tested in any way.


This is the issue with "showing" classes. It is completely subjective. Watching a Riding Horse class a few years ago and the horse that was eventually placed first actually reared up on it's hind legs part way through the class! Surely a prerequisite for a riding horse is that the rider is safe on it's back? Yes, it was pretty and shiney and may even have had the best conformation, with lovely paces, but the epitemy of a perfect riding horse - IMO no. I think the excessive primping, cosmetics and nagging of the animal, detracts from the important role of improving breeds.


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

I always look forward to Crufts but mainly for the activity based events- agility/flyball especially! I do watch the judging though- have done every year since I was a little girl. 

The use of some basic products doesn't really bother me- in so much as I don't think there is much of a distinction between a clip/cut/shampoo and style and a bit of chalk dust. Saying that looks matter in the show world is like saying the pope is catholic IMO. 

Something that I have always wondered though is .... the dogs that do well at the final stages of Crufts show very little character or personality IMO. It is true they stand very well, don't react to being examined and move well but I'd like to see them... I don't know behave more naturally perhaps. It would be nice to see the dogs greet the judges, wag a tail rather than aspire to a sort of vacant statue type stance. I'm sure that the dogs being shown are behaving in the way they are trained to and in day to day life behave like most dogs do but I suppose I'd just like to see more dog, less generic pose. That's just me.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> And what if the breed has no real function


I'd say companion animal is perfectly acceptable as a function. Wouldn't you? If people want a barbie doll they are not that expensive. You have some dogs who participate in shows, shown on this forum playing in the mud, running around, curling up to the fire, snuggling owners. Surely these are the dogs to demonstrate to the public. Not ones artificially made up.


----------



## pod (Jun 24, 2010)

jenniferx said:


> I always look forward to Crufts but mainly for the activity based events- agility/flyball especially! I do watch the judging though- have done every year since I was a little girl.
> 
> The use of some basic products doesn't really bother me- in so much as I don't think there is much of a distinction between a clip/cut/shampoo and style and a bit of chalk dust. Saying that looks matter in the show world is like saying the pope is catholic IMO.
> 
> Something that I have always wondered though is .... the dogs that do well at the final stages of Crufts show very little character or personality IMO. It is true they stand very well, don't react to being examined and move well but I'd like to see them... I don't know behave more naturally perhaps. It would be nice to see the dogs greet the judges, wag a tail rather than aspire to a sort of vacant statue type stance. I'm sure that the dogs being shown are behaving in the way they are trained to and in day to day life behave like most dogs do but I suppose I'd just like to see more dog, less generic pose. That's just me.


I'm sure I can't be the only Ch show judge who agrees with you on this one. When I'm judging, I much prefer to see dogs handled loosely. The bone structure is and should be flexible and it is so much easier to assess a dog if he is free to pose naturally.

Some handlers must think that it actually improves dog's profile by stringing up (in stance or on the move) but this applies only if he has structural faults. A good judge will see these anyway, regardless of handling technique.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Lurcherlad said:


> This is the issue with "showing" classes. It is completely subjective. Watching a Riding Horse class a few years ago and the horse that was eventually placed first actually reared up on it's hind legs part way through the class! Surely a prerequisite for a riding horse is that the rider is safe on it's back? Yes, it was pretty and shiney and may even have had the best conformation, with lovely paces, but the epitemy of a perfect riding horse - IMO no. I think the excessive primping, cosmetics and nagging of the animal, detracts from the important role of improving breeds.


Depends why the horse reared. If it was spooked by something or whether it was simply a nasty horse. Bucking and the occasional rear is something riders have to get on with. Unfortunately there is no such thing as a safe horse.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Pezant said:


> Every time someone comes on this forum asking about breeding their dog, or if they've been offered a stud or bitch, one of the first questions anyone asks (apart from health tests) is "Have they been proven in the ring?"
> 
> Showing is about proving that your dog meets the breed standard, NOT that they've been primped and preened. Showing demonstrates that your dog is healthy, with good teeth, good bone structure, good temperament and moves well. Think what you like about the show world (and yes, there are bad eggs there, like you get in any walk of life), but it ensures that the best of the breeds produces the best of the breeds.


Actually they ask have they been proven in anything, be it the ring, working trials or obedience etc.

Just because some dogs are shown, it doesn't actually mean they are a great example of the dog. Anyone can show a KC reg dog, it doesn't mean they have a great example of the breed and I'm sure there are a lot of people breeding from dogs who are poor examples, maybe they show but they may not be the best of the best.


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

whenever i see this thread i picture a dog with big black false eyelashes on an red lip stick ha


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> Actually they ask have they been proven in anything, be it the ring, working trials or obedience etc.
> 
> Just because some dogs are shown, it doesn't actually mean they are a great example of the dog. Anyone can show a KC reg dog, it doesn't mean they have a great example of the breed and I'm sure there are a lot of people breeding from dogs who are poor examples, maybe they show but they may not be the best of the best.


But presumably if it keeps winning and is a show champion that must show its been proven in the ring. I agree, just because a dog simply turns up at shows and gets the occasional rosette by default means nothing!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

I think the other thing not mentioned is the long term psychological effect. By allowing excessive "modification" you are saying extremes are acceptable, if not necessary. This may not have impact in the short term but long term, if extremes are encouraged, surely this encourages the kind of mentality that brought rise to the health issues due to conformation of some breeds?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

BessieDog said:


> But presumably if it keeps winning and is a show champion that must show its been proven in the ring. I agree, just because a dog simply turns up at shows and gets the occasional rosette by default means nothing!


Of course it is proven in the ring then, even if it is not a champion there are great dogs who haven't earned their champion status even though they are great show dogs.
I was just pointing out that showing a dog does not mean a dog automatically conforms to the breed standard and it doesn't always mean the best of a breed produces the best of the breed.

But of course it isn't just in the ring where they can be proven.


----------

