# Breeding for looks, not health



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

My daughter's best friend loves pugs, and is determined to have one at some point: I would be constantly worried about those poor, protruding eyes.

A neighbour has a large boxer, with a really 'snub' face - he has struggled so much to breathe in this heat.

My best friend had a dachshund, Dino - he had terrible back problems throughout his life. 

Isn't it time we stopped breeding animals who are bound to suffer?

(I am not a breeder, just someone whose heart really, really aches when I see an animal in difficulty.)


----------



## Badwolfe (Jul 19, 2014)

The KC has implemented a lot of changes over the last few years in breed standards in regards to producing dogs that are healthier rather than cosmetic looks.

It will take some time for the people owning these breeds to 'breed away' from these undesirable traits and produce dogs that are healthier but be assured this process has already started


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I'm not sure some breeds will improve if I'm honest, when you look at breeds like Pekingese, they've gone from being a very mobile little toy breed, to something that shuffles along. There are dogs out there that are capable of doing agility, as I've seen them, but would they win in the show ring? So is that what breeders will breed for? I dunno. 

I've got a good friend with a super boxer dog, sixty years ago, they were nowhere near as brachycephalic. His dog has been suffering this year with an infection in the folds of his face, and desperately panting, yet this is what the show ring is rewarding.


----------



## ellenlouisepascoe (Jul 12, 2013)

I own a breed that was bred and bred and bred because of how it looked. 

I feel wholeheartedly sorry for Cavalier King Charles spaniels and I often say we should just stop breeding them and let the breed die out. 

They are plagued with awful health issues, and even health testing does not prevent some of them arising. 

Some of these breeds are just far too damanged, no amount of health tests or regulations from the KC will fix that


----------



## Little-moomin (Sep 28, 2008)

My neighbour owns a pug.. who I adore but she spends half the time panting desperately and making strange noises


----------



## Badwolfe (Jul 19, 2014)

I agree this wont work for all breeds but it is starting to become evident in some.

I was at a show a few months back and the Bulldogs were in the next ring to us. I was looking at the line ups and the height variance between dogs was amazing. You could already see the longer legged dogs appearing in the ring


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Quick question for the OP, do you know where your neighbour and best friend got their dogs? Was it from someone who shows both breeds? Can't see anywhere in your post that says it was from show lines ( this is not a dig at you btw) just love that people who haven't been given all the facts assume that show lines are the fault of all that is wrong in the dog world..  If they are all from show lines then I can understand the conversation going along the usual lets kick the show people route


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

These are taken from the AKC breed standards in 1947, hence some of the cropped ears, but the photos show just how far some breeds have moved away from their origins. I personally can't see GSD's, boxers, American cockers, Labradors, Pekingese ever getting back to what was being rewarded in 1947 when you see what's being rewarded currently. The face of the EBT has changed so much as well!





























Just as I was posting those, the obvious difference between some of the breeds then and now is just astounding, the chihuahua's skull has become more and more domed, as has the heads of some of the gundog breeds. The pug still looks pretty brachycephalic but at least the eyes are bulging as they seem to do with some these days.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> These are taken from the AKC breed standards in 1947, hence some of the cropped ears, but the photos show just how far some breeds have moved away from their origins. I personally can't see GSD's, boxers, American cockers, Labradors, Pekingese ever getting back to what was being rewarded in 1947 when you see what's being rewarded currently. The face of the EBT has changed so much as well!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Where did the OP say these dogs were from show lines?


----------



## ellenlouisepascoe (Jul 12, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> These are taken from the AKC breed standards in 1947, hence some of the cropped ears, but the photos show just how far some breeds have moved away from their origins. I personally can't see GSD's, boxers, American cockers, Labradors, Pekingese ever getting back to what was being rewarded in 1947 when you see what's being rewarded currently. The face of the EBT has changed so much as well!
> 
> Just as I was posting those, the obvious difference between some of the breeds then and now is just astounding, the chihuahua's skull has become more and more domed, as has the heads of some of the gundog breeds. The pug still looks pretty brachycephalic but at least the eyes are bulging as they seem to do with some these days.


Wow even the Sibes look a hell of a lot different. 
People are tending to favor the " American show line " of Sibes ( I know nothing about lines or showing but you can see a clear difference )


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Are there any recommended health tests for Pugs? Every single litter I've seen advertised on Champdogs has never been from health tested parent's. I think it's appalling to be honest, in a breed that is often suffering from one health problem or another.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Some have their breeding stock scanned as they can suffer from something to do with their spines due to the curly tails, can't remember the name of it, but that's one health test I know of off the top of my head.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ellenlouisepascoe said:


> Wow even the Sibes look a hell of a lot different.
> People are tending to favor the " American show line " of Sibes ( I know nothing about lines or showing but you can see a clear difference )


I think part of the problem is that it's also become a bit of a grooming competition, more so in the US, when you look at some of the setter and spaniel breeds currently winning, they are groomed within an inch of their life. It's a niggle with me as it's the fashion in Europe to shave the front end of flatcoats, no way I'd do that to Rhuna and then expect her to go into thick cover, they are a working breed!


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Some have their breeding stock scanned as they can suffer from something to do with their spines due to the curly tails, can't remember the name of it, but that's one health test I know of off the top of my head.


Hemivertebrae?

I know someone who once claimed her Pugs were from fully health tested parent's but I'd love to know where as like I said, I'm yet to see any!


----------



## ellenlouisepascoe (Jul 12, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think part of the problem is that it's also become a bit of a grooming competition, more so in the US, when you look at some of the setter and spaniel breeds currently winning, they are groomed within an inch of their life. It's a niggle with me as it's the fashion in Europe to shave the front end of flatcoats, no way I'd do that to Rhuna and then expect her to go into thick cover, they are a working breed!


Yes I remember reading something similar about Sibes, they are blasted dry and "poofed out" people argue that the coat on the above sibe would do nothing to keep them cold in the arctic.

This is the info I found on pug health tests :

The Health of the Breed | Pug Dog Club


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Dogloverlou said:


> Hemivertebrae?
> 
> I know someone who once claimed her Pugs were from fully health tested parent's but I'd love to know where as like I said, I'm yet to see any!


That's the one, knew it was something vertbrae!


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

ellenlouisepascoe said:


> Yes I remember reading something similar about Sibes, they are blasted dry and "poofed out" people argue that the coat on the above sibe would do nothing to keep them cold in the arctic.
> 
> This is the info I found on pug health tests :
> 
> The Health of the Breed | Pug Dog Club


Thank you for that. It appears that X-raying is 'encouraged' for hemivertebrae while a DNA test is being worked towards. However, a great amount of these breeders are not x-raying, or note that they've x-rayed, in the listings I've seen.

Still, in a breed with so many health conditions I'm surprised there is no compulsory testing required before breeding!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I think most of the issues are to do with conformation, bulging eyes, brachycephalic face so breathing problems, poor dentition, skin folds.


----------



## ellenlouisepascoe (Jul 12, 2013)

Definitely agree, poor Cavs have both genetic health issues and ones because of their conformation. 

I could never have one again, I look at my little Taz sometimes and feel so sorry for him.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

ellenlouisepascoe said:


> Definitely agree, poor Cavs have both genetic health issues and ones because of their conformation.
> 
> I could never have one again, I look at my little Taz sometimes and feel so sorry for him.


I would LOVE a Cavalier in the future...and know there are a great many more breeders out there who are extensively health testing. But it is such a conflicting emotion. On the one hand believing you're doing everything right by going with a great breeder and hoping you have a healthy dog, but still knowing the serious conditions they can suffer with and possibly putting yourself ( and the dog ) through such heartbreak and pain


----------



## ellenlouisepascoe (Jul 12, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> I would LOVE a Cavalier in the future...and know there are a great many more breeders out there who are extensively health testing. But it is such a conflicting emotion. On the one hand believing you're doing everything right by going with a great breeder and hoping you have a healthy dog, but still knowing the serious conditions they can suffer with and possibly putting yourself ( and the dog ) through such heartbreak and pain


That is my issue with it  Even Cavs that come from tested parents can still wind up with SM or MVD, it's just absolutely rife.

Taz has just been diagnosed with a heart murmur at 10 years old


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

the other week we had a CKCS inn with a bad heart- he had collapsed a few times that day and was sent straight through for oxygen. you see trying to get a mask on his wee face!?  
turns out that it was a mix of his short nose and an incredibly enlarged heart that was the issue... the vet didn't know how the dog was still functioning tbh.

i do think the 'fit for function, fit for life' campaign needs another major boost- its catchy and could do soo many breeds the world of good in a short space of time!


----------



## ellenlouisepascoe (Jul 12, 2013)

kodakkuki said:


> the other week we had a CKCS inn with a bad heart- he had collapsed a few times that day and was sent straight through for oxygen. you see trying to get a mask on his wee face!?
> turns out that it was a mix of his short nose and an incredibly enlarged heart that was the issue... the vet didn't know how the dog was still functioning tbh.
> 
> i do think the 'fit for function, fit for life' campaign needs another major boost- its catchy and could do soo many breeds the world of good in a short space of time!


Bloody nora that is huge! I am surprised the poor thing is still going. I think Taz is a little longer in the face than most cavs, he never has any issue with his breathing and doesn't snore etc










I agree, the 'fit for function, fit for life' needs a major boost and support from dog lovers no matter what area they are in, IE working / showing / agility


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

To be fair, an enlarged heart can be caused by parvo, if contracted as a pup, and the owners might never know if they have mild symptoms. So a heart that large might not be congenital, it could have an external cause. Parvo can also cause joint deformities, two of my ex's dogs collapsed and died from enlarged hearts, it wasn't until later on they made the connection that the whole litter had been exposed to parvo as youngsters. They also had very high elbow grades.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Meezey said:


> Quick question for the OP, do you know where your neighbour and best friend got their dogs? Was it from someone who shows both breeds? Can't see anywhere in your post that says it was from show lines ( this is not a dig at you btw) just love that people who haven't been given all the facts assume that show lines are the fault of all that is wrong in the dog world..  If they are all from show lines then I can understand the conversation going along the usual lets kick the show people route


Not at all wanting to kick anyone Meezey - just worried about it. And no, I don't know the heritage of the particular dogs I've mentioned, sorry.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Not at all wanting to kick anyone Meezey - just worried about it. And no, I don't know the heritage of the particular dogs I've mentioned, sorry.


No you are fine, I just find it very interesting that the thread was automatically about show dogs and tickets .. Just tells me something about people 

I totally agree with your concerns totally, people not you I might add, just need to automatically stop laying the blame at the door of show breeders. It's nothing new here, some people just trip over themselves to stick the boot in without even knowing the facts


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> To be fair, an enlarged heart can be caused by parvo, if contracted as a pup, and the owners might never know if they have mild symptoms. So a heart that large might not be congenital, it could have an external cause. Parvo can also cause joint deformities, two of my ex's dogs collapsed and died from enlarged hearts, it wasn't until later on they made the connection that the whole litter had been exposed to parvo as youngsters. They also had very high elbow grades.


Never thought about that!
But he has been under obs for a heart condition for years (is 10ish now) and it has expanded considerably since his last scan 6
Months back- a 30% enlargement if I remember correctly. 
(He is on meds for it, but they need to be given on an empty stomach. The owner was mixing it with food not remembering this).
A lovely wee boy, doted on by his owners!!!


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Tbh, while I agree that dogs shouldn't be bred for looks alone, I think there's a point being missed here that has nothing to do with the show ring at all... And that is, whilst we are all passionate about our dogs and other pets, we don't exactly represent the majority of dog owners, more's the pity.

Unfortunately, Joe Public isn't really bothered by genetics, health testing, spending months researching breeders and selecting puppies that are reasonably fit for function. We live in an on demand society - Joe thinks "I want a cute puppy" and they find the nearest breeder offering cute puppies. Just look at the handbag and teacup craze. 

Ethical breeders might breed for better form and function and the "elite" puppy buyers will be willing to travel vast distances for the right puppy but they are both in the minority. 

In other words, while Joe Public wants a dog that struggles to breathe or the distance between its front legs and hind legs is wider than the dog is tall, there will be unethical breeders supplying the demand. That's where change needs to be made - with the buyer.

Celeb and designer cultures - that's where change needs to take place. If the media stopped showing pics of Paris Hilton and her "teacup", handbag sized chis and instead showed pics of celebs with a healthier breed without any of the extremes, Joe Public will follow like the good little sheep he is.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

LinznMilly said:


> Tbh, while I agree that dogs shouldn't be bred for looks alone, I think there's a point being missed here that has nothing to do with the show ring at all... And that is, whilst we are all passionate about our dogs and other pets, we don't exactly represent the majoroty of dog owners, more's the pity.
> 
> Unfortunately, Joe Public isn't really bothered by genetics, health testing, spending months researching breeders and selecting puppies that are reasonably fit for function. We live in an on demand society - Joe thinks "I want a cute puppy" and they find the nearest breeder offering cute puppies. Just look at the handbag and teacup craze.
> 
> ...


So on champdogs there are 21 litters of pugs available on pets4homes there 250 litters advertised...

For CKC's there are 220 litters on Pets4homes there are 4, yes just 4 on champdogs..

For Boxers 160 on Pets4homes and 9 on champdogs

Pekes not one on champdogs 30 on Pet4homes

But of course it's all down to these show people and what the show ring is rewarding.... Get a gripe...


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> These are taken from the AKC breed standards in 1947, hence some of the cropped ears, but the photos show just how far some breeds have moved away from their origins. I personally can't see GSD's, boxers, American cockers, Labradors, Pekingese ever getting back to what was being rewarded in 1947 when you see what's being rewarded currently. The face of the EBT has changed so much as well!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hate to state the obvious but Labradors all the time looking similar to the Labrador pictured here. Yes, they are working lines, but they still looking like the old type labs.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

ellenlouisepascoe said:


> That is my issue with it  Even Cavs that come from tested parents can still wind up with SM or MVD, it's just absolutely rife.
> 
> Taz has just been diagnosed with a heart murmur at 10 years old


OK, I may be putting a spanner in the works here, but if he has been clear till now, this may simply be old age and nothing to do with the hereditary type of heart murmur. Old age heart murmurs tend to be caused by calcium deposits and other deposits that gather on the valves (and yes, we humans get them too).


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Hate to state the obvious but Labradors all the time looking similar to the Labrador pictured here. Yes, they are working lines, but they still looking like the old type labs.


Looks like a well bred working line Lab to me as well; I train with a guy who has a gamekeeper bred Lab bitch, who looks nothing like a full Labrador, she's tiny, and the typical *whippety* face. She's a cracking little worker, but looks nowt like. The sad part is he's set on breeding from her, and doesn't think he needs to do any health tests, well, has been told he doesn't need to, as the stud dog owner has done all the health tests needed. I did try and persuade him otherwise, but it's fallen on deaf ears unfortunately.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Meezey said:


> So on champdogs there are 21 litters of pugs available on pets4homes there 250 litters advertised...
> 
> For CKC's there are 220 litters on Pets4homes there are 4, yes just 4 on champdogs..
> 
> ...


*

Is that aimed at me? :blink: If so I think you've grossly misunderstood my post.*


----------



## ellenlouisepascoe (Jul 12, 2013)

rocco33 said:


> OK, I may be putting a spanner in the works here, but if he has been clear till now, this may simply be old age and nothing to do with the hereditary type of heart murmur. Old age heart murmurs tend to be caused by calcium deposits and other deposits that gather on the valves (and yes, we humans get them too).


I am only going from what my vet has told me, he said in his experience most heart murmurs in older cavs are related to MVD.

I was just using his heart as an example, he has awful confirmation etc too constant ear and eye problems


----------



## ellenlouisepascoe (Jul 12, 2013)

Meezey said:


> So on champdogs there are 21 litters of pugs available on pets4homes there 250 litters advertised...
> 
> For CKC's there are 220 litters on Pets4homes there are 4, yes just 4 on champdogs..
> 
> ...


I've actually just looked on champdogs for the CKCS litters and there is only 1 of the litters who has ALL the health tests on both parents. I quite often see litters were only one is health tested.

I know nothing about the show world however even being at crufts I did notice the heavier more exaggerated dogs being picked. I mean look at the lab that won BOB. He is a far cry from the pictures above.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

LinznMilly said:


> Is that aimed at me? :blink: If so I think you've grossly misunderstood my post.


Nope not as you lol Sorry  trying to multi task not my strong point.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

ellenlouisepascoe said:


> I've actually just looked on champdogs for the CKCS litters and there is only 1 of the litters who has ALL the health tests on both parents. I quite often see litters were only one is health tested.
> 
> I know nothing about the show world however even being at crufts I did notice the heavier more exaggerated dogs being picked. I mean look at the lab that won BOB. He is a far cry from the pictures above.


Yep and the OP didn't even post about show dogs or show breeders, yet out of 200 + litters the only one you can pick fault about is the champdogs one, nothing at all about the 200 odd ones by Joe Bloggs with no health test not regard for the long term welfare of the dog, that's the point I'm making, this thread didn't start about show breeders, OP doesn't even know where the dogs came from, but yet it turn in to a thread of all the blame about these dogs being put at the show breeders door( there's a shock NOT) . The fact you totally ignored the 200 plus byb's litters proves my point..


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Nope not as you lol Sorry  trying to multi task not my strong point.


That's OK  Just had a "What did _I_ do?" moment  :lol:


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

LinznMilly said:


> That's OK  Just had a "What did _I_ do?" moment  :lol:


My day is not going well so it's to be expected for me lol Sorry :blush: Knew I shoulda stayed in bed when I dropped my blusher down the loo


----------



## ellenlouisepascoe (Jul 12, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Yep and the OP didn't even post about show dogs or show breeders, yet out of 200 + litters the only one you can pick fault about is the champdogs one, nothing at all about the 200 odd ones by Joe Bloggs with no health test not regard for the long term welfare of the dog, that's the point I'm making, this thread didn't start about show breeders, OP doesn't even know where the dogs came from, but yet it turn in to a thread of all the blame about these dogs being put at the show breeders door( there's a shock NOT) . The fact you totally ignored the 200 plus byb's litters proves my point..


My point is, just because a litter is on champ dogs does not mean they are doing all the relevant health tests. It is giving people false information to say IF you buy a dog from this site both parents will have all relevant health tests.

I ignored the 200 plus BYB's because I wouldn't be purchasing a puppy from Pets For Homes ( or a puppy at all as I will never have a puppy again )

I challenge anyone to deny that both BYB and Show lines of dogs have some awful deformities. My concern is dogs in general, regardless of where they came from.

I personally would like to see stricter rules on breeding of all dogs, but it will never happen.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Meezey said:


> My day is not going well so it's to be expected for me lol Sorry :blush: Knew I shoulda stayed in bed when I dropped my blusher down the loo


How did you ...... Forget it, I don't want to know :lol:

I tried to rep you for making me lol but apparently I need to spread the love around a bit first, so have a like and a thanks instead  :ihih:


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

ellenlouisepascoe said:


> My point is, just because a litter is on champ dogs does not mean they are doing all the relevant health tests. It is giving people false information to say IF you buy a dog from this site both parents will have all relevant health tests.
> 
> I ignored the 200 plus BYB's because I wouldn't be purchasing a puppy from Pets For Homes ( or a puppy at all as I will never have a puppy again )
> 
> ...


No one is, but as per usual people are very quick to jump on the " it's all the show breeders fault" band wagon, first response set the tone for it, no where has anyone mentioned the BYB's, OP doesn't even know the origins of the dogs she/he is talking about, but as per usual certain people just cant help making it about show people...

The KC can only be responsible for KC registered dogs, they are trying to get their house in order, but yet again everyone just skips over the fact that even if by a bloody miracle the KC got their house in order, that's a very small amount of people, 4 breeders to 200 plus, I know who I'd be wanting to stop breeding.. Doesn't matter where you get your dog from, I have KC registered dogs, but I also lose sleep over the BYB's who get away with murder, and that fact that so called dog lovers can only see what they want to see... Same people time and time again...............

No one is saying that both types of dogs don't have deformities, but time and time again people chose to forget that's it's a tiny 2% of dogs shown, but again on PF why let fact get in the way of a good bitch.....................

Sorry if you are getting the brunt of this, but it winds me up no end.. Perfect bloody people in perfect houses always sticking the knife in...( again that is not directed at you)


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

People tend to think it's a recent thing where dogs have been bred for looks instead of health, but that's only because we're now paying more attention to it as we care about our dogs.

It was the Victorians who started the trend - and animal welfare was well on the back burner in those days. 

People buy dogs they like the look of. Meezey is right, only 2% of the two and a half million pedigree pups born each year end up being shown. If all breeders of show dogs only bred healthy specimens, the vast majority of pedigree dogs being bred would still be bred without health testing and to the demands of the public. It's the public who need educating about what sort of dog to buy or not to buy, rather than show breeders as to what to breed. The latter already know.

One of the biggest successes in recent years has been the bulldog. The shape of the head has been reduced sufficiently so that in the show bred dogs, the need for c sections has been drastically reduced.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Yep and the OP didn't even post about show dogs or show breeders, yet out of 200 + litters the only one you can pick fault about is the champdogs one, nothing at all about the 200 odd ones by Joe Bloggs with no health test not regard for the long term welfare of the dog, that's the point I'm making, this thread didn't start about show breeders, OP doesn't even know where the dogs came from, but yet it turn in to a thread of all the blame about these dogs being put at the show breeders door( there's a shock NOT) . The fact you totally ignored the 200 plus byb's litters proves my point..


The only person I see who has mentioned show dogs a number of times now is yourself to be honest.

The thread was about someone finding it sad how dogs are bred for looks alone and suffer as a consequence, whether that be show breeders or BYB's. Why does everything have to be an either or debate.

I was the first one to mention Champdogs, as that is the only site I look to for litters advertised ( and is somewhat of an obsession to be honest lol ) but I was actually using it as an example of where you would imagine to see most fully health tested dogs...but yet not all are. Not a bash at show people or dogs at all. Just an observation. Hell, I plan on showing myself!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Dogloverlou said:


> The only person I see who has mentioned show dogs a number of times now is yourself to be honest.
> 
> The thread was about someone finding it sad how dogs are bred for looks alone and suffer as a consequence, whether that be show breeders or BYB's. Why does everything to be an either or debate.
> 
> I was the first one to mention Champdogs, as that is the only site I look to for litters advertised ( and is somewhat of an obsession to be honest lol ) but I was actually using it as an example of where you would imagine to see most fully health tested dogs...but yet not all are. Not a bash at show people or dogs at all. Just an observation. *Hell, I plan on showing myself!*


Crikey! I didn't know there were hoooman shows


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Crikey! I didn't know there were hoooman shows


I think I'd make a pretty poor specimen myself!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Dogloverlou said:


> I think I'd make a pretty poor specimen myself!


I definitely would! Very dodgy conformation, and an even dodgier temperament 

Made me think of a cartoon to do with showing, where it's just the owners/handlers in the ring, because the judge doesn't need to see the dogs.


----------



## dorrit (Sep 13, 2011)

I suppose its easy to blame show dogs because these are the type that are held up as an example for joe blogs to see and get an idea of what a good
pure bred pedigree ****** should look like..If mr blogs sees a flat face pug win he wants one the same as the winning type.. If he sees a roach back gsd he thinks that the way to go..

So the puppy farms supply the demand but stopping the demand for a dog that 'looks like the one that won that show or was on that tv show' is more difficult..

A lot more education and less elitism is needed...


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> The only person I see who has mentioned show dogs a number of times now is yourself to be honest.
> 
> The thread was about someone finding it sad how dogs are bred for looks alone and suffer as a consequence, whether that be show breeders or BYB's. Why does everything have to be an either or debate.
> 
> I was the first one to mention Champdogs, as that is the only site I look to for litters advertised ( and is somewhat of an obsession to be honest lol ) but I was actually using it as an example of where you would imagine to see most fully health tested dogs...but yet not all are. Not a bash at show people or dogs at all. Just an observation. Hell, I plan on showing myself!


Really lol talk about reading what you want.

Exactly it doesn't have to be either or debate should it be yet it never is, the same old people always make it about show dogs?

It is sad that dogs are bred for looks alone and the numbers I posted shows it isn't just show breeders doing it, yet seemingly it all done to win in a ring, AKC pictures are shown dogs at Westminster are shown with comments about whats rewarded and nearly 500 bybs are just ignored.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

dorrit said:


> I suppose its easy to blame show dogs because these are the type that are held up as an example for joe blogs to see and get an idea of what a good
> pure bred pedigree ****** should look like..If mr blogs sees a flat face pug win he wants one the same as the winning type.. If he sees a roach back gsd he thinks that the way to go..
> 
> So the puppy farms supply the demand but stopping the demand for a dog that 'looks like the one that won that show or was on that tv show' is more difficult..
> ...


Hmmmm, considering I know show breeders who let their stud dogs cover up to 50 bitches a year (that they admit to) then really, I think show breeders *can* contribute a helluva lot to a particular breed. The *look* of dogs is led by the show ring, the only exceptions to that, are those who haven't a clue, and those who are avid workers of their dogs, in my books. Otherwise a lot of people who don't show their dogs, use KC registration and even the champions in the pedigree as a selling point. Also how many pics of the show stand to sell a dog, obviously copying what they see from showing dogs.

I know some great people involved with showing, but I get fed up of the defence of showing regardless, there are good and bad involved with everything.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> The *look* of dogs is led by the show ring,


Originally maybe, but I believe that nowadays the look of the dog is very much consumer lead and this is as likely to come from photos in celeb magazines to the attempt to own something different. Think of all the designer crossbreeds being produced ... most are non health tested, many are bred using poor breed lines to create dogs that fit the public persona of something desirable. Likewise the miniature or tea-cup versions of small breeds. This is consumer lead not breeder or show or KC lead as these dogs can never enter a show ring.

In fact the desire for paedomorphic features has always been consumer lead ...people (not the KC ) wanted dogs that looked like babies.

We are a massively consumer lead society and breeding for looks is big business. Breeding for health is not.

I do believe that the KC is doing all it can to promote and change opinions and to work towards a healthier pedigree dog ...but that is only the tip of the iceburg. There are a million and one non pedigree dogs out there being bred and crossed for their looks without a thought being given to their health. Even the Staffi (who byb will cross with anything that makes it look sellable) has list of necessary health checks. How often do we see those being done.

We used to have pet shops selling puppies ....this was stopped. And yet what we have now is massive on line pet shops which actually are much worse.

J


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> Originally maybe, but I believe that nowadays the look of the dog is very much consumer lead and this is as likely to come from photos in celeb magazines to the attempt to own something different. Think of all the designer crossbreeds being produced ... most are non health tested, many are bred using poor breed lines to create dogs that fit the public persona of something desirable. Likewise the miniature or tea-cup versions of small breeds. This is consumer lead not breeder or show or KC lead as these dogs can never enter a show ring.
> 
> In fact the desire for paedomorphic features has always been consumer lead ...people (not the KC ) wanted dogs that looked like babies.
> 
> ...


I also believe the KC is doing a lot to promote the health of dogs, not just pedigrees, just being slightly pedantic as I think they could do a bit more 

But then where do those celebs get their posh looking dogs from, if not the show ring? At least in part, yes there are off shoots these days, and reverse snobbery going on because pedigree breeds to some are the last thing they'd want to own due to a lot of misinformation about them. But look at a Bassett hound, long ears, droopy eyelids, dwarf and bowed front legs, and *furnishings* that not only give them cute wrinkles as a pup which they never grow out of, but also mean they nearly touch the ground as they walk. There are perfectly healthy examples of Bassetts out there, and I apologise now but for a working breed to have been bred to that extent of exaggeration when looking at a breed standard, is simply diabolical to me. When you see working packs of Bassetts they look so healthy and free from the huge ears, wrinkles, long, long back and tiny short legs. Yet which *look* is also that favoured by the pet world? I'm not saying the show world is 100% to blame, but people are to blame, for creating the demand, and creating the look to supply that demand, and some of those people are show people. And they certainly can't be held up as a generalisation of an ethical breeder, not with all the shenanigans that goes on with some of them, same as everything, some good, some bad, some somewhere inbetween.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I also believe the KC is doing a lot to promote the health of dogs, not just pedigrees, just being slightly pedantic as I think they could do a bit more
> .


I think their input will tell over time ....but regulating on line pet shops (where byb sell their untested poorly bred litters by the score) and educating the buyers that health is important would do a lot more a lot quicker in my opinion.

The much maligned Cavalier King Charles is a good example. We know their genetic health issues and health testing has come along dramatically with second and third generations now being tested thus promoting healthy lines. And yet where can you buy a 'Cavvie' for a couple of hundred quid? Yup. Online. No health test. Poor conformation. Hit and miss prognosis. Cute tho 

There are some great Cavalier lines out there (I know, I've got one). We've known the same line for almost 20 years ....and any that breed or any studs that are used are fully health tested ...and clear (third generation). I don't breed Cavvies.... though looking at the poor wee mites being sold untested on line maybe I should. Mine scent and run and hunt as small Spaniels should. No snoring. No breathing problems. No mishapen heads. SO WHY DO PEOPLE STILL BUY FROM UN-HEALTHTESTED LINES. And you can't blame the show ring/KC for that because some of those Cavvies don't look anything like those that show (mine do though). 

It's akin to buying your car from a guy in a lay-by and then complaining when it breaks down!

J


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> I think their input will tell over time ....but regulating on line pet shops (where byb sell their untested poorly bred litters by the score) and educating the buyers that health is important would do a lot more a lot quicker in my opinion.
> 
> The much maligned Cavalier King Charles is a good example. We know their genetic health issues and health testing has come along dramatically with second and third generations now being tested thus promoting healthy lines. And yet where can you buy a 'Cavvie' for a couple of hundred quid? Yup. Online. No health test. Poor conformation. Hit and miss prognosis. Cute tho
> 
> ...


Whilst that is true, it still doesn't preclude people involved with showing, gundog stuff, working trials, other competitions from producing equally unhealthy dogs, sometimes, and even worse imho, is that they KNOW they have health issues in their lines or problems that *could* be passed along, and make the decision to breed on anyway.

I'd love to see the free ads banned for sale of animals, I'm not sure how you'd go about regulating it though, loads of places allow the sale of animals, face book groups are a prime example. Then there's the fishing, oooh, look at my cute puppies posts everywhere, that end up with the breeder selling one or two, but it wasn't an advert, honest.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

It's probably not well known, but in 1997 there was a European Convention. This had teeth, as it resulted in the docking bans, so shouldn't be dismissed. 

The convention (the name for the report, strangely) had an appendix listing 40 breeds of dog which, in their opinion, had serious issues which, if not addressed, WOULD RESULT IN A TOTAL BAN ON SHOWING OR BREEDING THESE BREEDS! Remember this convention has teeth!

These breeds n their purest form could disappear from our lives.

The Kc could find no empirical basis for the inclusion of the majority of breeds on the list, and managed to get it whittled down to just fifteen breeds which became the high profile breeds. No exhibit showing exaggerated features could become Best of Breed. Since 2012 two breeds on the list have been removed because show specimens are being bred to be more healthy - French bulldogs being one. 

I'm just writing this to show what is going on behind the scenes. I, personally, don't think banning breeds as they are unhealthy and unable to live normal lives is a good idea. Because even if you cannot register or show the dog, there will still be demand, and BYBs and puppy farmers would supply that. 

Not being able to see well bred, healthy specimens would be very sad, which is why the KC rewrote all breed standards in 2009, and why good breeders are working to make sure their dogs can lead happy, healthy lives. 

And, so we can keep our Bassett Hounds, bulldogs and all other high profile breeds.


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> SO WHY DO PEOPLE STILL BUY FROM UN-HEALTHTESTED LINES.


Simply because they don't know any different!

Educating people where to buy and what to look for in a good breeder would be a good start......

Along with that, educating novice breeders re health tests etc.....


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

BessieDog said:


> It's probably not well known, but in 1997 there was a European Convention. This had teeth, as it resulted in the docking bans, so shouldn't be dismissed.
> 
> The convention (the name for the report, strangely) had an appendix listing 40 breeds of dog which, in their opinion, had serious issues which, if not addressed, WOULD RESULT IN A TOTAL BAN ON SHOWING OR BREEDING THESE BREEDS! Remember this convention has teeth!
> 
> ...


So would you say then, that you think that French Bulldogs have good conformation which lacks exaggeration that *could* cause health issues? Just out of interest, because I think more could be done to reduce the shortness of the muzzle, bulging eyes and very poor dentition in *some*, not all, instances.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> I think their input will tell over time ....but regulating on line pet shops (where byb sell their untested poorly bred litters by the score) and educating the buyers that health is important would do a lot more a lot quicker in my opinion.
> 
> The much maligned Cavalier King Charles is a good example. We know their genetic health issues and health testing has come along dramatically with second and third generations now being tested thus promoting healthy lines. And yet where can you buy a 'Cavvie' for a couple of hundred quid? Yup. Online. No health test. Poor conformation. Hit and miss prognosis. Cute tho
> 
> ...


I think people generally want a dog that is pleasing to the eye and that is more important than health testing.

Plus, your average dog owner in the street probably is unaware of what if any health testing is available.

and lots of people would go and buy a car from a garage and pay much more money for it thinking they would be getting a better deal in the long run...and that's not always the case either....garage owner simply nips back to the auction and buys another car and takes another chance on that one too.

Generally I think too that people think many show bred dogs are in bred and not reared correctly cos they may be born in sheds and kennels and if you get a x breed you are eliminating in breeding...the fact that the parents from both sides could be terribly inbred and so passing on problems down both sides doesn't seem to register.

We have all seen TV programmes where the worst specimens from a breed are delved into quite deeply...and all breeders of all breeds get tarred with the same brush.

Health testing still doesn't guarantee a puppy that is free from problems somewhere down the line anyway.

You can't possibly test for everything out there.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Darth said:


> Simply because they don't know any different!
> 
> Educating people where to buy and what to look for in a good breeder would be a good start......
> 
> Along with that, educating novice breeders re health tests etc.....


Your man in the street wants a puppy for the kids...this breed looks nice, price not too bad and distance to travel ok....and it is ready at weekend.

and educating people in what to look for.........? If it says KC registered then that is about as much as joe public wants to hear cos that is all he knows. How much more can you tell people or educate them?

Go and look at ads on E Pupz. List down the side tells you what to look for when buying a puppy. OK. So, BYBs can also look at this list and provide this for when they have a litter...still a BYB.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So would you say then, that you think that French Bulldogs have good conformation which lacks exaggeration that *could* cause health issues? Just out of interest, because I think more could be done to reduce the shortness of the muzzle, bulging eyes and very poor dentition in *some*, not all, instances.


I think the buggy eyed stuff is what makes some people want them. cuteability.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Meezey said:


> No you are fine, I just find it very interesting that the thread was automatically about show dogs and tickets .. Just tells me something about people
> 
> I totally agree with your concerns totally, people not you I might add, just need to automatically stop laying the blame at the door of show breeders. It's nothing new here, some people just trip over themselves to stick the boot in without even knowing the facts


Ain't that the truth! I think some people on here need to remember that of all pedigrees bred in the UK, less than half are actually registered with the Kennel Club. And of that number of KC registered dogs, less than 2% are bred for the show ring. When you look at those figures, you see just how ridiculous it is for people to try to postulate that show breeders are responsible for all ills that befall pedigrees - for example, even if a stud dog does cover over 50 bitches as one poster seems to be stating as a "fact", that is STILL a minute number of bitches in the breed as a whole.



LinznMilly said:


> Tbh, while I agree that dogs shouldn't be bred for looks alone, I think there's a point being missed here that has nothing to do with the show ring at all... And that is, whilst we are all passionate about our dogs and other pets, we don't exactly represent the majority of dog owners, more's the pity.
> 
> Unfortunately, Joe Public isn't really bothered by genetics, health testing, spending months researching breeders and selecting puppies that are reasonably fit for function. We live in an on demand society - Joe thinks "I want a cute puppy" and they find the nearest breeder offering cute puppies. Just look at the handbag and teacup craze.
> 
> ...


Exactly. What show breeders do is immaterial when Joe Public wants dogs to look a certain way and the majority of breeders - ie non-show breeders - are ready and willing to supply that demand



ellenlouisepascoe said:


> I ignored the 200 plus BYB's because I wouldn't be purchasing a puppy from Pets For Homes ( or a puppy at all as I will never have a puppy again )
> 
> I challenge anyone to deny that both BYB and Show lines of dogs have some awful deformities. My concern is dogs in general, regardless of where they came from.


OK, I challege you to poiint out the deformities in the following show dogs of mine:















And mine are nothing special in that there are many posters on here with show dogs who could pose you exactly the same challenge.

The point is, there are a small number of breeds with exaggerations, and of that small number of breeds, there are some dogs who have awful deformities. BUt your blanket statement makes it appear that this is true of most show dogs, which it isn't.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

To be honest, in certain breeds I do think the show world has a lot to answer for.

In breeds with nice moderate conformation, where the health problems are the "invisible" ones then no, blaming the show ring is completely ludicrous.

However, there is no denying that certain breeds ARE being bred - deliberately - for conformation that is known to be downright unhealthy. This IS primarily the fault of the show ring IMO, and I find it inexcusable.

The show ring - inc breed clubs, the KC, the exhibitors and judges, and all breeders trying to produce pups that will win in the win are ALL partly responsible when dogs that are unhealthy by design are rewarded.

The brachycephalic breeds - yep, lets reward the dogs with the shortest muzzles, non existent nostrils, dogs that can barely make it round the ring and have to kept on ice so they don't overheat. Tell the public that the snorting, snoring noises, the C-sections and the need to be kept indoors on a warm day are "part of the breed".

The ridiculous, unnecessary, slope of the back in mane show line GSDs.

The basset with its ludicrous "furnishings" and excessively long ears dragging on the ground, the dachshund with it's excessively long back causing spinal problems, the heavy wrinkling of the shar pei...

Looking back at how these dogs looked before they became popular in the show ring it's easy to see the damage that showing has done.

Don't get me wrong, I do realise that only a tiny percentage of dogs are shown but it is the showring that has set the standard. the show ring that has normalised extreme, unnecessary, harmful traits.

If it was just down to the BYBs and puppy farmers then there would be a distinct difference between the conformation of those dogs from different sources. But frankly that doesn't appear to be the case. There are a huge number of breeds where the show dogs are still the worst of the lot. Hell, even as recently as last month the winning Frenchie at Windsor had no face to speak of, no nostrils, and no tail. All attributes that cause health problems, and supposedly are to be frowned upon. HOW is this progress? Was this really the best example of a french bulldog they could find? Sorry, but I would rather see a dog of a non-recognised colour with a face, nose and tail than a cripple with a perfect coat 

To reiterate my first point - I am NOT blaming all this on the show world. BYBs and puppy farmers have a lot to answer for. And as I said above, in breeds where health problems are not directly caused by conformation the show breeders are pretty blameless. But when people deliberately write standards to encourage harmful traits, reward harmful traits in the ring, and breed dogs in order to produce pups with harmful traits in order to win - sorry that doesn't sit right with me.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

dorrit said:


> I suppose its easy to blame show dogs because these are the type that are held up as an example for joe blogs to see and get an idea of what a good
> pure bred pedigree ****** should look like..If mr blogs sees a flat face pug win he wants one the same as the winning type.. If he sees a roach back gsd he thinks that the way to go..
> 
> So the puppy farms supply the demand but stopping the demand for a dog that 'looks like the one that won that show or was on that tv show' is more difficult..
> ...


This is kind of my view too. While BYB's and puppy farmers churn out unhealthier versions, they are not responsible for writing breed standards and rewarding what looks good in a breed which in turn fuels the demand for such dogs. The BYB's and puppy farmers meet the 'I want one right now with minimal effort' demand. But they are not guilty of creating the dogs we have now. So in that sense the 'blame' if you want to call it that does lay with breed standards and the KC.

I do genuinely believe positive changes are being made within many breeds and some of these changes won't be evident for many generations yet. But unfortunately while the public continue to find Pugs or other brachycephalic breeds 'cute' I can see why change will be a long time coming.


----------



## Badwolfe (Jul 19, 2014)

Colette said:


> To be honest, in certain breeds I do think the show world has a lot to answer for.
> 
> In breeds with nice moderate conformation, where the health problems are the "invisible" ones then no, blaming the show ring is completely ludicrous.
> 
> ...


Have to disagree with you. None of the KC breed standards advocate any cosmetic trait that can affect health as desirable. Show dogs are judged to the breed standards and therefore show breeders endeavour to breed their dogs to as close these standards as possible

You will find its BYB's who breed specifically for these over emphasised traits because they know it makes their puppies more commercially attractive. These people breed for the financial gain - show breeders do it to obtain the next generation of show dogs that conform to type.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Badwolfe said:


> Have to disagree with you. None of the KC breed standards advocate any cosmetic trait that can affect health as desirable. Show dogs are judged to the breed standards and therefore show breeders endeavour to breed their dogs to as close these standards as possible
> 
> You will find its BYB's who breed specifically for these over emphasised traits because they know it makes their puppies more commercially attractive. These people breed for the financial gain - show breeders do it to obtain the next generation of show dogs that conform to type.


BYBs have a mooch round the net and see which pups bring the most money for the least amount of effort and expense. They sell a commodity....some pride themselves in looking after pups in the home and kissing and cuddling them..others keep them in filthy sheds...all BYBs.

BYBs will buy 1 dog and maybe several bitches and then have puppies and if certain characteristics become over emphasized who cares?

Then BYBs will think about a paper trail...so start breeding said stud dog with various bitches of various breeds.

Most puppies of all breeds are really cute...and a couple of years down the line the BYB has moved onto something else..preferably something that can't suffer like antiques or cars or something.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

lilythepink said:


> BYBs have a mooch round the net and see which pups bring the most money for the least amount of effort and expense. They sell a commodity....some pride themselves in looking after pups in the home and kissing and cuddling them..others keep them in filthy sheds...all BYBs.
> 
> BYBs will buy 1 dog and maybe several bitches and then have puppies and if certain characteristics become over emphasized who cares?
> 
> ...


This is it for me, I KNOW there are some bad breeds in the show ring, I know it's shocking to see, I also know things are being done to reverse this, maybe for some breeds too late, people say they are sick of people pretending the show world is whiter than whiter.. The only reason I get on my high horse about it is because the same old same old bang the same old drum, it's never unbiased, it's never based on fact it's always " I know a breeder" well guess what I know lots of breeders.... The state of dogs is not something that can just be laided at the door of show breeders, 2% just 2% of the dogs in the UK see the show ring.. I'd also love to know what these people do to change the balance? While they sit and judge the show world what are they doing or do they just sit and bitch in their Ivory Tower of perfect dogs, perfect breeding habits ( if they breed) and perfect world? While they are getting their knickers in a twist about a tiny % of dogs and and even tinier % of high profile dogs, what are they doing about the few hundred thousand byb? Oh yeah I remember NOTHING because they are too busy whining about show people...........


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> This is kind of my view too. While BYB's and puppy farmers churn out unhealthier versions, they are not responsible for writing breed standards and rewarding what looks good in a breed which in turn fuels the demand for such dogs. The BYB's and puppy farmers meet the 'I want one right now with minimal effort' demand. But they are not guilty of creating the dogs we have now. So in that sense the 'blame' if you want to call it that does lay with breed standards and the KC.
> 
> I do genuinely believe positive changes are being made within many breeds and some of these changes won't be evident for many generations yet. But unfortunately while the public continue to find Pugs or other brachycephalic breeds 'cute' I can see why change will be a long time coming.


The KC do not create breed standards?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Puppy buyers have no excuse for not knowing where to buy a good puppy, they likely have access to the internet somehow and all the many articles and websites explaining exactly where to get one. A lot just can't be bothered doing the research, go on somewhere like gumtree and pick up the nearest puppy that interests them regardless.

Some breeds are screwed up there's no doubt about that. But they managed to fix clumbers, mostly anyway they became so heavy, drooping eyelids, hips were a mess, with the new standards the more working type is being rewarded. I think with the right people who care about the breed working on the others we might be able to do it. In some breeds it's the pet bred dogs that are much worse. It wasn't show chis and poms that got tiny when the handbag craze came in, it's the pet bred "english line" gsds that aren't being hip scored and look even worse on the move than many of the west german showlines that are so condemned and pet bred shar peis are often far more wrinkled than the ones in the ring

The new standards have only been in place for a few years give them a chance


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Wonder how many people who blame the KC and the show world have been at shows of late, as in not just one or two? Has anyone been to shows over a long period of time so they can see the changes happening in the ring? Or is it just people looking at pictures and making judgement at one show?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Dogloverlou said:


> This is kind of my view too. *While BYB's and puppy farmers churn out unhealthier versions,* they are not responsible for writing breed standards and rewarding what looks good in a breed which in turn fuels the demand for such dogs. The BYB's and puppy farmers meet the 'I want one right now with minimal effort' demand. But they are not guilty of creating the dogs we have now. So in that sense the 'blame' if you want to call it that does lay with breed standards and the KC.
> 
> I do genuinely believe positive changes are being made within many breeds and some of these changes won't be evident for many generations yet. But unfortunately while the public continue to find Pugs or other brachycephalic breeds 'cute' I can see why change will be a long time coming.


The bit in red - this is the whole point. BYB's churn out UNHEALTHIER versions. In the main, show dogs are much, much healthier than dogs bred by BYBs - but they always get the mud slung at them.

The bit in purple - I think you have the wrong idea about breed standards. Breed standards are based on conformation, not looks. They are based on what constitues a healthy dog. Perhaps you could quote one or two that you thnk support your point so that we could discuss it?

And once again, don't dismiss the statistics. Less than 50% of pedigrees are registered. Of the less than 50% registered, around 2% are shown. In that 2%, there are 213 breeds, of which only 15 breeds have been recognised as having problems due to exaggeration. In those 15 breeds, the majority of dogs will be healthy.

Taking all that into account, that's a very, very, very small percentage of pedigree dogs who are unhealthy show dogs.

Do you really believe that the millions of unhealthy pedigree dogs that are sold each year owe the fact that they are unhealthy to that miniscule percentage of show dogs who are?

The majority of people who buy pedigree dogs have no idea what show dogs look like. Most of them don't even know there are dog shows. They see adverts and fall in love with the look of a dog - if that were not true, why would all the cutsie designer breeds be so popular? They've never been anywhere near a show ring, so your argument falls down there.



Badwolfe said:


> Have to disagree with you. None of the KC breed standards advocate any cosmetic trait that can affect health as desirable. Show dogs are judged to the breed standards and therefore show breeders endeavour to breed their dogs to as close these standards as possible
> 
> You will find its BYB's who breed specifically for these over emphasised traits because they know it makes their puppies more commercially attractive. These people breed for the financial gain - show breeders do it to obtain the next generation of show dogs that conform to type.


Exactly. Spot on.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Meezey said:


> This is it for me, I KNOW there are some bad breeds in the show ring, I know it's shocking to see, I also know things are being done to reverse this, maybe for some breeds too late, people say they are sick of people pretending the show world is whiter than whiter.. The only reason I get on my high horse about it is because the same old same old bang the same old drum, it's never unbiased, it's never based on fact it's always " I know a breeder" well guess what I know lots of breeders.... The state of dogs is not something that can just be laided at the door of show breeders, 2% just 2% of the dogs in the UK see the show ring.. I'd also love to know what these people do to change the balance? While they sit and judge the show world what are they doing or do they just sit and bitch in their Ivory Tower of perfect dogs, perfect breeding habits ( if they breed) and perfect world? While they are getting their knickers in a twist about a tiny % of dogs and and even tinier % of high profile dogs, what are they doing about the few hundred thousand byb? Oh yeah I remember NOTHING because they are too busy whining about show people...........


Absolutely agree with everything you say - could have repped you several times on this thread - but just wanted to point out one little thing. Not because I want to correct you, but because I don't want to give the anti-show lot more ammo than they need. The percentage of pedigree dogs shown is much less than 2%. It's 2% of _registered_ pedigree dogs that are shown - and less than 50% of pedigrees bred in the UK are registered.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Wonder how many people who blame the KC and the show world have been at shows of late, as in not just one or two? Has anyone been to shows over a long period of time so they can see the changes happening in the ring? Or is it just people looking at pictures and making judgement at one show?


Haven't been to many at all and am what I would consider a complete and utter novice to everything show related  But like I said, do plan on showing Cash if he enjoys it. Hoping maybe to have him in his first show in a couple of months!

That doesn't mean to say I'm blind to the faults within the show world though. But I do believe there is balance in everything, and as has been said before, there are good and bad in all walks of life.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> Haven't been to many at all and am what I would consider a complete and utter novice to everything show related  But like I said, do plan on showing Cash if he enjoys it. Hoping maybe to have him in his first show in a couple of months!
> 
> That doesn't mean to say I'm blind to the faults within the show world though. But I do believe there is balance in everything, and as has been said before, there are good and bad in all walks of life.


I totally agree, and neither am I, but here's the thing, when you have been here for a while you will see that every time something like this is mentioned the same people say the same thing and lay it ALL at the doors of show people, always everytime.. I'm not blind to what happens in the show world, I'm not blind to the huge issues some breed have I know the Category Three Breeds, I also know and have seen with my own eyes over a period of time the differences in the breeds coming in to the ring so I know changes are being made, not as fast as some might like ( Rome wasn't built in a day) yes the breeds should never have been allowed to get in this state ( no point hashing the same complaint every time it's brought up WE KNOW) but they are being changed. So what's happening to those dogs who aren't KC registered? What's happening to those puppies who still are being bred purely for looks outside the show ring? Where's the chest beating and wailing over them? A bit lacking I'd say because some people just can't help falling over themselves to knock the show world....

FYI I don't show, my OH does, but I've been round the show rings for a longggggggggggggg time, I personally can't stand shows, but I won't sit by and let the same people spit their venom about the show world, yes there is good and bad in everything, shame those so intent on slagging the show world don't remember that rather than doing a bit of lip service to the fact.

This conversation has been played out 100's of time already in my short time on PF and will be again and again and again............


----------



## Badwolfe (Jul 19, 2014)

Meezey said:


> Wonder how many people who blame the KC and the show world have been at shows of late, as in not just one or two? Has anyone been to shows over a long period of time so they can see the changes happening in the ring? Or is it just people looking at pictures and making judgement at one show?


Yes I go to shows regularly - its part of my job 

As I stated on a post yesterday you can see in the Bulldog breed already how the improvements are starting to filter through


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Meezey said:


> The KC do not create breed standards?


The breed standards were ORIGINALLY drawn up by breeders. The KC became the owners of the breed standards and therefore responsible for them many decades ago.

That's why the KC overhauled them all in 2009 to make sure all standards did not ask for any feature which would affect a breed's ability to be 'fit for function, fit for life'. Breed clubs can request alterations to the standards, but it's the KC who approves them

I'd like other posters to point to a breed standard which asks for an exaggerated feature. And would remind them that ANY member of the public can report a breed in general, if they are concerned that the standard is asking for something detrimental, or at a show if they see an example within a breed that seems to have been awarded a high place yet struggles round the show ring.

Breeds can be added to, as well as come off, the High Profile Breeds list.

As has been already said, show breeders are breeding to these standards.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So would you say then, that you think that French Bulldogs have good conformation which lacks exaggeration that *could* cause health issues? Just out of interest, because I think more could be done to reduce the shortness of the muzzle, bulging eyes and very poor dentition in *some*, not all, instances.


I may be wrong, but I'm pretty certain that breeds come off the High Profile List after vets cease to find anything wrong with the examples being proposed for Best of Breed. Judges, of course, have the responsibility to continue to monitor them and not put through any examples which appear unhealthy due to poor conformation.

The KC can't really do any more - it can only ensure that these breeds are not rewarded in the show ring.

Breeders not breeding for the show ring don't give a damn about whether their dogs match a standard. No one ever measures them.

Perhaps vets should be on the look out for people breeding from dogs with conformation problems. After all - all BYB seem to go for a 'vet check' before breeding! 

Unfortunately the KC can only influence a very small minority of breeders.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Chinese cresteds were originally considered an hpb because they're shaved for the ring, yet poodles and portugese water dogs weren't . They came off it when the ridiculousness of comparing this to a neo or a peke was realised.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

BessieDog said:


> The breed standards were ORIGINALLY drawn up by breeders. The KC became the owners of the breed standards and therefore responsible for them many decades ago.
> 
> That's why the KC overhauled them all in 2009 to make sure all standards did not ask for any feature which would affect a breed's ability to be 'fit for function, fit for life'. Breed clubs can request alterations to the standards, but it's the KC who approves them
> 
> ...


But that's the point, the breed standards are simply words, so when you look at the wording broad skull, broad loin, how broad is broad? Do you keep getting more and more broad because broadest is best? Is it only when something becomes a health issue because you've bred so far down that road of fitting the *an* interpretation of the words in the breed standard, that you end up with a feature that causes health issues?

I'm struggling how we can get from this:



To the modern day boxer, as lovely and goofy as they are, they are now prone to obvious health issues because of the much shorter nose, hugely undershot jaw, and excessive wrinkles on the face.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

On the other hand you have some breeds that have barely changed even ones that at first glance would look to have been exaggerated.
Skye terrier in 1897
1897 Skye Terrier Photo by Pietoro | Photobucket

Not much different to the show dogs of today. That whole album is really interesting lots of old photos for comparison


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> On the other hand you have some breeds that have barely changed even ones that at first glance would look to have been exaggerated.
> Skye terrier in 1897
> 1897 Skye Terrier Photo by Pietoro | Photobucket
> 
> Not much different to the show dogs of today. That whole album is really interesting lots of old photos for comparison


Just been looking through some old books, it's strange how some breeds are pretty much the same, and some have *evolved* and look different.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

This though

1899 'French Toy Bulldog' Photo by Pietoro | Photobucket

Looks more like a boston terrier and certainly more athletic than frenchies now

1899 'French Toy Bulldog'
'Coquin', described as being 'unusually large in skull for his weight', having 'perfect' bat ears, and being a fine specimen of the breed. From an article in April 29th 1899 issue 'The Country Life Illustrated' about the importation of 'French-style' Toy Bulldogs into England.

1899 'French Toy Bulldog' Photo by Pietoro | Photobucket

That's what they considered an unusually large skull compared to the ones now


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Can't see the pics, but having just looked through some of my old books, I get the gist of what you're saying, they are more similar to bostons, not as short and squat with quite such a squashed face.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Fixed it photobucket doesn't like me today for some reason

Pekingeses with legs :scared:
1900(ish) Pekingese Photo by Pietoro | Photobucket


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> Fixed it photobucket doesn't like me today for some reason
> 
> Pekingeses with legs :scared:
> 1900(ish) Pekingese Photo by Pietoro | Photobucket


Yep, they are actually lovely looking little toy dogs when they don't resemble dougal off the magic roundabout!

Right, off to go get my lot out, got a busy evening of training ahead!


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

> Have to disagree with you. None of the KC breed standards advocate any cosmetic trait that can affect health as desirable. Show dogs are judged to the breed standards and therefore show breeders endeavour to breed their dogs to as close these standards as possible


Sorry but that's bull!

Brachycephaly IS a harmful headshape, associated with various health problems including breathing difficulties, elongated soft palate, problems thermoregulating etc etc. This head shape affects dogs to different degrees; from mild occassional discomfort, through to painful, delibilitating, even life threatening conditions. It can be fatal; it may require surgery. There is NO BENEFIT whatsoever; but people happen to like it. This is a cosmetic trait which is well known to adversely affect health - yet it continues to thrive. both in the hands of the BYBs AND the show fraternity.

There is NO BENEFIT to the huge mass of the modern mastiffs and St Bernard (they were not this bulky before the show ring got hold of them). This has been done purely for the sake of appearences, for the current fahsion. Perhaps not so obviously harmful as brachycephala but still seems to be connected with excessive skin (leading to skin problems), loose joints prone to dysplasia etc; reduced physical fitness (many are now completely unable to go on a decent walk, jump or climb stairs). Cosmetics over health.

The shar pei.... the original type, known as the bone mouth, is a nice, fit moderate dog. Love to see one of those in the show ring.... the excessive wrinkling of the modern western pei is assocaited with various breed health problems - but who gives a damn; wrinkles are cute. When it is considered normal and routine to tack open a puppies eyes there is something seriously wrong with your breed! Yet again, the is NO BENEFIT to those wrinkles. Cosmetics over health.

The dalmatian - those characteristic spots are linked to deafness and HUA. So what purpose the spots exactly; other than cosmetic? None. Of course, some breeders have done fantastic things; such as the creation of LUA dalmatians. Not that the majority of the show world liked that very much - they fought tooth and claw to keep these "mongrels" from being KC reg both here and in the States. Now they refuse to have UA status easily listed to enables puppy buyers to check.

Now the KC have taken steps to improve things; and full credit to them. The new versions of breed standards for breeds like pugs, bulldogs, etc seem much better. Be fair though, in some cases they have literally just added the word "moderate" or "relatively" when asking for certain traits. Still things are looking up, the standards have been updated, judges been retrained, and there are many great breeders striving to produce healthier dogs.

BUT - exaggerated, unhealthy dogs with conformation that causes health and welfare issues are still being shown, and still being placed, regardless of what the updated standards say 

Even breeds where the standard isn't too bad, many dogs have gone downhill in recent decades by the trend for more and more extremes. Several breeds have become more and more brachy (boxers, st bernards, Frenchies, Bostons etc.) for no good reason. Big breeds have got taller / heavier, small breeds tinier. Long coats have become excessive (Afghan, peke, Beardie). All of these are cosmetic traits, many of which affect the welfare and/or health of the dogs.

It breaks my heart the whole sorry situation. I despise puppy farmers beyond measure and would love to see them eradicated. I can't stand BYBs breeding without any thought except cute pups or pound signs, without bothering to consider conformation, health testing, temperament, etc. But I also get so fed up of breeds continuing to suffer because certain breeders / exhibitors / judges etc put cosmetic traits above health.

ETA: It's all well and good blaming the BYBs and uneducated puppy buyers - but the KC and breed clubs really push the point that their breeds are healthy, that certain health problems are just normal characteristics, that this is what XYZ breed is supposed to look like, etc. I'm happy to give the good ones credit where its due - but they also need to take some responsibility!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Just been looking through some old books, it's strange how some breeds are pretty much the same, and some have *evolved* and look different.


Hmmmm. So ALL have been bred to breed standards, and yet some have changed and some have stayed the same. Funny that, wouldn't you say? Because if you are right in blaming breeding to a breed standard for the faults in today's pedigree dogs, then shouldn't it apply to all breeds?

Of course it should - and it so obviously doesn't, as you have pointed out above. So you will have to find some other reason.

Congratulations - you have now proved your own argument invalid. :thumbup:


----------



## Badwolfe (Jul 19, 2014)

Colette said:


> Sorry but that's bull!
> 
> Now the KC have taken steps to improve things; and full credit to them. The new versions of breed standards for breeds like pugs, bulldogs, etc seem much better. Be fair though, in some cases they have literally just added the word "moderate" or "relatively" when asking for certain traits. Still things are looking up, the standards have been updated, judges been retrained, and there are many great breeders striving to produce healthier dogs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Colette said:


> ETA: It's all well and good blaming the BYBs and uneducated puppy buyers - but the KC and breed clubs really push the point that their breeds are healthy, that certain health problems are just normal characteristics, that this is what XYZ breed is supposed to look like, etc. I'm happy to give the good ones credit where its due - but they also need to take some responsibility!


Yes, they should take responsibility, but responsibility in proportion. So, will someone better than me at maths work out what the following proportional percentage is?

I can do the first bit (I think) - less than 50% of pedigrees dogs are registered, so if we say 50% are registered (to make it easier) and 2% of those are shown, then 2% of 50% of pedigree dogs is 1%.

So 1% of pedigree dogs bred in the UK are bred for showing. That 1% of all pedigree dogs consists of 213 breeds. Now, this is where my maths probably fails me. Of those 213 breeds, only 15 breeds are exaggerated - so that's 15/213 of 1% which I think works out at 0.07%.

Now, I am probably wrong about the actual figure (maths is _definitely_ not my strong point so I'd be glad if someone would work it out properly) However, it is definitely going to be a very, very small percentage.

And from that very, very small percentage, you have to remember that show breeders are now breeding away from exaggerations, so the actual percentage of pedigree dogs bred for showing that are exaggerated is obviously going to be very, very, very small.

So, yes, show breeders have to take some responsibility - but what a very small percenatge of responsibility in the whole scheme of pedigree dog breeding, eh? Less than 0.07% (if my maths is correct) of dogs with exaggerations are bred by show breeders. Not quite the picture you were painting, is it?


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Ah but it's SUCH fun to play 'squeaky toy" with show breeders ( you know - poke them and they squeal ) it's much less satisfying to try and actually change things for the way overwhelming majority of dogs are bred !.

Personally I'm not playing this game any more - I along with the majority of show breeders I know breed healthy, well constructed, good natured and beautiful dogs and nope I'm not reciting a Mea Culpea or wearing a hair shirt because I show them.


Boring.....boring ......BORING !


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Colette said:


> Sorry but that's bull!
> 
> Brachycephaly IS a harmful headshape, associated with various health problems including breathing difficulties, elongated soft palate, problems thermoregulating etc etc. This head shape affects dogs to different degrees; from mild occassional discomfort, through to painful, delibilitating, even life threatening conditions. It can be fatal; it may require surgery. There is NO BENEFIT whatsoever; but people happen to like it. This is a cosmetic trait which is well known to adversely affect health - yet it continues to thrive. both in the hands of the BYBs AND the show fraternity.
> 
> ...


Fantastic post! :thumbsup:


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Yes, they should take responsibility, but responsibility in proportion. So, will someone better than me at maths work out what the following proportional percentage is?
> 
> I can do the first bit (I think) - less than 50% of pedigrees dogs are registered, so if we say 50% are registered (to make it easier) and 2% of those are shown, *then 2% of 50% of pedigree dogs is 1%.*
> 
> ...


The problem is, if there's an "elite" group of pedigree dogs, it's that 1% that's shown. They should be the ideal, the ultimate, the final say in what xyz breed should look like. They lead the way, and for that, they do have to hold a portion of the blame.

I accept that show breeders are now breeding away from the extremes, and I stand by my previous post that celeb culture and the _"OMG-so-cuuute-I-want-one_! culture is where the majority of the blame lie, but the "elite" dogs, the crème de la crème, don't come from puppy farmers and BYB, so if the show ring is awarding deformities and health issues, and if show breeders are breeding for that, then we can't JUST blame Paris Hilton and her handbag chis, or the BYB and puppy farmers who throw 2 dogs that look like xyz breed and let them get on with it. A portion of the blame still lies with those show breeders.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Show breeders do have to accept part of the blame though. Although they make up only a tiny percentage of pedigree dog owners/breeders they're one of the most visible parts. If people see bulldogs or pekes waddling around the ring and lying on ice packs or dachshunds with their chests on the ground, the mini smooth bob was pretty close this year , then they'll see that as acceptable.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> Show breeders do have to accept part of the blame though. Although they make up only a tiny percentage of pedigree dog owners/breeders they're one of the most visible parts. If people see bulldogs or pekes waddling around the ring and lying on ice packs or dachshunds with their chests on the ground, the mini smooth bob was pretty close this year , then they'll see that as acceptable.


Visible to whom? Even in this tiny % of dog owners very few have been to shows, a lot admit to not watching Crufts, average Joe dog owner or want to be dog owners rarely watch Crufts? No one has said show breeders aren't to take part of the blame, no one at all, yet some expect them to take all the blame.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Meezey said:


> Visible to whom? Even in this tiny % of dog owners very few have been to shows, a lot admit to not watching Crufts, average Joe dog owner or want to be dog owners watch Crufts? No one has said show breeders aren't to take part of the blame, no one at all, yet some expect them to take all the blame.


For the record I'm not saying they should take all the blame, puppy buyers really have no excuse to not know where to buy puppies from with the internet so readily available. A lot of random people do watch crufts, the winners are in newspapers etc so they are visible. Of course idiot celebs buying into the latest trend have a big part to play too


----------



## Badwolfe (Jul 19, 2014)

Nicky10 said:


> For the record I'm not saying they should take all the blame, puppy buyers really have no excuse to not know where to buy puppies from with the internet so readily available. A lot of random people do watch crufts, the winners are in newspapers etc so they are visible. Of course idiot celebs buying into the latest trend have a big part to play too


Yes I can accept what you are saying Nicky but I could pretty much say with certainty that even if all the show breeders produce 'breed standard' quality dogs the health issues in certain breeds will not improve because the vast majority of dogs suffering these problems are and will be produced by BYB's or those ignorant to what the true conformation of their particular breed should be


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Badwolfe said:


> Yes I can accept what you are saying Nicky but I could pretty much say with certainty that even if all the show breeders produce 'breed standard' quality dogs the health issues in certain breeds will not improve because the vast majority of dogs suffering these problems are and will be produced by BYB's or those ignorant to what the true conformation of their particular breed should be


Yes I agree with you on that as I think I said earlier in the thread. Generally the most exaggerated bullldogs, shar peis, pugs etc are from bybs and certainly the worst of the small toys are or from puppy farms. The ones being awarded in the ring are getting better no doubt about that, I loved the mini wire dachshund bob this year, and it will take time of course.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

LinznMilly said:


> The problem is, if there's an "elite" group of pedigree dogs, it's that 1% that's shown. They should be the ideal, the ultimate, the final say in what xyz breed should look like. They lead the way, and for that, they do have to hold a portion of the blame.
> 
> I accept that show breeders are now breeding away from the extremes, and I stand by my previous post that celeb culture and the _"OMG-so-cuuute-I-want-one_! culture is where the majority of the blame lie, but the "elite" dogs, the crème de la crème, don't come from puppy farmers and BYB, so if the show ring is awarding deformities and health issues, and if show breeders are breeding for that, then we can't JUST blame Paris Hilton and her handbag chis, or the BYB and puppy farmers who throw 2 dogs that look like xyz breed and let them get on with it. A portion of the blame still lies with those show breeders.





Nicky10 said:


> Show breeders do have to accept part of the blame though. Although they make up only a tiny percentage of pedigree dog owners/breeders they're one of the most visible parts. If people see bulldogs or pekes waddling around the ring and lying on ice packs or dachshunds with their chests on the ground, the mini smooth bob was pretty close this year , then they'll see that as acceptable.


Yep, that's what I said too - a proportion of blame should rightly be attrtibuted to show breeders - after all, they are 0.07% of the breeders of exaggerated breeds in the country so they should be taking 0.07% of the blame.

Trying to blame 0.07% of breeders for the way 99.03% of breeders breed is ridiculous by any standard.

And I just don't buy the "show dogs are supposed to be the elite; people see dogs at shows and want a clone of that" argument for the following reasons:

1. Most people don't know that there are any other dog shows than Crufts. Crufts is on TV for about 4-6 hours every year, and most of what they show on TV is not breed judging, and they only show highlights of the group judging. Viewers actually see very few breeds from the show world. And as for visitors to Crufts, the vast majority of them go around Discover Dogs, where the stands are manned by as many pet owners and their dogs as show owners, so they are not necessarily seeing show dogs there, either. There may be the odd visitor to other champ dog shows, but even then they will only see the breeds that are there on the day. The fact is that the vast majority of dog buyers are just not influenced by dogs they see at dog shows, but by other things - one example, sales of dalmations went through the roof when Disney released 101 Dalmations, and the same thing happened with Dogues de Brodeaux after Turner and Hooch.

2. Most show dogs are "the elite". There are only 15 breeds out of the 213 breeds that are shown that have exaggerations. Look at a line up of the other 198 breeds and you are looking at happy, healthy, well-bred dogs that are fit for function. Why then, if people are seeing and wanting the elite, are they buying poor, unhealthy examples of these breeds from BYBs and puppy farmers and some non-show breeders?

3. Despite the bad press that ALL show dogs get, the vast majority of show dogs are healthy and fit for function - so if people were wanting what they see at shows, they would be buying mainly healthy dogs.

4. If people wanted only what they saw at shows, why would they be buying designer dogs in droves? They never see those at Crufts or at any other shows than fun shows, yet the market is huge.

So yes, show breeders should take some blame - there are bad breeders in every walk of life, including show breeders - but they do not deserve anywhere the the portion if blame that most people want to heap on their heads.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I agree with you that most are healthy, when they were changing all the standards I think the only terriers that had to be changed were scotties to say they shouldn't be carrying excess weight. My next two dogs will be from show breeders in fact. The show ring doesn't deserve all the criticism it gets but is a part of it all.


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

i get that i am probably repeating what others hve said, so my apologies for that!!!



Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> Originally maybe, but I believe that nowadays the look of the dog is very much consumer lead and this is as likely to come from photos in celeb magazines to the attempt to own something different. Think of all the designer crossbreeds being produced ... most are non health tested, many are bred using poor breed lines to create dogs that fit the public persona of something desirable. *Likewise the miniature or tea-cup versions of small breeds. This is consumer lead not breeder or show or KC lead as these dogs can never enter a show ring.*
> 
> In fact the desire for paedomorphic features has always been consumer lead ...people (not the KC ) wanted dogs that looked like babies.
> 
> ...


anyone on here who knows anything about me will know of my hatred for 'teacups' and 'minis' when there are no mini versions recognized. it's dreadful with the yorkies- we can't go anywhere without having to explain to people who want 'a teacup like That' (when we have bambi) that she was in fact simply the pup that didn't grow. they'll then ask if they can have one of her pups and we then have to explain that taking a litter from her could kill her. they're never impressed. yet some of the 'best' (using the term loosely there!) in the breed will advertise their own pups as mini and teacup boasting their dogs tiny (and irresponsibly tiny) size. one of said dogs is a champion, and all 'from full (well known) champion lines'.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Whilst that is true, it still doesn't preclude people involved with showing, gundog stuff, working trials, other competitions from producing equally unhealthy dogs, sometimes, and *even worse imho, is that they KNOW they have health issues in their lines or problems that *could* be passed along, and make the decision to breed on anyway. *
> 
> I'd love to see the free ads banned for sale of animals, I'm not sure how you'd go about regulating it though, loads of places allow the sale of animals, face book groups are a prime example. Then there's the fishing, oooh, look at my cute puppies posts everywhere, that end up with the breeder selling one or two, but it wasn't an advert, honest.


yup, like when i pretty much got laughed at by a few different YT clubs for asking about health testing. there are many issues in the breed, but if we don't talk about them they'll go away. :nonod:



Badwolfe said:


> Sorry but that's bull!
> 
> Now the KC have taken steps to improve things; and full credit to them. The new versions of breed standards for breeds like pugs, bulldogs, etc seem much better. Be fair though, in some cases they have literally just added the word "moderate" or "relatively" when asking for certain traits. Still things are looking up, the standards have been updated, judges been retrained, and there are many great breeders striving to produce healthier dogs.
> 
> ...


is it though? i'm not sure myself, but i'll bet you that the teeny tiny percentage of 'size zero supermodels' has a heck of an impact on how young girls worldwide view themselves and what is deemed as acceptable and ideal.



Spellweaver said:


> Yep, that's what I said too - a proportion of blame should rightly be attrtibuted to show breeders - after all, they are 0.07% of the breeders of exaggerated breeds in the country so they should be taking 0.07% of the blame.
> 
> Trying to blame 0.07% of breeders for the way 99.03% of breeders breed is ridiculous by any standard.
> 
> ...


are they though? all 198 breeds fit for function? they aren't i'm afraid. just because some breeds aren't bad enough to make the top 15 doesn't mean there isn't improvement needed- from show breeders right down to the byb. but more importantly- it's the buyers who will have the most influence, but trying to educate the majority who want a cute pup is like talking to a brick wall. a really, really, Really thick brick wall. that is only of use for this- :mad2:
going back to yorkies, i've seen dogs too small to keep up with the crowd, or dogs hopping round the ring. the problem is though, you have to have your yorkie in Full coat to have any point in showing. now my poppet is the fittest of my lot, but if her coat was 'show length' not a chance she could function running round the fields. i had her and kuki over again a few times this week, the grass is in need of a cut, so while poppet was bounding through the growth kuki toddled along happily behind me trying to keep up- not because i have her coat too long, or because she has any joint issues- she's in great condition, but just too wee to get through the grass. heaven forbid i ask her to do a days work like they were developed for!

for some breeds it has came down to looks for both the pet owning public and in the ring. you can't separate that into a 1 Vs the other, it is both sides doing it in different ways. in some breeds it's all about the coat in the ring- nothing to do with whats actually Under the hair- and all about size out of the ring. so if someone does a it of research and ends up at someone who Should be setting a great example of what to breed and buy, but could still end up with a tiny dog falling apart at the seams... but it's got great coat on it!

as has been said, it isn't either or. all doggy people need to work together to try and fix the mess we've made (royal we). it's no good pointing fingers, we need to try and DO something about it- like the KC and some breeders are Trying to do...

(and i hope all that makes sense  )


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

kodakkuki said:


> i get that i am probably repeating what others hve said, so my apologies for that!!!
> 
> anyone on here who knows anything about me will know of my hatred for 'teacups' and 'minis' when there are no mini versions recognized. it's dreadful with the yorkies- we can't go anywhere without having to explain to people who want 'a teacup like That' (when we have bambi) that she was in fact simply the pup that didn't grow. they'll then ask if they can have one of her pups and we then have to explain that taking a litter from her could kill her. they're never impressed. yet some of the 'best' (using the term loosely there!) in the breed will advertise their own pups as mini and teacup boasting their dogs tiny (and irresponsibly tiny) size. one of said dogs is a champion, and all 'from full (well known) champion lines'.
> 
> ...


Sorry I'm all for people debating stuff but not if it's from a place of ignorance.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

One of the top poodles at the minute
afterglow.: How Ricky Stays Fit...

If the coat impedes their natural behaviour then it's wrong


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Sorry I'm all for people debating stuff but not if it's from a place of ignorance.


actually, i have seen it happen. a fair few times- barely lifted the coat and didn't have a proper feel at all. why do you think the LP sufferer won? so it's not bull. but absolutely i'm fine with you thinking it is. no need to roll your eyes at me though.

and again, not all show dogs lead 'normal' lives... i know that for fact as well. not your breed of course, why would being in show condition make any difference, but for some it absolutely does.
how could a floor length coat help a ratter?


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> One of the top poodles at the minute
> afterglow.: How Ricky Stays Fit...
> 
> If the coat impedes their natural behaviour then it's wrong


i do adore that boy!!!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

kodakkuki said:


> actually, i have seen it happen. a fair few times- barely lifted the coat and didn't have a proper feel at all. why do you think the LP sufferer won? so it's not bull. but absolutely i'm fine with you thinking it is. no need to roll your eyes at me though.
> 
> and again, not all show dogs lead 'normal' lives... i know that for fact as well. not your breed of course, why would being in show condition make any difference, but for some it absolutely does. it wasn't my main point about it though.


So where did you see it happen? Because I can say now If I entered my dog in a show and the judge never put their hands on my dog I'd have something to say about it? So which show and which judge? Feel free to PM me if you don't want to post? If I was in a ring and a dog was award a class or a CC I'd certainly have something to say if the judge didn't put their hands on a dog...

Not all pet dogs lead "normal" lives either? Dog need to be fit, irrespective of the breed to be in a ring. Showing isn't anything to do with your dog having a "normal" the type of owner is....


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Have to say, I showed and judged for a fair number of years, and I knew a number of people who also judged, (some still are).

I never, ever saw a judge not 'go over' a dog. I think there would be an instant, negative response to any judge who simply lifted a dog's coat and didn't go over it properly.


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Meezey said:


> So where did you see it happen? Because I can say now If I entered my dog in a show and the judge never put their hands on my dog I'd have something to say about it? So which show and which judge? Feel free to PM me if you don't want to post? If I was in a ring and a dog was award a class or a CC I'd certainly have something to say if the judge didn't put their hands on a dog...
> 
> Not all pet dogs lead "normal" lives either? Dog need to be fit, irrespective of the breed to be in a ring. Showing isn't anything to do with your dog having a "normal" the type of owner is....


oh i'm aware of that- i was pointing out the anomalies that happen in some circles. can't remember the judge, but will pm you the breeder and venue now...

the reason i mentioned coat Length is because it is the only thing that stopped me showing kuki. when her coat was almost show length it wasn't the daily care that bothered wither of us, but she didn't like running on grass of any length, so she got her skirt cut. she is within the size of the standard, but is still soo small that she isn't fit for her Original function. poppet though, as mental as she is, she'd probably have been a great worker (and is doing better these days thanks to me doing a bit better btw!  ).

i do think the slogan should just be 'fit for life' for most breeds... function (or rather original function) comes in to it for soo few breeds over all. any dog is fit for lying on someones knee- so that's all some people seem to think a toy breed needs to do.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

I would really like to know who the judge was, particularly if you've seen it happen a number of times.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

kodakkuki said:


> oh i'm aware of that- i was pointing out the anomalies that happen in some circles. can't remember the judge, but will pm you the breeder and venue now...
> 
> the reason i mentioned coat Length is because it is the only thing that stopped me showing kuki. when her coat was almost show length it wasn't the daily care that bothered wither of us, but she didn't like running on grass of any length, so she got her skirt cut. she is within the size of the standard, but is still soo small that she isn't fit for her Original function. poppet though, as mental as she is, she'd probably have been a great worker (and is doing better these days thanks to me doing a bit better btw!  ).
> 
> i do think the slogan should just be 'fit for life' for most breeds... function (or rather original function) comes in to it for soo few breeds over all. any dog is fit for lying on someones knee- so that's all some people seem to think a toy breed needs to do.


Great to hear you are both doing well..

Yet our Yorkie had a long show length coat all her life with no issues at all, was often a stable dog too with a long coat, see plenty of long coated dogs having a normal life running through fields etc with either crackers or coats...

So question have you tried any of your dogs in their original function? How would Dogless test her dogs, or Bull Breeds or Dali's?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Dalmatians at least have a way
http://carriagedog.org/BCDS/Welcome


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Great to hear you are both doing well..
> 
> Yet our Yorkie had a long show length coat all her life with no issues at all, was often a stable dog too with a long coat, see plenty of long coated dogs having a normal life running through fields etc with either crackers or coats...
> 
> So question have you tried any of your dogs in their original function? How would Dogless test her dogs, or Bull Breeds or Dali's?


ratting isn't something i'd want to encourage what with owning rats!
and as i said in that quoted post, since many don't do their original function, surely it should just be fit for life...

thats great to hear about your yorkie, but you do seem to be in the minority from what i've seen.

am in the middle of writing you the pm, but you seem to just be trying to prove everyone wrong and be argumentative...


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> Dalmatians at least have a way
> BCDS


Good point, that didn't enter in to my head when I posted it lol was thinking more of out on the open road with carriages no longer being a form of transport forgot about there are people with horses DOH lol :lol:


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

kodakkuki said:


> ratting isn't something i'd want to encourage what with owning rats!
> and as i said in that quoted post, since many don't do their original function, surely it should just be fit for life...
> 
> thats great to hear about your yorkie, but you do seem to be in the minority from what i've seen.
> ...


Just because I don't agree with you and can counter your argument doesn't mean I'm trying to prove you wrong or being argumentative, it just means my experience are different than yours and as I'm at shows a lot and OH judges I have a different view point..

A lot of your points don't have facts to back them up.. You are say your dog can't do something but it's not something you've tried, you can't blame that on breeding or lines if it's something you've discourage because of your life style, your dog might be an outstanding ratter?


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Just because I don't agree with you and can counter your argument doesn't mean I'm trying to prove you wrong or being argumentation, it just means my experience are different than yours and as I'm at shows a lot and OH judges I have a different view point..
> 
> A lot of your points don't have facts to back them up.. Your say your dog can't do something but it's not something you've tried, you can't blame that on breeding or lines if it's something you've discourage because of your life style, your dog might be an outstanding ratter?


 yea, i get that, it's the tone that's coming across as such- but since what i say is apparently bull...

and it's because my points are opinions and personal observations, so no i don't have studies to back them up- hadn't thought they were needed! lol

what i said regarding kuki working was "kuki over again a few times this week, the grass is in need of a cut, so while poppet was bounding through the growth kuki toddled along happily behind me trying to keep up- not because i have her coat too long, or because she has any joint issues- she's in great condition, but just too wee to get through the grass. heaven forbid i ask her to do a days work like they were developed for!" and that wasn't about her coat- it was about her size. she may as well have been wading through trees the length of the grass in comparison, her coat wasn't the issue. the fact they have been bred down in size was what i was saying- show and working strain having a difference of type again. not a bad thing, but it's there.

so seemingly what i am writing is being interpreted very differently to how i had meant, so my apologies, i'll go back in to my corner now!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I've been at at least two shows from memory where my dogs weren't gone over *thoroughly*, with both of the youngsters, and a friend's young Labrador was not really gone over either, in fact when the judge walked down the line for the second time, she never bothered even glancing at us a second time. At the same show both of us were told we needed to put extra weight on our pups as they were too lean, both were in absolute perfect condition as regards weight. 

Similar thing with Rhuna, and her breeder watched how the judge went over her, and told me next time, to ask that I get the same chance as everyone else, as it was very obvious. 

I've seen it happen to other dogs plenty of times where judges hardly touch a dog, and ok, maybe sometimes they've gone over a dog before and know it, but at least make the effort, even if you do know the dog. It's a horrible job having to decide when it is possibly a very close call between dogs, but I think judges need to at least give everyone the same chance of showing their dog off, and going over them all in the same way. 

I haven't shown my two this year, but then I've been quite ill (off work for five months), and am just really getting back to normal. I've been at training tonight, where Rhuna showed moments of genius, and moments where it looks like we've never done a sit stop in our lives; I've got more class training tomorrow night, and I regularly train with her one to one, as well as with Zasa, in fact the two of them were also out training this afternoon. I've got a training day booked with Rhuna in August, where I'm travelling down to meet up with her breeder, and train alongside her sister. And then we've also been asked to go back on the team beating and picking up this year, where I'll be working both Rhuna and Zasa, not necessarily alongside each other! So we've been slightly busy, despite being a bit out of it for nearly half the year. 

If we qualify for Crufts again this year, for the gamekeeper's ring, I still won't be shaving Rhuna's chest, as is the current fashion for the breed ring. She is first and foremost a working dog, and the protection from her coat is more important to me, than adhering to a fashion that seems to be more appeasing to the eye for some in the breed rings.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Talking of Pekes, look at this gorgeous example!










That is what breeders should be aspiring to IMO. That was taken from the PDE blog which I'm sure will just about make some here blow a gasket that 'that' site should be mentioned  It's a shame though that that Peke would never be considered 'breed worthy' or 'a good example'. It's breed standards that need to change but it's also attitudes. While a dog like this Peke would be scoffed at, called a 'mongrel' , and completely shunned within the show community, I really can't see anything changing, as ultimately I think the breed clubs hold a lot of power in regards to the KC implementing changes.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

With more of a muzzle maybe, the original imports looked more like tibetan spaniels.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I'm afraid I will never be a fan of JH, or PDE, not because I don't think some of what they found about pedigree dogs isn't true, but the way they manipulated the facts, and used examples from byb's, but made it appear it was all down to the show fraternity. They did a lot of damage that to this day, has people believing all pedigree breeds are unhealthy inbred mutants that will die sooner than any cross breed you could buy out of the small ads. 

As for the peke, I think it looks fab, and reminds me of the early examples I was looking at earlier having a quick look through some of my old books.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

kodakkuki said:


> are they though? all 198 breeds fit for function? they aren't i'm afraid. just because some breeds aren't bad enough to make the top 15 doesn't mean there isn't improvement needed- from show breeders right down to the byb. but more importantly- it's the buyers who will have the most influence, but trying to educate the majority who want a cute pup is like talking to a brick wall. a really, really, Really thick brick wall. that is only of use for this- :mad2:
> going back to yorkies, i've seen dogs too small to keep up with the crowd, or dogs hopping round the ring. the problem is though, you have to have your yorkie in Full coat to have any point in showing. now my poppet is the fittest of my lot, but if her coat was 'show length' not a chance she could function running round the fields. i had her and kuki over again a few times this week, the grass is in need of a cut, so while poppet was bounding through the growth kuki toddled along happily behind me trying to keep up- not because i have her coat too long, or because she has any joint issues- she's in great condition, but just too wee to get through the grass. heaven forbid i ask her to do a days work like they were developed for!
> 
> for some breeds it has came down to looks for both the pet owning public and in the ring. you can't separate that into a 1 Vs the other, it is both sides doing it in different ways. in some breeds it's all about the coat in the ring- nothing to do with whats actually Under the hair- and all about size out of the ring. so if someone does a it of research and ends up at someone who Should be setting a great example of what to breed and buy, but could still end up with a tiny dog falling apart at the seams... but it's got great coat on it!
> ...


That may be the case with Yorkies - don't know enough about them to argue one way or another - but, by the same token, you cannot extrapolate what happens with yorkies into what happens in all other breeds.

For example, the accusation of being judged on looks and coat length is something that is often levied at border collies - usually by people who have never been near a dog show in their life - and it is just not true. Anyone who has been to a dog show and seen border collies being judged would know just what an emphasis is placed on health, conformation and movement - in fact, the last judge not to take any notice of movement was Andrew Brace, and he was reported to the KC by nearly all the bc exhibitors and was fined £300. Judge fined for poor ring manner You hear the same know-it-all posters on here who know nothing saying that all show border collies have too long a coat to work, and time and time again on here I've posted pictures of show border collies with short hair, including my short-haired border collie who is a dead ringer for Old Hemp, one of the first border collies ever, and time and time again I've listed her wins - she won BBCGB Minor pup of the year, has qualified for Crufts every year since she's been born, gets placed nealry every time she is shown - yet none of this matters to those who "know" that border collies are judged on looks; they just roll out the same old same old - I've even had one prannock on here saying that show border collies are not allowed to have pricked ears and that my prick-eared border collie didn't have pricked ears despite the fact that the picture showed her very definite pricked ears  So you'll forgive me, I hope, if I show little sympathy with your statement that judging is all to do with looks and coat and nothing else.

And my other breed, the bergamasco - they don't come into their full coat until they are about 5 years old, yet at Crufts, when Tarot was in Junior, he beat the dogs above him who were in coat to take Reserve Best Dog - that wasn't judging by looks, that was judging on conformation and movement, as his write-up (which is on here somewhere) confirms.

And as I've said already on this thread my show dogs are nothing special in that most show dogs are just as healthy and fit for purpose as they are.

As I've also said before, there are bad breeders in the show world just as there are bad breeders in every walk of life. But the pretence that all show dogss ar unhealthy and are judged purely on looks and coat length is as unfair as trying to make out that the comparatively minute amount of show breeders (ie compared with all other breeders) are responsible for all the ills in dogdom.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sweety said:


> Have to say, I showed and judged for a fair number of years, and I knew a number of people who also judged, (some still are).
> 
> I never, ever saw a judge not 'go over' a dog. I think there would be an instant, negative response to any judge who simply lifted a dog's coat and didn't go over it properly.





Meezey said:


> So where did you see it happen? Because I can say now If I entered my dog in a show and the judge never put their hands on my dog I'd have something to say about it? So which show and which judge? Feel free to PM me if you don't want to post? If I was in a ring and a dog was award a class or a CC I'd certainly have something to say if the judge didn't put their hands on a dog...
> 
> Not all pet dogs lead "normal" lives either? Dog need to be fit, irrespective of the breed to be in a ring. Showing isn't anything to do with your dog having a "normal" the type of owner is....


Absolutely - agree with both of you. It did happen with one border collie judge and he was complained about by most of the bc exhibitors there that day - some of us even took videos. The KC upheld the complaint and fined him the top amount of £300.

Judge fined for poor ring manner

So I'm afraid I take it with a pinch of salt when people complain about a judge not judging properly - if it were true, then a complaint would/should have been made. But more often that not it's merely a case of sour grapes because "their dog won and mine didn't cos he never looked at mine".


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> That may be the case with Yorkies - don't know enough about them to argue one way or another - but, by the same token, you cannot extrapolate what happens with yorkies into what happens in all other breeds.
> 
> For example, the accusation of being judged on looks and coat length is something that is often levied at border collies - usually by people who have never been near a dog show in their life - and it is just not true. Anyone who has been to a dog show and seen border collies being judged would know just what an emphasis is placed on health, conformation and movement - in fact, the last judge not to take any notice of movement was Andrew Brace, and he was reported to the KC by nearly all the bc exhibitors and was fined £300. Judge fined for poor ring manner You hear the same know-it-all posters on here who know nothing saying that all show border collies have too long a coat to work, and time and time again on here I've posted pictures of sow border collies with short hair, including my short-haired border collie who is a dead ringer for Old Hemp, one of the first border collies ever, and time and time again I've listed her wins - she won BBCGB Minor pup of the year, has qualified for Crufts every year since she's been born, gets placed nealry every time she is shown - yet none of this matters to those who "know" that border collies are judged on looks; they just roll out the same old same old - I've even had one prannock on here saying that show border collies are not allowed to have pricked ears and that my prick-eared border collie didn't have pricked ears despite the fact that the picture showed her very definite pricked ears  So you'll forgive me, I hope, if I show little sympathy with your statement that judging is all to do with looks and coat and nothing else.
> 
> ...


i've always thought your dogs were stunners!
see, my point is that i actually agree with you. most of the show world is excellent. the thing i was trying to say was that there are not only problems in 15 breeds- there are problems in others, just not as extreme, and on Some occasions in Some breeds you see things and hear of things that makes the entire world seem skewed. 
there is no health testing for YT recommended, so we have to work with is confirmation and knowledge of breed lines. so if that is getting overlooked, even if only on occasion, then there is a real problem. 
but unfortunately i was told by many in the breed that the coat does have to be to the floor or you're wasting your money entering (and i'd assume him to know what he was talking about tbf).

and again, i'm not saying this is the case all the time- i know it isn't! but just because it doesn't happen in every breed at every show doesn't mean it isn't an issue.

i'd meant that post to be more about the size comments than coat! lol



Spellweaver said:


> ...
> So I'm afraid I take it with a pinch of salt when people complain about a judge not judging properly - if it were true, then a complaint would/should have been made. But more often that not it's merely a case of sour grapes because "their dog won and mine didn't cos he never looked at mine".


i don't show (because i'd cut kukis hair and was told not to bother) so i have no idea of disciplinary hearings, and no need for sour grapes. but he certainly didn't check this dogs legs from where i was sitting.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

At this point, I'd like to point out the BS for flatcoats states this about the coat:

Dense, of fine to medium texture and good quality, as flat as possible. Legs and tail well feathered. Full furnishings on maturity complete the elegance of a good dog. - See more at: The Kennel Club

So why do the show ring reward dogs where the neck is completely shaven? I wouldn't put any working dog through cover with their protective coat removed, and when the BS states the furnishings on maturity complete the elegance of a good dog, why remove the furnishings? Could it be that some think shaving the neck makes the brisket stand proud, which is described as 'with well defined brisket' in the BS. Call me cynical, and I'm sure I get called a lot more than that, but when one person starts a fashion that gives their dog a more well defined brisket than the next because they've shaved part of the coat off, and it wins, and another one wins, it soon becomes common place to shave more off the dog than should be done for the show ring.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Meezey said:


> Great to hear you are both doing well..
> 
> Yet our Yorkie had a long show length coat all her life with no issues at all, was often a stable dog too with a long coat, see plenty of long coated dogs having a normal life running through fields etc with either crackers or coats...
> 
> So question have you tried any of your dogs in their original function? How would Dogless test her dogs, or Bull Breeds or Dali's?


My ears must have been burning - I hardly ever venture into Breeding . Short of Longleat allowing us access then mine cannot be . That said, lure coursing of RRs in the US is very popular and they are used by hunters in Australia still I believe - as for my boys I am not sure you'd find much fitter dogs which I think is fairly evident - you can't hide lack of muscle tone on a RR!!

But no….I cannot test mine at their original function.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> At this point, I'd like to point out the BS for flatcoats states this about the coat:
> 
> Dense, of fine to medium texture and good quality, as flat as possible. Legs and tail well feathered. Full furnishings on maturity complete the elegance of a good dog. - See more at: The Kennel Club
> 
> So why do the show ring reward dogs where the neck is completely shaven? I wouldn't put any working dog through cover with their protective coat removed, and when the BS states the furnishings on maturity complete the elegance of a good dog, why remove the furnishings? Could it be that some think shaving the neck makes the brisket stand proud, which is described as 'with well defined brisket' in the BS. Call me cynical, and I'm sure I get called a lot more than that, but when one person starts a fashion that gives their dog a more well defined brisket than the next because they've shaved part of the coat off, and it wins, and another one wins, it soon becomes common place to shave more off the dog than should be done for the show ring.


So SL how many shows do you go too? Have you attended judging seminars, bred champs, got your hands on a few hundred dogs been in the bred for 20 + years. I'm always interested in people who know so much about shows but never seem to be at any? Call me a cynic but you seem to dislike it because by your own admission your dog wasn't looked at enough or placed?

Always find it interesting to that everyone is more qualified than the judge to judge, because of course Judges just buy a dog and then suddenly become a judge with no previous experience in the breed or dogs at all. Ring side judges seem to also be mind readers, and of course it's just a shaved coat that gets a dog place nothing else abut the dog help just a shaved coat or a long coat.. If people are such experts at what "good" is, stop yapping about it and go do something about it... Don't like the way judging is done, become a judge.. If not willing to do something to change it, stop complaining every single time time and time and time again...... Either put up or shut up..


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Meezey said:


> So SL how many shows do you go too? Have you attended judging seminars, bred champs, got your hands on a few hundred dogs been in the bred for 20 + years. I'm always interested in people who know so much about shows but never seem to be at any? Call me a cynic but you seem to dislike it because by your own admission your dog wasn't looked at enough or placed?
> 
> Always find it interesting to that everyone is more qualified than the judge to judge, because of course Judges just buy a dog and then suddenly become a judge with no previous experience in the breed or dogs at all. Ring side judges seem to also be mind readers, and of course it's just a shaved coat that gets a dog place nothing else abut the dog help just a shaved coat or a long coat.. If people are such experts at what "good" is, stop yapping about it and go do something about it... Don't like the way judging is done, become a judge.. If not willing to do something to change it, stop complaining every single time time and time and time again...... Either put up or shut up..


Totally agree here - it's amazing how going to a few open shows makes you an expert on the whole champ show scene - similar to the way breeding one litter makes you an expert on breeding. Some people talk the talk, but can't walk the walk. They fool no-one other than the very inexperienced, and would be laughed off a serious showing forum.

And as I said in an earlier post, if judges really *are* judging incorrectly then they get reported and something is done about it. Genuine exhibitors who know their dogs are worthy of winning are, quite rightly, usually incensed when a judge does not judge their dogs properly, and that judge gets reported. However, it usually turns out that most gripes about judges are because people have entered inferior dogs and then throw their toys out the pram when they don't win - and as that kind of complaint would, quite rightly, be thrown out by the KC, their only recourse is to come on a pet forum and gripe about judges.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Totally agree here - it's amazing how going to a few open shows makes you an expert on the whole champ show scene - similar to the way breeding one litter makes you an expert on breeding. Some people talk the talk, but can't walk the walk. They fool no-one other than the very inexperienced, and would be laughed off a serious showing forum.
> 
> And as I said in an earlier post, if judges really *are* judging incorrectly then they get reported and something is done about it. Genuine exhibitors who know their dogs are worthy of winning are, quite rightly, usually incensed when a judge does not judge their dogs properly, and that judge gets reported. However, it usually turns out that most gripes about judges are because people have entered inferior dogs and then throw their toys out the pram when they don't win - and as that kind of complaint would, quite rightly, be thrown out by the KC, their only recourse is to come on a pet forum and gripe about judges.


Totally agree!

I'm lucky in that I realise that I have not got a dog worthy of being a Champion (well not yet, it depends how she matures). I know she's got some very nice features - her back end is very good - but she's also got some poor features, in that she's not deep chested enough and her feathering is a bit light(both might change). I therefore do not have great expectations - it really depends on what she's up against.

I also know that I've got poor handling skills. I'm getting better, but I cannot show her off to her best, and a more experienced handler gets better placings with her.

I go along to shows to have a good day out, meet people who are becoming friends, use the opportunity to learn about the breed, and to practice my handling skills.

It takes years and years of competing to understand what's going on. You cannot go to a couple of shows and think that you know everything. Even how to present your dog properly! Results are often down to handling skills rather than the quality of the dog - purely because the handler does not allow that quality to shine through.

Unfortunately it's easier to blame the judge and judging than your own handling.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

BessieDog said:


> Totally agree!
> 
> I'm lucky in that I realise that I have not got a dog worthy of being a Champion (well not yet, it depends how she matures). I know she's got some very nice features - her back end is very good - but she's also got some poor features, in that she's not deep chested enough and her feathering is a bit light(both might change). I therefore do not have great expectations - it really depends on what she's up against.
> 
> ...


OH has been showing for years and judges, and Cian is always judged as excellent ( ie of champ quality by FCI rules) BUT we have an issue with his pacing, it's even with OH handling skills it's a challenge, other people have handled him and struggled and my mate is helping us with him atm, we know we have a good boy and it's frustrating that he's not being placed higher, and we could blame the judge for placing what we and others consider inferior dogs above him, but on that day in the ring when Cian paces he blows everything... His other faults are he has speckling in his mouth, he is too wet of head for some and has a very loose dulap so even if he is graded excellent in the ring on that given day he isn't the best dog in the ring purely down to his movement... I STILL take the best dog home every day...

Here's the thing you pay your money for their opinion, you either take it or leave it, or you either don't go under them again or you make an official complaint if you really don't think they gave your dog a fair chance. Some dogs have visible faults and judges can often see them the minute the dog enters the ring...


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

Totally agree with BessieDog,Spellweaver and Meezey, Very well said.
Having shown Cocker Spaniels, judged, (still do judge occasionally) and bred only when I needed a new puppy to show for 30 plus years, still go to the odd show. but only to watch, as I am now into rescue dogs, which I find very rewardng.

But in the show world you always get people who have been in it for five minutes and think they know everything, similar to people on here having bred one litter and know everything about breeding.
Believe me it takes years on the show scene , and also breeding to understand whats going on.


----------



## Badwolfe (Jul 19, 2014)

Honeys mum said:


> Totally agree with BessieDog,Spellweaver and Meezey, Very well said.
> Having shown Cocker Spaniels, judged, (still do judge occasionally) and bred only when I needed a new puppy to show for 30 plus years, still go to the odd show. but only to watch, as I am now into rescue dogs, which I find very rewardng.
> 
> But in the show world you always get people who have been in it for five minutes and think they know everything, similar to people on here having bred one litter and know everything about breeding.
> Believe me it takes years on the show scene , and also breeding to understand whats going on.


And lets all be realistic here too when it comes to showing dogs. We all know its not necessarily the best dog on the day who wins rather who is next up for a judging appointment, who is a known face, etc

There are people in my breed who could walk into the ring with a Standard Poodle (not my breed) and still take BOB with it.

We all know that some show dogs are not what they appear to be and are shall we say 'cosmetically enhanced'

When all is said and done all of us who love our breeds can only strive to breed as close to our respective standards and ensure that we produce healthy, happy dogs for future generations. Not much we can really do about those who choose otherwise


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Badwolfe said:


> And lets all be realistic here too when it comes to showing dogs. We all know its not necessarily the best dog on the day who wins rather who is next up for a judging appointment, who is a known face, etc
> 
> There are people in my breed who could walk into the ring with a Standard Poodle (not my breed) and still take BOB with it.
> 
> ...


Whilst I agree that there is, unfortunately, an element of faces being judged rather than dogs, most exhibitors know this beforehand and don't tend to enter their dogs under judges who are known for this. What you also get - certainly in border collies - is that most breed specialist judges can recognise kennel lines. We were at an agricultural show last month and Gracee was given Reserve Best of Breed. The judge didn't know us or her, but afterwards came over to us and said, "That must be a Caleykiz dog," He was right.

As for cosmetic enhancements in inverted commas, I'm not sure what you mean here. I can honestly say with my hand on my heart that I don't know of any "cosmetic enhancements" in either of the breeds I show - unless you are meaning trimming of coats, or dry shampoo on the border collies' white bits if they've walked through a carpark full of muddy puddles. Oh, and I believe they use hairspray to keep the top knot of poodles in place (or so I've heard). Is this the kind of thing you mean? (It's those inverted commas that make me think you mean somethinhg different ...)


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

Badwolfe said:


> And lets all be realistic here too when it comes to showing dogs. We all know its not necessarily the best dog on the day who wins rather who is next up for a judging appointment, who is a known face, etc
> 
> There are people in my breed who could walk into the ring with a Standard Poodle (not my breed) and still take BOB with it.
> 
> ...


Thankyou Badwolfe, but I do know after 30+ yrs in the show world what doe's go on as many people do, but am not inclined to put it in print.
I sure its the same in anything competative.

We always used to say , there are two types of breeders. those who do it for the money, and those who do it for the love of the breed.
Thank goodness, we were the latter.


----------



## Badwolfe (Jul 19, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> Whilst I agree that there is, unfortunately, an element of faces being judged rather than dogs, most exhibitors know this beforehand and don't tend to enter their dogs under judges who are known for this. What you also get - certainly in border collies - is that most breed specialist judges can recognise kennel lines. We were at an agricultural show last month and Gracee was given Reserve Best of Breed. The judge didn't know us or her, but afterwards came over to us and said, "That must be a Caleykiz dog," He was right.
> 
> As for cosmetic enhancements in inverted commas, I'm not sure what you mean here. I can honestly say with my hand on my heart that I don't know of any "cosmetic enhancements" in either of the breeds I show - unless you are meaning trimming of coats, or dry shampoo on the border collies' white bits if they've walked through a carpark full of muddy puddles. Oh, and I believe they use hairspray to keep the top knot of poodles in place (or so I've heard). Is this the kind of thing you mean? (It's those inverted commas that make me think you mean somethinhg different ...)


No Spellweaver I mean in my breed there are people who are known to use Red dye on Shiba's when they are pale or even a shaded red (incorrect colour)


----------



## Badwolfe (Jul 19, 2014)

Honeys mum said:


> Thankyou Badwolfe, but I do know after 30+ yrs in the show world what doe's go on as many people do, but am not inclined to put it in print.
> I sure its the same in anything competative.
> 
> We always used to say , there are two types of breeders. those who do it for the money, and those who do it for the love of the breed.
> Thank goodness, we were the latter.


Why are you not inclined to put it in print? If people were more willing to speak publically about such practices it would be harder to pull them off


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Badwolfe said:


> Why are you not inclined to put it in print? If people were more willing to speak publically about such practices it would be harder to pull them off


People are, can't try and hide the fact that a dog was possibly killed because of being a big CC winner.

Again it's not just just the show world this happens in, I'd be reluctant to say anything on this site about stuff simply because there are certain elements who will only ever use it against you, and they won't see any other side of it.. People get accused of "hiding" things or "pretending" it's not happening, when it's not the case, it more that certain people would cast it back at you, and use it in their one side distorted view of dog showing all they will ever talk about is the bad they forget that everything has many sides, oddly when it comes to their chosen hobby you only ever hear the good and wonderful side  Pot kettle black me thinks............ Lots of wolves in sheep's clothing on here


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

Badwolfe said:


> Why are you not inclined to put it in print? If people were more willing to speak publically about such practices it would be harder to pull them off


Because it's something you just don't do if you want to show,(in what was our breed anyway)., and certainly not on a web site, as its very true what Meezey says.


----------



## Badwolfe (Jul 19, 2014)

Honeys mum said:


> Because it's something you just don't do if you want to show,(in what was our breed anyway)., and certainly not on a web site, as its very true what Meezey says.


Believe me I butted heads with one of the biggest people in Shibas last year over certain unsavoury practices and had a hate campaign launched against me. Thing is I don't intimidate easily and they ended up coming out worst.

I'd do it again in a heartbeat - I'll still show regardless of what they try to do anyway


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Honeys mum said:


> Because it's something you just don't do if you want to show,(in what was our breed anyway)., and certainly not on a web site, as its very true what Meezey says.


Isn't the keeping quiet what perpetrates the whole underhanded side of things, though? I mean, sure, I understand maybe not saying to much on a public forum, but if we're all to just 'shut up' and pretend these things don't happen if we want to continue showing then that's doing our dogs a disservice IMO.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> Isn't the keeping quiet what perpetrates the whole underhanded side of things, though? I mean, sure, I understand maybe not saying to much on a public forum, but if we're all to just 'shut up' and pretend these things don't happen if we want to continue showing then that's doing our dogs a disservice IMO.


Most people don't keep quiet, I personally chose to on this site merely because of the reason I said, only on the site. Certain people use it for their own agenda, and when people show such disdain for something why should I give them ammunition which they will twist and use to their own advantage, because no matter what you say or do it's just not ever going to be good enough and they will always find something to bitch about...


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Badwolfe said:


> Believe me I butted heads with one of the biggest people in Shibas last year over certain unsavoury practices and had a hate campaign launched against me. Thing is I don't intimidate easily and they ended up coming out worst.
> 
> I'd do it again in a heartbeat - I'll still show regardless of what they try to do anyway


As it should be and quite right, but on this forum nope, not ever because the haters just hate more and turn it in another thing to burn show people at the stake for and everyone is tarred with the same brush, stick around you'll see why I say it, and I have no doubt people will be doing whispering pm's about it right now lol :001_tt2:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Badwolfe said:


> No Spellweaver I mean in my breed there are people who are known to use Red dye on Shiba's when they are pale or even a shaded red (incorrect colour)


Really? Crikey! 



Badwolfe said:


> Believe me I butted heads with one of the biggest people in Shibas last year over certain unsavoury practices and had a hate campaign launched against me. Thing is I don't intimidate easily and they ended up coming out worst.
> 
> I'd do it again in a heartbeat - I'll still show regardless of what they try to do anyway


Good for you! My respect for you is increasing with every post you make. :thumbsup:


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Most people don't keep quiet, I personally chose to on this site merely because of the reason I said, only on the site. Certain people use it for their own agenda, and when people show such disdain for something why should I give them ammunition which they will twist and use to their own advantage, because no matter what you say or do it's just not ever going to be good enough and they will always find something to bitch about...


I understand your reasoning. Just wondering whether that's the reason why Honeys mum would prefer not to say anything. Her wording 'you just don't do if you want to show' makes me think that maybe it was best not to speak out at all and just pretend everything was fine which I should imagine goes on a lot behind the scenes.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> I understand your reasoning. Just wondering whether that's the reason why Honeys mum would prefer not to say anything. Her wording 'you just don't do if you want to show' makes me think that maybe it was best not to speak out at all and just pretend everything was fine which I should imagine goes on a lot behind the scenes.


Dogloverlou,i haven't shown for about 10yrs, and some breeds were worse than others.
You just went to a show and enjoyed your day out and made some good friends regardless, some of which we still see, and we used to say , you always took the best dogs home wether you did well or not.
If I didn't like the judgeing you just didn't go under that judge again.
Perhaps its all different now, but I just think you don't make remarks, or prejudge a dog round the ring side, and when i judged I always and still do judged fairley regardless of who was there, which IMO you should always do.

As I said earlier I am now into rescue which i find very rewarding.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

In the good old days, when all pure breed dogs were perfect, the breeding practices were worse than they are now, with less knowledge, it just hadn't affected the dogs yet and if they had something horribly wrong with them vets couldn't do much about it like they can now. It takes a few generations to breed the perfect flat face, but those old time breeders were well on the way to breeding that look they wanted, by heavily inbreeding to fix their types. A lot worse than now, they started the closed books.

I don't think pretty, old time, pure bred dogs are the shining light they're made out to be, or that it's really worth comparing. The end doesn't justify the means imo.

Examine the breeding practices of the day, within the closed stud books and then tell me we should be looking to old time breeders as an example. 

(devil's advocate? :001_tt2: )


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I still remember Rhuna getting placed above someone else's bitch, this person constantly placed Rhuna as low as possible, I got second at a champ show against her bitch, who came some where down the line out of the placings. This is someone who judges, and the look I got when I took Rhuna out for a toilet break, was prize enough in itself. To me, it was the judge on the day who saw something she liked about Rhuna, but I am under no illusions that judges are ALWAYS impartial, same as I am under no illusion that field trial judges are always impartial, because people aren't impartial. 

There are obvious affiliations with some judges, it has a name, ticket swapping. 

I always said, if there was one test I could have above all others, it would be an ethical test for breeders, I'd extend that, and include judges these days.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Elles said:


> In the good old days, when all pure breed dogs were perfect, the breeding practices were worse than they are now, with less knowledge, it just hadn't affected the dogs yet and if they had something horribly wrong with them vets couldn't do much about it like they can now. It takes a few generations to breed the perfect flat face, but those old time breeders were well on the way to breeding that look they wanted, by heavily inbreeding to fix their types. A lot worse than now, they started the closed books.
> 
> I don't think pretty, old time, pure bred dogs are the shining light they're made out to be, or that it's really worth comparing. The end doesn't justify the means imo.
> 
> ...


Not their breeding styles but looking at breeding the more exaggerated dogs back to the way they used to look. We have all the health tests now, we have a much better understanding of behaviour and temperment and how they're inherited so we can use those tools to get the breeds back to how they were. I don't think anyone is arguing for example that we breed danes back to the dogs that were banned from american show rings because they were so vicious when they were first imported or breeding the bad hips they so painstakingly bred out of clumbers back into them.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Ok, so let's say for example, someone, breed club, kennel club, judges, whatever, decides pekes should have longer noses and the longer nosed dogs become the preferred standard. So the breeders keep only the pekes with longer noses (selling the flatter faced ones to pet homes) and breed them to other pekes with longer noses for the swiftest improvement. Making the gene pool even smaller than it is now. It's the same thing. Line breeding for looks, just slightly more functional looks, more functional so long as some other genetic horror doesn't rear it's head.

Is this really wise?

Some people think it would be wiser to open up some if not all of the stud books and relax some of the strict breed standards. It's still possible to breed a type without a closed book and do we really need all these different breeds, conforming to exact standards?

The one thing they all have in common (unless they're wolf crosses), is they're all dogs crossed with dogs.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elles said:


> Ok, so let's say for example, someone, breed club, kennel club, judges, whatever, decides pekes should have longer noses and the longer nosed dogs become the preferred standard. So the breeders keep only the pekes with longer noses (selling the flatter faced ones to pet homes) and breed them to other pekes with longer noses for the swiftest improvement. Making the gene pool even smaller than it is now. It's the same thing. Line breeding for looks, just slightly more functional looks, more functional so long as some other genetic horror doesn't rear it's head.
> 
> Is this really wise?
> 
> ...


Are you asking if we should outcross with wolves? 

(dogs that is)


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Elles said:


> Ok, so let's say for example, someone, breed club, kennel club, judges, whatever, decides pekes should have longer noses and the longer nosed dogs become the preferred standard. So the breeders keep only the pekes with longer noses (selling the flatter faced ones to pet homes) and breed them to other pekes with longer noses for the swiftest improvement. Making the gene pool even smaller than it is now. It's the same thing. Line breeding for looks, just slightly more functional looks, more functional so long as some other genetic horror doesn't rear it's head.
> 
> Is this really wise?
> 
> ...


I hope you're not suggesting we leave pekes as they are? They've gone from one of the kings of the toys to dogs that struggle with breathing and walking freely, they're one of the breeds most in need of help.

I do think allowing some outcrossing would be a good idea, within the species of course breeding wolfdogs is just cruel imo, and in some breeds may be the only way. Like norwegian lundehunds where at conservative estimates 90% of the species is sick with digestive issues. It's allowed in some cat breeds isn't it? So why not with dogs.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

No, I'm saying what you're saying. All of these pedigree pure bred dogs are dogs crossed with dogs, so what's wrong with opening the books and introducing new blood, widening the gene pool, not just the nostrils. If breeding for a longer muzzle (just as a hypothetical example) means sticking to a small gene pool and making it even smaller, I think that wouldn't be wise, but by trying to breed new dogs that look more like the old ones within the same gene pool, that's exactly what's being suggested for many breeds. 

I wonder how many of these old version dogs, held up as an example by people who complain about the dogs of today (like PDE) might just be the result of a brother/sister mating and suffering one or two hidden genetic disorders that plague some breeds? Just because they look good on the outside, doesn't mean they are good on the inside, they were heading down the same cliff face. Maybe I misunderstand, but folk seem to be looking at pictures of dogs and judging whether they're better or not on how they look. Not on how long they lived, or their quality of life, but how long their nose is, or their legs are in comparison to some dogs today, when there's a lot more to it than that. 

I'm just surprised sometimes that some people think it's horrific, an abomination to even think of crossing one breed with another, but they're all dogs. No-one's suggesting crossing them with monkeys, or cats, or to plan setting up the island of Dr Moreau.

(I only mentioned wolf crosses to stop some smart alec saying they aren't all dogs crossed with dogs, what about the wolf crosses lol. Not because I think dogs should be crossed with wolves)


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

It's possible, one of the top champion wolfhounds in the early 1900s was deaf, this was only revealed much later. At the time he seemed perfectly fine, went everywhere with his owner. But we have access to much more health information now that we can and should use as part of the decision to breed. Some people do get so panicked that by suggesting some outcrossing we must want to do away with breeds altogether or we will just end up with a generic mutt. But it might be necessary with some breeds


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Outcrossing may certainly be the way forward for some breeds - but I think you may be arguing for something that is already in place, Elles and Nicky. Have a read of this from the KC site:

"_Limiting the decline of genetic diversity
- Mate Select is a revolutionary new database that was launched by the Kennel Club and the Animal Health Trust, to show breeders the impact a potential mating will have on genetic diversity in the breed, enabling them to make informed decisions. Not only does it show the inbreeding coefficients of individual dogs, and breeds, but also of the puppies of potential matings. The Kennel Club and Animal Health Trust are also looking at Estimated Effective Population sizes, which will show how many genetically different dogs are contributing to specific breeds.

This information will enable informed decisions to be made not only by individual breeders but also about how to whole breeds can be protected. *This will include making decisions about whether outcrossing or the banning of second degree matings is appropriate for certain breeds.* Actions taken must not be counterproductive and the need to prevent the loss of genetic diversity should be balanced with the need to keep healthy dogs in the breeding population.

- *Encouraging outcrossing where this is advantageous to the breedFor example, an application was accepted to register an imported Dalmatian produced from a breeding programme, which was originated with an intentional Pointer/Dalmatian cross. This cross-breeding was carried out in the USA as part of a programme aimed at introducing the low (or normal) uric acid gene into the Dalmatian breed.*

*Other examples of where outcrossing has been accepted and beneficial is the interbreeding of Bull Terriers and Miniature bull Terriers to overcome PLL in Minis; the introduction of a pack Bloodhound to a KC registered Bloodhound line to improve health and the interbreeding of Belgian Shepherd Dog varieties to increase their gene pools.
*
-* Registration of dogs of unverified parentage is now permissible (the ancestry of the dog and how it originated may not be known but if it is judged to look like a particular breed it is admitted to the register in order to increase diversity.*)_"
- See more at: Kennel Club actions to improve dog health

However, the irony of this is that the only breeders likely to be interested in outcrossing are show breeders - the puppy farmers and the BYBs are not interested in the health of the dogs they churn out; all they want something that looks like a pedigree that they can charge a lot of money for.

And we've already established that show breeders are a miniscule minority of all breeders - so even introducing outcrossing and widening the gene pool by allowing in dogs of unverified parentage is unlikely to affect the vast majority of pedigree dogs being bred.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> Outcrossing may certainly be the way forward for some breeds - but I think you may be arguing for something that is already in place, Elles and Nicky. Have a read of this from the KC site:
> 
> "_Limiting the decline of genetic diversity
> - Mate Select is a revolutionary new database that was launched by the Kennel Club and the Animal Health Trust, to show breeders the impact a potential mating will have on genetic diversity in the breed, enabling them to make informed decisions. Not only does it show the inbreeding coefficients of individual dogs, and breeds, but also of the puppies of potential matings. The Kennel Club and Animal Health Trust are also looking at Estimated Effective Population sizes, which will show how many genetically different dogs are contributing to specific breeds.
> ...


If the show breeders are the only ones interested ( which I agree *some* are ) then why was there such a storm created over the acceptance of 'mongrel' LUA Dalmatians? The breed club was very vocal in their displeasure about these dogs. Forget the health benefits to the breed, they were/are 'mongrels' and therefore shouldn't see the light of day  I think things have calmed down somewhat now thankfully. But I can't see outcrossing being widely accepted by the majority of show breeders at all to be honest, and those do speak out and consider such possibilities for the future face being completely shunned within their breed club.

There is another massive issue within the Mastiff world about accepting Pied mastiffs. Again, they're 'mongrels' and the breed club are adamant they won't be considered an accepted colour. It just doesn't make sense.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Dogloverlou said:


> If the show breeders are the only ones interested ( which I agree *some* are ) then why was there such a storm created over the acceptance of 'mongrel' LUA Dalmatians? The breed club was very vocal in their displeasure about these dogs. Forget the health benefits to the breed, they were/are 'mongrels' and therefore shouldn't see the light of day  I think things have calmed down somewhat now thankfully. But I can't see outcrossing being widely accepted by the majority of show breeders at all to be honest, and those do speak out and consider such possibilities for the future face being completely shunned within their breed club.
> 
> There is another massive issue within the Mastiff world about accepting Pied mastiffs. Again, they're 'mongrels' and the breed club are adamant they won't be considered an accepted colour. It just doesn't make sense.


Don't understand your question. Breed clubs aren't made up solely of show people with show dogs - they are a mixture of people from all walks of life with show dogs, working dogs, pet dogs. Hardly fair to lay the blame of what they all think and do solely at the show fraternity, is it? And if you looked into it properly you will see that - at least in the case of the dalmation outcross - her progeny is being shown despite what the breed clubs think and feel. Don't know about the mastiffs but I suspect the same applies.

So - to recap - the KC allows outcrossing, dogs are outcrossed, their progeny are shown - yet once again the blame is - unfairly - directed against the show fraternity. Put the blame where it belongs because continuing to blame a small amount of people who are doing it right, whilst at the same time continuing to ignore the massive amount of people who are doing it wrong, means that nothing is being done in the area where changes need to occur. And the only sufferers are the dogs themsleves.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> Don't understand your question. Breed clubs aren't made up solely of show people - they are a mixture of people from all walks of life. And if you looked into it properly you will see that - at least in the case of the dalmation outcross - her progeny is being shown despite what the breed clubs think and feel. Don;t know about the mastiffs but I suspect the same applies.
> 
> So - to recap - the KC allows outcrossing, dogs are outcrossed, their progeny are shown - yet once again the poor show fraternity gets blamed for something that is not their fault. Such is the way of the world.


Yes, the KC are not the issue here, just as I said a few pages back. In large I think breed clubs hold a great deal of responsibility in regards to the dog's they are producing and unfortunately because of a lot of attitudes within these breed clubs it makes it incredibly difficult for changes to take effect, regardless of the KC's good intentions.

Not sure why whenever someone even dares mention show breeders in any context it's taken as a personal insult and thought of as constant blaming. It's a discussion. Seems rather one sided if we are not meant to mention show breeders through fear of 'offending' anyone. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, wanting to show myself, I'm hardly out to make all show breeders/exhibitors look bad!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> Not sure why whenever someone even dares mention show breeders in any context it's taken as a personal insult and thought of as constant blaming. It's a discussion. Seems rather one sided if we are not meant to mention show breeders through fear of 'offending' anyone. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, wanting to show myself, I'm hardly out to make all show breeders/exhibitors look bad!


Because it is always constant blaming... Same people always laying the blame, so yes the people on here who do show tend to spend a lot of time "defending " the show world. It's also always one side when show people are being ripped new ones for being all to blame in dogdom. So unfortunately as the show world is always being attacked people who hear it all the time respond with defence..............


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Dogloverlou said:


> Yes, the KC are not the issue here, just as I said a few pages back. In large I think breed clubs hold a great deal of responsibility in regards to the dog's they are producing and unfortunately because of a lot of attitudes within these breed clubs it makes it incredibly difficult for changes to take effect, regardless of the KC's good intentions.
> 
> Not sure why whenever someone even dares mention show breeders in any context it's taken as a personal insult and thought of as constant blaming. It's a discussion. Seems rather one sided if we are not meant to mention show breeders through fear of 'offending' anyone. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, wanting to show myself, I'm hardly out to make all show breeders/exhibitors look bad!


I can't undertand how you have interpreted my reply to you as me feeling personally insulted.  You asked:



Dogloverlou said:


> *If the show breeders are the only ones interested ( which I agree *some* are ) then why was there such a storm created over the acceptance of 'mongrel' LUA Dalmatians? *The breed club was very vocal in their displeasure about these dogs. Forget the health benefits to the breed, they were/are 'mongrels' and therefore shouldn't see the light of day  I think things have calmed down somewhat now thankfully. *But I can't see outcrossing being widely accepted by the majority of show breeders at all to be honest, *and those do speak out and consider such possibilities for the future face being completely shunned within their breed club.


And I merely pointed out that
1. breed clubs are not made up solely of show people
2. the progeny of outcrosses have been shown despite breed clubs reactions
3. so therefore why would you attribute the "storm" over outcrossings to be coming from show breeders and extrapolate that to mean that the majority of show people won;t accept outcrosses?

That's not me taking it personally - that's me pointing out inconsistencies 

Believe me, if I were to take something personally - the whole forum and its mother would know about it! :devil: :ihih:

ETA - fortunately, I'm not the "Woe is me" type who puts up threads saying how "everyobody done me wrong" time after time - there are enough of them on here already :lol:


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> I can't undertand how you have interpreted my reply to you as me feeling personally insulted.  You asked:
> 
> And I merely pointed out that
> 1. breed clubs are not made up solely of show people
> ...


Well considering most of the posts here end with - 'yet once again the poor show fraternity gets blamed for something that is not their fault' I'm assuming that it's being taken as a personal insult because you show yourself. Same with why you've posted pictures of your dogs, despite the topic not being about your dogs at all. As if you're out to prove a point and are then deeply offended should anyone question the practices within the show world. But I might be wrong, and if I am I apologize, it's just coming across that way to me.

Actually I'd be inclined to believe that the vast majority of breed club members are people involved in showing or breeding. Certainly within my breed club that's true.

The point I was trying to make was not that these dogs are being shown/accepted by the KC now, but the attitudes at the time and how slow change is coming about because of reluctance within the breed clubs. Breed purists who shun those who speak out about problems within their breed or draw attention to something that could be fixed with an outcross project. I'd like to think these people are in the minority, but I'm not sure I'm convinced that's true.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> There is another massive issue within the Mastiff world about accepting Pied mastiffs. Again, they're 'mongrels' and the breed club are adamant they won't be considered an accepted colour. It just doesn't make sense.


Now was this really the breed club saying this or just snippets of what PDE took off a forum because if you read forums about it there is no such disdain, do you know for sure there isn't a genetic reason the pied is not in the standard.
Strange when things are quoted  There was a judge who just had her appointment cancelled at a club for making comments about Long coat GSD's:

Around the breed shows >Dog World >Dog World Home >Dogworld

Yet not a few days later:

Top Stud Dog >Competitions >Dog World >Dog World Home >Dogworld

By those comments it could be considered as all the breeder and the breed clubs thinking the same as the one judge..

It's already standard in FCI..


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Dogloverlou said:


> Well considering most of the posts here end with - 'yet once again the poor show fraternity gets blamed for something that is not their fault' I'm assuming that it's being taken as a personal insult because you show yourself.


No, it's because it's in response the many posts where "yet once again the poor show fraternity gets blamed for something that is not their fault'" If many posts are doing this, then of course there are just as many responses pointing it out. 



Dogloverlou said:


> Same with why you've posted pictures of your dogs, despite the topic not being about your dogs at all. As if you're out to prove a point and are then deeply offended should anyone question the practices within the show world. But I might be wrong, and if I am I apologize, it's just coming across that way to me.


I think you need to look at the context in which I posted pics of my show dogs. It was a direct response to this post:



ellenlouisepascoe said:


> I challenge anyone to deny that both BYB and Show lines of dogs have some awful deformities.


I responded to that challenge by showing the poster two show lines which do not have awful deformities:



Spellweaver said:


> OK, I challege you to poiint out the deformities in the following show dogs of mine:


I chose to post pictures of my dogs, rather than generic show dogs, for five reasons:

1. I show two breeds that are virtually unaltered since the beginning of the breed
2. They are typical of dogs that are winning in the show ring in that they are regularly placed and in some cases have won RCCs and BOBs
3. I know they are fit and healthy
4. I didn't have to worry about copyright 
5. I prefer arguing from a standpoint if what I actually know rather than what I've read (unlike many posters on here) and I know my dogs an breeds inside out.

And I did provide a rider to say:



Spellweaver said:


> And mine are nothing special in that there are many posters on here with show dogs who could pose you exactly the same challenge.


which, if nothing else, should have alerted you to the fact that this was not personal but that I was speaking for show dogs in general and merely using my own dogs as an example.



Dogloverlou said:


> Actually I'd be inclined to believe that the vast majority of breed club members are people involved in showing or breeding. Certainly within my breed club that's true.


For border collies it's about 50/50. For bergamascos, the majority don't show depite many coercions to do so because we are wanting to move off the Imported Breeds Register.



Dogloverlou said:


> The point I was trying to make was not that these dogs are being shown/accepted by the KC now, but the attitudes at the time and how slow change is coming about because of reluctance within the breed clubs. Breed purists who shun those who speak out about problems within their breed or draw attention to something that could be fixed with an outcross project. I'd like to think these people are in the minority, but I'm not sure I'm convinced that's true.


And if you had made that point instead of saying



Dogloverlou said:


> If the show breeders are the only ones interested ( which I agree *some* are ) then why was there such a storm created over the acceptance of 'mongrel' LUA Dalmatians?


and



Dogloverlou said:


> But I can't see outcrossing being widely accepted by the majority of show breeders at all to be honest,


then I would have agreed with you and there would have been no need for me to have used the phrase "yet once again the poor show fraternity gets blamed for something that is not their fault'


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

This video has got nearly a million hits of youtube and 20,000+ 'likes':
(warning: If you didn't like pedigree dogs exposed this might make you explode)

[youtube_browser]aCv10_WvGxo[/youtube_browser]

Now it's clearly satire and will provoke people but beyond that it makes some valid points:

1) Purebreeding is not how we've always 'done' dogs. Pure bred dogs were a product of Victorian dog shows which were in themselves nothing more than a parade of curiosities - the dogs health and function was not considered. That is the origin of the dog show movement regardless of what we think of it today. That means people have a responsibility to get it right, it's not automatically the best thing for the dogs.

2) The American dog show scene is a mess. The AKC has refused to moderate breed standards and refused to act on inbreeding. You only have to look to Westminster to see some of the sorry results of this , dogs disabled by their conformation and extreme coats that serve no purpose other than to show off hair dressing skills. The question has to be posed that if show breeders in this country were given the same loose regulations as the USA would they do similar? The changes to the breed standards here were forced largely by pressure from outside the show world and it seems clear that some show folk just don't see what they have done to the dogs they proclaim to love (brachycephalic breeds are a good example of this). The reason why the above video is so popular is because of what people are genuinely seeing from *some* show breeders.

Reading through this thread the main argument against criticism of dog shows is 'don't look at us, there isn't many of us and the byb are doing a lot worse'. That's no defence, it's a deflection and it simply doesn't hold. If an organic chicken farm gets inspected and welfare problems found then they can't say 'but battery farms are worse' and not expect egg buyers still to go elsewhere. If show breeders are going to hold themselves up as being 'better' than byb or puppy farmers then they are going to be held to higher standards. People criticise back yard breeders and puppy farmers all the time but when you see bad practice from the 'elite', those heralded as knowing better then it's natural that they are going to be strongly questioned about it.

There's also a trend of some taking criticism of showing very personally indeed, they respond not with reasoned argument but as though you've insulted their 90 year old gran. Rather than continually striving to improve what showing does for dogs or even improve the public image of show dogs they dig into a defensive position and come out looking worse to anyone not in the 'scene', if anyone questions an aspect of the showing they're clearly a 'hater' with a 'biased agenda'. It makes it difficult to see how these people could ever question something themselves when they deal with it so very emotionally, would they act even if things were going badly wrong?

I'm not against dog shows and I know there are fantastic breeders doing fantastic things. I also know that many pure bred dogs are not cripples and also that byb breeders and puppy farmers have a massive influence on dog welfare. That said, there are some sections of showing culture that worry me and some inherent parts that I don't see being questioned enough from within (closed gene pools etc). These problems are not going to be solved when I see seemingly sane show people curling up in defensive positions unwilling to really look at and improve their own community.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

lennythecloud said:


> 1) Purebreeding is not how we've always 'done' dogs. Pure bred dogs were a product of Victorian dog shows which were in themselves nothing more than a parade of curiosities - the dogs health and function was not considered. That is the origin of the dog show movement regardless of what we think of it today. That means people have a responsibility to get it right, it's not automatically the best thing for the dogs.
> 
> These problems are not going to be solved when I see seemingly sane show people curling up in defensive positions unwilling to really look at and improve their own community.


Breeds of dogs have been around for many centuries. The first recorded dog show for hounds was in 1775. The first show for different breeds (which was for setters and pointers) was in 1859 and 36 different breeds were exhibited at the first Crufts in 1891. I could go on.

The Breed standards were drawn up in the 19th century. I agree health and function was not an issue (which we are slowly trying to recover from), but purebred dogs have been round a very long time. Don't forget they evolved from people wanting them to do a job of work!

With the industrial revolution people started moving into towns and urban areas. These people used to keep animals in the country, so took with them what they could. Dogs changed from being necessary to herd, hunt or guard, and became companions. When dog fighting was made illegal in 1835 people (not all unfortunately) turned to showing off their dog's conformation and their breeding stock instead. Many dogs were no longer working dogs, and people began to breed more for looks than ability.

The reason why show people get defensive is _what more can we be expected to do?_ We try to breed to the new standards (or better) do all the recommended health tests (or more) and all we get is criticism all the time for unethical breeding practices which started over 150 years ago!


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

lennythecloud said:


> Reading through this thread the main argument against criticism of dog shows is 'don't look at us, there isn't many of us and the byb are doing a lot worse'. That's no defence, it's a deflection and it simply doesn't hold. If an organic chicken farm gets inspected and welfare problems found then they can't say 'but battery farms are worse' and not expect egg buyers still to go elsewhere. If show breeders are going to hold themselves up as being 'better' than byb or puppy farmers then they are going to be held to higher standards. People criticise back yard breeders and puppy farmers all the time but when you see bad practice from the 'elite', those heralded as knowing better then it's natural that they are going to be strongly questioned about it.
> 
> There's also a trend of some taking criticism of showing very personally indeed, they respond not with reasoned argument but as though you've insulted their 90 year old gran. Rather than continually striving to improve what showing does for dogs or even improve the public image of show dogs they dig into a defensive position and come out looking worse to anyone not in the 'scene', if anyone questions an aspect of the showing they're clearly a 'hater' with a 'biased agenda'. It makes it difficult to see how these people could ever question something themselves when they deal with it so very emotionally, would they act even if things were going badly wrong?


This is exactly what I see, in practically every topic that relates to purebreds and the show world, there is a few that will continually try to bury their heads in the sand and deflect from what is happening within the show community and then ultimately do the same as they criticize others of doing to show people by heaping the blame elsewhere with BYB's and puppy farmers. It's those breeders/owners I'm sure we can all agree on are the worrying influence on our much loved breeds. But unfortunately they more often than not hold a lot of power within their breed club and are to respected for anyone to challenge.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Outcrossing may be allowed by the kc but you did see the tantrums being thrown when the lua dalmatians were registered right? Most of the other crosses allowed are within varieties of the same breeds english bull terriers/mini bull terriers, the belgian shepherds. It's not the kc at fault it's the breeders that are so concerned that by outcrossing a few times we're headed down the path of no breeds or generic mutts. 

There are many breeders trying especially in the hpb breeds. I was very impressed by one peke breeder who said that just because one had passed I think 15 health checks at that point didn't mean he and the rest of the breed didn't need serious work. I can understand those breeders being angry when they're lumped in with the people willing to sacrifice health and temperment to win a ribbon.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I'm not blaming anyone specifically, or any type of person, or show people, or anyone. There is no blame.

My posts say what I'd like to see with dogs generally, pure bred dogs specifically, simply because at the moment they are the only ones with records and the only ones bred in a particular way for a particular reason. (other than doodles and some other crosses, which pure breds are involved in anyway)

I don't care who breeds them. You could be Fred Bloggs down the road, the winner of Crufts, or the owner of best herding sheepdog for all I care.

Just breed healthy, long lived, happy dogs. I happen to believe that line breeding and closed gene pools aren't the way to go for the future, so if you're a person who does think line breeding and perfectly fixed traits is the way to go, you're going to think I'm blaming you, or having a go at you in some way. No, I'm not. It's the accepted practices I don't like. I'd like to see it more open, like the breeding of other species for function where closed books are a rarity, rather than the norm.

I will never have another dog at this rate. When all I can choose from are pedigree pure-breds (or F+ pure bred crosses), or carelessly bred mongrels.

For me neither is ideal and as I get older another working bred collie (with a touch of farm jack russel ) probably wouldn't be a good idea, as I wouldn't be sure I could give them all they need. 

Which is why I watch these threads and sometimes post. Maybe one day someone will do something I do like and I'll get another dog, or maybe I'm just too demanding.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> Reading through this thread the main argument against criticism of dog shows is 'don't look at us, there isn't many of us and the byb are doing a lot worse'. That's no defence, it's a deflection and it simply doesn't hold.


We seem to be reading a different thread. The posts I've read (and written) supporting show breeders have been saying that show breeders are a miniscule percentage of breeders - and, what is more, a miniscule percentage of breeders who are striving to improve breeds. The posts that I've read (and witten) are saying that yes, there are some bad breeders in the show scene and that needs to be sorted out. The posts I've read (and written) are saying that no matter what this miniscule proportion of breeders do, it is not going to have much effect on pedigree breeds as a whole when the other 99.93% of pedigree breeders are unregulated, are not interested in improving breeds, and are breeding poor pedigrees merely for money.

Far different from the picture you paint above. There's no deflection. Just common sense. Comon sense, however, flies out of the window when you try to blame 0.07% of pedigree breeders for what the other 99.93% are doing.



lennythecloud said:


> There's also a trend of some taking criticism of showing very personally indeed, they respond not with reasoned argument but as though you've insulted their 90 year old gran. Rather than continually striving to improve what showing does for dogs or even improve the public image of show dogs they dig into a defensive position and come out looking worse to anyone not in the 'scene', if anyone questions an aspect of the showing they're clearly a 'hater' with a 'biased agenda'. It makes it difficult to see how these people could ever question something themselves when they deal with it so very emotionally, would they act even if things were going badly wrong?


So if we say don't look at us and ignore you we're deflecting the issue, yet if we put reasoned argument forward - with examples from our own dogs to illustrate what we mean - we're taking it personally? You accuse us untruthfully of not striving to improve our breeds, then accuse us of being defensive when we defend our position by explaining and showing what is being done in the show scene; and when we explain that, for these improvements to have any effect on dogs as a whole, ithey also need to be taken on board by the other 99.93% of pedigree breeders, you accuse us of trying to deflect the issue.

With attacks like that, we're in a no-win situation.



lennythecloud said:


> I don't see being questioned enough from within (closed gene pools etc). These problems are not going to be solved when I see seemingly sane show people curling up in defensive positions unwilling to really look at and improve their own community.


Perhaps you ought to read the thread I've been reading - in particular the post I made about about show breeders outcrossing and registering dogs from unproven lines.

Do you honestly wonder why show breeders get defensive? You ignore all the discussion to the contrary, you ignore the reasoned argument with good examples and links, you accuse us simultaneously of not caring and of taking it personally; you accuse us of burying our heads in the sand and trying to deflect a problem onto others, of not wanting to improve our own community, and of not questioning closed gene pools, despite the provision of current links and pictures to confirm the points we're making to the contrary - and then in order to "prove" your point all you can do is drag up a skit of a program from years ago - and an inaccurate skit at that (do you really believe you never see a small happy dog? And that was just ONE of the inacuracies) - and talk about the American show scene. But hey, blame the UK show breeders for that - after all, all the ills that befall dogdom are our fault because if we try to point out where blame lies elsewhere we're deflecting the issue, digging in and being defensive.



Dogloverlou said:


> This is exactly what I see, in practically every topic that relates to purebreds and the show world, there is a few that will continually try to bury their heads in the sand and deflect from what is happening within the show community and then ultimately do the same as they criticize others of doing to show people by heaping the blame elsewhere with BYB's and puppy farmers. It's those breeders/owners I'm sure we can all agree on are the worrying influence on our much loved breeds. But unfortunately they more often than not hold a lot of power within their breed club and are to respected for anyone to challenge.


If this is aimed at me, as all your previous erroneous accusations have been, I hold no power at all within the border collie breed so come on, put your money where your mouth is - either put up some proof of your accusations or apologise.

Of course, you're going to say you didn't mean me at all and this reply to your post is merely proof that I am taking things personally when I shouldn't. As I said earlier, it's a no-win situation. As show breeders we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

There's no defence against people who read written words, ignore them, and then write their own version in their heads.

Meezey, you tried to explain early on in this thread why show breeders got so defensive on here - can't remember who it was to - but I think we should thank Lenny and DogLoverLou for providing such exellent examples of what you meant.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> I'm not blaming anyone specifically, or any type of person, or show people, or anyone. There is no blame.
> 
> My posts say what I'd like to see with dogs generally, pure bred dogs specifically, simply because at the moment they are the only ones with records and the only ones bred in a particular way for a particular reason. (other than doodles and some other crosses, which pure breds are involved in anyway)
> 
> ...


Elles, your posts are like a breath of fresh air - I've always respected you as one of the few posters who can take an objective view of both sides of an argument and argue your points clearly. We have had some interesting discussions over the years, mostly from opposite sides of a subject, and many's the time we've agreed to disagree, but there's never been any hissy fits or personal accusations flying around and I've always enjoyed discussing things with you.

My only gripe is you don't post often enough.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> If this is aimed at me, as all your previous erroneous accusations have been, I hold no power at all within the border collie breed so come on, put your money where your mouth is - either put up some proof of your accusations or apologise.
> 
> Of course, you're going to say you didn't mean me at all and this reply to your post is merely proof that I am taking things personally when I shouldn't. As I said earlier, it's a no-win situation. As show breeders we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
> 
> ...


The sad fact is I really wasn't meaning you. I was talking in general, as this topic isn't unique to this forum and I've seen it debated time and time again.

But then again, you're not going to believe that and will continue to jump to your own conclusions.

*Sigh*

All I know is, when I take my puppy to his first show in a couple of months I sure as hell hope I don't feel as 'victimized' as you're making out yourself and show breeders/exhibitors so obviously are.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

BessieDog said:


> Breeds of dogs have been around for many centuries. The first recorded dog show for hounds was in 1775. The first show for different breeds (which was for setters and pointers) was in 1859 and 36 different breeds were exhibited at the first Crufts in 1891. I could go on.
> 
> The Breed standards were drawn up in the 19th century. I agree health and function was not an issue (which we are slowly trying to recover from), but purebred dogs have been round a very long time. Don't forget they evolved from people wanting them to do a job of work!


Breed types have existed for centuries but the policy of pure breeding and the standardisation of breeds to look like near clones is a Victorian ideal undeniably originally based on eugenics theory, other than that there is no real reason for it. It's difficult to imagine a time before this but for most of history people didn't divide dogs into tiny populations and obsess over minute details of their construction. People bred types to do a job of work and I dare say people selected for looks but crossbreeding and having a 'non-breed' colour was not a hanging offence back then.



BessieDog said:


> The reason why show people get defensive is what more can we be expected to do? We try to breed to the new standards (or better) do all the recommended health tests (or more) and all we get is criticism all the time for unethical breeding practices which started over 150 years ago


This is what worries me, you seem to be saying 'we've sorted it, now leave us alone'. Are you saying that all breeders are breeding ethically? Nothing left to be done? Are all accepting of the new rules? Some dogs are still unacceptably exaggerated (pekinese.....) and some dogs are still unacceptably inbred ( the crufts bis winner came from a half sib mating when st poodles are on a downward spiral genetically as it is). I fully appreciate the changes many breeders and judges have made (under pressure) and they should be applauded but it's the continued lack of enthusiasm for improvement from within the show world that fails to reassure me that history won't be repeated.


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

BessieDog said:


> The reason why show people get defensive is _what more can we be expected to do?_ We try to breed to the new standards (or better) do all the recommended health tests (or more) and all we get is criticism all the time for unethical breeding practices which started over 150 years ago!


but no one here is laying any blame with you guys specifically! to everyone who shows and breeds for show here i have said at least once that i'm in awe of your dogs. i respect every regularly posting breeder on here, as well as the exhibitors we have on this forum, and i'm assuming most if not all of the others will agree with me on that.
soo you guys are doing great- health and temperment are right up there level with or above looks- only looks because conformation can determine the dogs abilities for life in its own right.

but everyone who shows isn't the same. the people we mean who are ignoring health issues and brushing information under the carpet are the same ones that you good, responsible, passionate exhibitors also dislike. but they do still exist. 

take the breed club comments- i know from here that there are soooooo many fantastically helpful and unbiased breed clubs for every breed of dog. but our YT breed club? it had maybe 8 members, all friends and family of the chairman. (just an example of an anomaly)

same as i bet that all of your puppy buyers will be vetted like the spanish inquisition when they come to talk about your pups (that's right bess- you better come in to season again for your mommy on schedule!) but again not all do that 
and more and more on the free-ads sites we are seeing ads stating, normally in capitals, how 'mum and dad are both from champion lines' or 'grandparents show dogs' etc. now that isn't the fault of you guys, nor is it always the fault of the breeders who own said grandparents as i'm all too aware that people can and do lie and deceive to get a breeding dog. but there are also those 'show people' who use the 'show dog' part to sell pups. lots and lots of pups. the number of people boasting 'top show lines' on gumtree can be very alarming at times indeed! 

again, that has nothing to do with those who do everything responsibly, but once the bybs get their hands on a 'champion lines' dog they Will breed it with this as advertising. and many buyers who haven't done their homework will assume they have went to a good breeder because 'the dogs family have been shown'. (buyers fault there for not researching more of course).

so it may be only 0.07% of breeders are show breeders, but there are those 'with show lines' who have gotten their dog from a good breeder and bred on from it anyway, then they sell their pups to another byb who does the same, and the same, and the same.

i'm just trying to say again really, that it isn't any one area of breeding to be blamed at all- certainly not all show breeders, but certainly not all pet breeders. everyone involved with a breed needs to get... involved! and arguing amongst ourselves isn't gonna fix anything. what we need to do is get more pet people aware of the likes of breed clubs and health testing and COIs, and that's something i'll be talking over with the new owner of the vets i'll be training in- i want permission to print out posters, laminate them, and stick them all over reception! all about responsible breeding, responsible buying and general pet responsibility!
(and i've told a friend of mine who is Very involved in toy breed showing that should another YT club ever be established here he has to let me know while it is in its infancy because i want to be involved!!!)

(and my heads still bad today, so if that still doesn't make sense then my apologies!)


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

kodakkuki said:


> but no one here is laying any blame with you guys specifically! to everyone who shows and breeds for show here i have said at least once that i'm in awe of your dogs. i respect every regularly posting breeder on here, as well as the exhibitors we have on this forum, and i'm assuming most if not all of the others will agree with me on that.
> soo you guys are doing great- health and temperment are right up there level with or above looks- only looks because conformation can determine the dogs abilities for life in its own right.
> 
> but everyone who shows isn't the same. the people we mean who are ignoring health issues and brushing information under the carpet are the same ones that you good, responsible, passionate exhibitors also dislike. but they do still exist.
> ...


The voice of reason! Agree with all of your points made here ( and it made perfect sense to me  )


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Dogloverlou said:


> The sad fact is I really wasn't meaning you. I was talking in general, as this topic isn't unique to this forum and I've seen it debated time and time again.
> 
> But then again, you're not going to believe that and will continue to jump to your own conclusions.
> 
> ...


Yep, knew that would be your reply. After all, I virtually wrote it for you myself, didn't I?.

When you start showing your dog, and gain some experience in the show world, you will begin to realise just what silliness you've been espousing on here. But don't worry, the show world is accommodating; we'll still accept you, red face and all.

Whether or not it will make you feel victimised when you have to put up with post after post, thread after thread, of such silliness from other people who clearly don't know what they're talking about telling you what you are doing is wrong and is causing every ill that befalls dogdom, is up to you and how you react.

I suspect you will be just like the rest of us - you will defend what you think needs defending, blame what you think needs blaming, put right what it is in your power to put right, and laugh at some of the ridiculousness that is posted on here with other like-minded people.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> Yep, knew that would be your reply. After all, I virtually wrote it for you myself, didn't I?. (and actually accusing me
> 
> When you start showing your dog, and gain some experience in the show world, you will begin to realise just what silliness you've been espousing on here. But don't worry, the show world is accommodating; we'll still accept you, red face and all.
> 
> ...


Oh deary me. Challenge for you - pull up ANY post of mine here I've made that I've out right said show breeders are to blame for all the problems in purebreds. At least I had the blimmin' decency to apologize if I was making assumptions based on your earlier post 

Maybe if you'd read my earlier posts a little more clearly you wouldn't have jumped to such outlandish claims.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Dogloverlou said:


> Oh deary me. Challenge for you - pull up ANY post of mine here I've made that I've out right said show breeders are to blame for all the problems in purebreds. At least I had the blimmin' decency to apologize if I was making assumptions based on your earlier post
> 
> Maybe if you'd read my earlier posts a little more clearly you wouldn't have jumped to such outlandish claims.


Tut tut - you shouldn't take things so _*personally*_. :hand:

(Opens eyes wide and puts tongue firmly in cheek because two can play at that game)

"The sad fact is I really wasn't meaning you. I was talking in general, as this topic isn't unique to this forum and I've seen it debated time and time again."

(Crikey, there's a real feeling of deja vu around here - now where have I seen the above sentence before?)


----------



## Badwolfe (Jul 19, 2014)

This is starting to get a bit personal on here now and everyone needs to have a big group hug :001_tt1:

I can see the argument from both sides of the fence but we will only solve this problem if things like puppy farming, irresponsible BYB'ing and the shadier elements in the show world are brought into check. In reality this is not likely to happen.

The problem us breeders / exhibitors must understand and accept is that for the majority of Joe Bloggs we are the public face of pedigree dogs and therefore will be perceived every time as the ones responsible for every ill that befalls any breed. People love scandal and are only too happy not to research out the truth for themselves

As breeders all we can do is strive to do the best we can for each and every one of the dogs we produce. The litter I'm currently expecting is from parents of good breed type, both with stud book numbers, are both fully health tested and will produce puppies with a COI of 0%. Its all I can do to ensure I produce healthy happy puppies

We all have a duty as responsible dog owners to educate people as much as we can to ensure that all the breeds are brought up to good healthy standards. This is a big enough battle in itself without making it harder by fighting amongst ourselves


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> Tut tut - you shouldn't take things so _*personally*_. :hand:
> 
> (Opens eyes wide and puts tongue firmly in cheek because two can play at that game)
> 
> ...


You've lost me entirely now 

Probably a good time to shrug my shoulders and let you get on with it. We've both said our piece and there's nothing more to be said really is there?


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> We seem to be reading a different thread. The posts I've read (and written) supporting show breeders have been saying that show breeders are a miniscule percentage of breeders - and, what is more, a miniscule percentage of breeders who are striving to improve breeds. The posts that I've read (and witten) are saying that yes, there are some bad breeders in the show scene and that needs to be sorted out. The posts I've read (and written) are saying that no matter what this miniscule proportion of breeders do, it is not going to have much effect on pedigree breeds as a whole when the other 99.93% of pedigree breeders are unregulated, are not interested in improving breeds, and are breeding poor pedigrees merely for money.
> 
> Far different from the picture you paint above. There's no deflection. Just common sense. Comon sense, however, flies out of the window when you try to blame 0.07% of pedigree breeders for what the other 99.93% are doing.


I don't understand where I'm going wrong. Your argument still seems to be 'we are a minority, we're responsible and we can't influence things anyway so look over there instead'. The major point is that when you hold yourself up as being a knowledgeable, responsible group, people are going to interrogate that claim in detail. You say bad breeders are in the minority, and I don't necessarily doubt that, but then I look at certain breeds and think a) most of those dogs suffer because of how they have been bred b) the people within that breed are responsible for that and c) how can people within other breeds have allowed that to go on without fuss until outside influences forced change? The people in the latter group have made a rod for their own back.



Spellweaver said:


> So if we say don't look at us and ignore you we're deflecting the issue, yet if we put reasoned argument forward - with examples from our own dogs to illustrate what we mean - we're taking it personally? You accuse us untruthfully of not striving to improve our breeds, then accuse us of being defensive when we defend our position by explaining and showing what is being done in the show scene; and when we explain that, for these improvements to have any effect on dogs as a whole, ithey also need to be taken on board by the other 99.93% of pedigree breeders, you accuse us of trying to deflect the issue.
> 
> With attacks like that, we're in a no-win situation.


whoa there...I made some observational points, you decide to put words in my mouth and perceive it as an 'attack'. This is exactly my point, you're being defensive and denying you're being defensive at the same time.....



Spellweaver said:


> Perhaps you ought to read the thread I've been reading - in particular the post I made about about show breeders outcrossing and registering dogs from unproven lines.


This is the definite exception to the rule and you only have to look at the extreme opposition to the LUA dalmatians to see that. There are multiple breeds divided purely because of coat type, size or ear set that are not allowed to be out crossed or are under very limited circumstances. The reasons given against such matings often have much to do with 'purity' and 'mongrelness' than any real influence it would have on the dogs.



Spellweaver said:


> Do you honestly wonder why show breeders get defensive? You ignore all the discussion to the contrary, you ignore the reasoned argument with good examples and links, you accuse us simultaneously of not caring and of taking it personally; you accuse us of burying our heads in the sand and trying to deflect a problem onto others, of not wanting to improve our own community, and of not questioning closed gene pools, despite the provision of current links and pictures to confirm the points we're making to the contrary - and then in order to "prove" your point all you can do is drag up a video from a program from years ago and talk about the American show scene. But hey, blame the UK show breeders for that - after all, all the ills that befall dogdom are our fault because if we try to point out where blame lies elsewhere we're deflecting the issue, digging in and being defensive.


Seriously, calm down. I'm not stupid, I know the changes that some breeders are trying to make and clearly acknowledged that. I made my point as an outside observer, not inherently against show dogs and I'm calling it as I see it. If what I'm seeing is an incorrect manifestation of what's actually happening then, as I said, that's a public relations problem that the show scene needs to address.

The video I posted was published on youtube a couple of days ago. It's satire, I don't base my opinion on it. I used it to raise some points about how the dog show scene is perceived. Dog showing is dog showing and the American scene is a great example of how it can go very wrong. If a certain program had not shone a very bright spotlight on the show world and certain breed clubs were not forced to change, would we have ended up like the states? I think maybe we could have done.


----------



## Badwolfe (Jul 19, 2014)

lennythecloud said:


> If a certain program had not shone a very bright spotlight on the show world and certain breed clubs were not forced to change, would we have ended up like the states? I think maybe we could have done.


No Lenny it wouldn't have done. The UK KC seems to be far more proactive regarding breed standards than the US one does

Remember breed standards are initially written by the breed clubs and then scrutinized by the KC.

Anyone can become a member of a breed club and have a vote on whether a change to a breed standard is put forward to the KC. Breed clubs are not the sole dominion of dog exhibitors and I'd urge anyone who owns a pedigree dog to become a member of their respective breed club


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Badwolfe said:


> No Lenny it wouldn't have done. The UK KC seems to be far more proactive regarding breed standards than the US one does
> 
> Remember breed standards are initially written by the breed clubs and then scrutinized by the KC.
> 
> *Anyone can become a member of a breed club and have a vote on whether a change to a breed standard is put forward to the KC. Breed clubs are not the sole dominion of dog exhibitors and I'd urge anyone who owns a pedigree dog to become a member of their respective breed club. *


See, this absolutely should be the case, but it isn't in Every club. As I say, the breed club here was very much one sided. I tried several times to get in it but was told he'd ask everyone else at the next meeting every time. It never happened (The club has since disappeared though). 
So it isn't always as easy to get involved as it should be, which is a huge failure on those select fees part.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

My breed club isn't hard to get into, but my first experience of talking to someone within the breed club left me feeling totally bewildered and offended to be honest. Thankfully I am willing to give it a chance though and assume that not all of the members are like that! But yes, hardly a warm welcome.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Badwolfe said:


> No Lenny it wouldn't have done. The UK KC seems to be far more proactive regarding breed standards than the US one does
> 
> Remember breed standards are initially written by the breed clubs and then scrutinized by the KC.


Another controversial question (a question not an 'attack', I promise) - If breed clubs have the very best interests of their dogs at heart, why do we need to rely on the KC to be the 'standards police'?

The alteration of some breeds before the 'change' was worrying and if that culture was allowed to progress, though it may have taken a while, I'm not convinced it wouldn't have gotten worse. The fact that the 2003 crufts BIS winner had surgery to correct a fault and needed icepack cooling during the show (and was later defended by the KC), clearly demonstrated how far things had gone down a pretty murky road.


----------



## Badwolfe (Jul 19, 2014)

lennythecloud said:


> Another controversial question (a question not an 'attack', I promise) - If breed clubs have the very best interests of their dogs at heart, why do we need to rely on the KC to be the 'standards police'?
> 
> The alteration of some breeds before the 'change' was worrying and if that culture was allowed to progress, though it may have taken a while, I'm not convinced it wouldn't have gotten worse. The fact that the 2003 crufts BIS winner had surgery to correct a fault and needed icepack cooling during the show (and was later defended by the KC), clearly demonstrated how far things had gone down a pretty murky road.


Because they are the impartial party Lenny. Its pretty much the same with any organisation - there is always an impartial supervisory body


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> I don't understand where I'm going wrong. Your argument still seems to be 'we are a minority, we're responsible and we can't influence things anyway so look over there instead'.


No, my argument is as I've already stated: we are doing what we can; we are working to improve our breeds, but whatever good we do is going to be of minimal effect unless the majority of pedigree breeders also take on the same responsibility. The difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying is this:

You think I am saying "look over there instead"
But I am actually saying, "look over there *as wel*l".

I accept the responsibility in that I and the rest of the show fraternity can and should and do influence what we do. But I am also asking that it be recognised that, because of the sheer numbers involved, there be a recognition that even if we *could* manage to improve things to the extent that every single show dog is bred to be the most perfect, most healthy specimen in the world, the percentages involved would *still* mean that the majority of pedigree dogs would still not be bred well - in fact over 99% would still be bred by people who don't give a toss about health or good breeding. I and other show breeders can't have an effect on that part of it. We can only have an effect in our own field. I am not saying that this means we shouldn't continue to strive to breed healthy show dogs, just that it won't have the effect on the health of pedigree dogs in general that people seem to think it will.

So because that 99% of pedigree dogs will still be unhealthy in spite of the best efforts of show breeders, please do not lay the blame for this 99% of unhealthy pedigrees at our door when we are the ones who *are* actively working to better the breeds.

Now can you see the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying?


----------



## Margelli (Jun 23, 2014)

If the non show breeders do not do anything then there is small hope. The show breeders can only set an example, if the non show do not wish to follow it that is not the show worlds fault. 

You can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink, comes to mind.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> Another controversial question (a question not an 'attack', I promise) - If breed clubs have the very best interests of their dogs at heart, why do we need to rely on the KC to be the 'standards police'?
> 
> The alteration of some breeds before the 'change' was worrying and if that culture was allowed to progress, though it may have taken a while, I'm not convinced it wouldn't have gotten worse. *The fact that the 2003 crufts BIS winner had surgery to correct a fault* and needed icepack cooling during the show (and was later defended by the KC), clearly demonstrated how far things had gone down a pretty murky road.


You see, this is why we get so cross. You say you don't mean it as an attack, and so I accept that, but you really cannot go around making assertions that are untrue. Danny did not have surgery to correct a fault; that was merely what the hack who first accused him said.

This is the truth:

_"Having thoroughly researched the matter and taken veterinary advice, the Kennel Club can now confirm that no breach of its regulations occurred. The dog had undergone surgery to alleviate an acquired respiratory tract condition but, *as this procedure did not alter the natural conformation of the dog*, 'permission to show' was not required from the Kennel Club"._
Our Dogs Newspaper - News, breeders, showdogs, dog breeds, pedigree show dogs, canine clubs, web design, website uk

When people prefer untrue assertions to the truth, and promote those untruths on open forums, it is no wonder that most people think show dogs are much unhealthier than they are in reality.

As for dogs being on ice packs - and at the risk of being told I'm making it personal again - most of the border collies (in fact quite a lot of breeds) at Leeds show were sporting cooling coats last weekend because of the heat - does that make them unhealthy or does that merely mean their owners were making sure their dogs didn't overheat? What's the difference between that and Danny's owner making sure he didn't overheat under the hot lights at Crufts?

I'm certainly no fan of brachycephalic dogs and welcome the initiative to breed for longer muzzles, but I also am no fan of using untruths to support a point.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> No, my argument is as I've already stated: we are doing what we can; we are working to improve our breeds, but whatever good we do is going to be of minimal effect unless the majority of pedigree breeders also take on the same responsibility. The difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying is this:
> 
> You think I am saying "look over there instead"
> But I am actually saying, "look over there *as wel*l".
> ...


In a nutshell


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> You see, this is why we get so cross. You say you don't mean it as an attack, and so I accept that, but you really cannot go around making assertions that are untrue. Danny did not have surgery to correct a fault; that was merely what the hack who first accused him said.
> 
> This is the truth:
> 
> ...


I wasn't attacking anyone before but I will happily attack whoever created that poor, disabled dog and other dogs like him all day long. That dog could not act like a dog because of what had been done to him for the show ring and I find that utterly, utterly sickening.

Your 'truth' is out of date and incorrect by the way. The show worlds favourite journalist did some digging and discovered the surgery was in fact a soft palette resection, this was revealed on pedigree dogs exposed (you have watched it?), a vet from the rvc seemed to corroborate it and as far as I know it has not been denied and JH has not been sued.

Danny was put on an ice pack because his terrible conformation put him at a high risk of dying upon exertion, the peke that won Westminster a couple of years back also needed it. Do more moderate dogs need an ice pack after a short walk round the best in show ring? I bet they don't. It's a totally different situation to cooling dogs in exceptionally hot outside weather.

This is again what I mean - you're so defensive about show dogs you'll seemingly defend anything, even what I'd call indefensible cruelty.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

How ironic that in America some breeds have to have surgery to correct a conformation fault, or at least enhance their looks in the eye of some beholders and we've done it over here too. (cropped ears, docked tails.. ) for that you can't blame just show breeders, all walks of life do it and vets are paid to do it for them.



It's odd that it's more important that the dog hasn't undergone plastic surgery to enhance his looks, than had to have surgery to enhance his quality of life. Maybe not. The Joan Rivers, or Pete Burns of dogs. :yikes:

Maybe make it so that dogs who have cosmetic surgery can't be shown at all, but dogs that have surgery for illness that could be related to their conformation should be carefully considered too, maybe they are and maybe I'd just think it doesn't go far enough, or some people avoid it, or would avoid it even if necessary so they can still show their dog. 

I suspect that his extreme brachycephaly still had a part to play in why he needed the surgery, whether the surgery altered his looks or conformation or not though. Dogs with extreme flat faces and squashed nostrils who snuffle and snort make me feel very uncomfortable, so I'd like any excuse to see an end to them.

In the good old days of course, vets didn't have the skills they have now, so extreme dogs who couldn't function wouldn't be operated on, well they might, but it'd be their last operation. 

I've found my person of blame. Vets, vet researchers and veterinary science. If it hadn't advanced, natural selection would still have a part to play and some breeds would have had to die out or change. :yesnod: So yes, if we're playing the blame game, some vets will have to take some of the responsibility too. Taking into account that some people enjoy having an expensive sick dog. It makes them feel good taking them to the vet and spending all that money and time on poor little rover.

Have I left anyone out? 

Cripes, aren't we a horrible species. :thumbdown:


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Elles said:


> Maybe make it so that dogs who have cosmetic surgery can't be shown at all, but dogs that have surgery for illness that could be related to their conformation should be carefully considered too


That's already in place, at least in the UK.


----------



## Badwolfe (Jul 19, 2014)

Elles said:


> Have I left anyone out?
> 
> Cripes, aren't we a horrible species. :thumbdown:


Possibly alien intervention?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

In the Spellweaver link I read, it said about cosmetic surgery or anything that changes their conformation, it didn't say anything about life altering. Though I really thought I did read somewhere that dogs say that had a heart op or something like that couldn't be shown. I would expect then that brachy dogs who need their airways clearing and their teeth pulled shouldn't be able to be shown either?


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Elles said:


> In the Spellweaver link I read, it said about cosmetic surgery or anything that changes their conformation, it didn't say anything about life altering. Though I really thought I did read somewhere that dogs say that had a heart op or something like that couldn't be shown. I would expect then that brachy dogs who need their airways clearing and their teeth pulled shouldn't be able to be shown either?


Under the current rules, no... it's already covered.
And teeth are a hot issue. If your show dog has teeth missing, you must have a letter from the vet detailing why they were removed/missing.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> I wasn't attacking anyone before but I will happily attack whoever created that poor, disabled dog and other dogs like him all day long. That dog could not act like a dog because of what had been done to him for the show ring and I find that utterly, utterly sickening.
> 
> Your 'truth' is out of date and incorrect by the way. The show worlds favourite journalist did some digging and discovered the surgery was in fact a soft palette resection, this was revealed on pedigree dogs exposed (you have watched it?), a vet from the rvc seemed to corroborate it and as far as I know it has not been denied and JH has not been sued.
> 
> ...


See, this is what I mean about a personal attack, Despite the fact that I said I am not in favour of brachycephalic breeds and that I welcome breeding for longer muzzles, in your very next post you accuse me of defending anything.

I do not defend anything but the truth - and the truth is that just because Danny is a brachycephalic does not mean he had an operation to alter his comformation. The soft palette resection was needed because of an acquired condition - ie an illness.

And you got your info from PDE - ah yes, PDE - the program that showed a pet boxer having fits and blamed show dogs. The program that had to retract what they said about ridgebacks. THe program whose opening credits showed a picture of my friend's bergamasco with the voice over saying what deadful things humans do to dogs. Well then, if it was in PDE it MUST be true - yeah, right. 

I guess it comes down to whether you want to believe a hack and her pet vet or the vet who actually did the operation.

Now, let's see - who has the most to gain by stretching the truth to make things seem worse than they are? The hack and her pet vet. Shock horror stories gain viewers.

Who has the most to lose by telling lies? The vet who performed the operation, who could lose his livelihood if he was found to be lying.

I know which one I'd rather believe. And that's nothing to do with defending show dogs at all costs; it's to do with having a brain in my head and being able to tell truth from lies. It's to do with me being unwilling to perpetuate untruths even though it will lead to accusations such as the ones you have already hurled. It's called personal integrity.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> In the Spellweaver link I read, it said about cosmetic surgery or anything that changes their conformation, it didn't say anything about life altering. Though I really thought I did read somewhere that dogs say that had a heart op or something like that couldn't be shown. I would expect then that brachy dogs who need their airways clearing and their teeth pulled shouldn't be able to be shown either?


If any operation is peformed on your dog that changes their conformation you have to have permission granted from the KC to show. The KC won't grant permission to show for operations for anything other than medical reasons to avoid unscrupulous breeders putting their dogs through operations just to make their conformation better.

I honestly don't know the answer to your question. The only experience I've had with regards to teeth is when my friend's border collie knocked out a front tooth when racing for a ball. He had to send a letter to the KC from the vet to say that this is what had happened and that the tooth was not missing because of disease. The KC gave permission to show and my friend had to produce a copy of the KC letter allowing this each time he was shown. It didn't affect his show career; he was made up into a Show Champion.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> See, this is what I mean about a personal attack, Despite the fact that I said I am not in favour of brachycephalic breeds and that I welcome breeding for longer muzzles, in your very next post you accuse me of defending anything.
> 
> I do not defend anything but the truth - and the truth is that just because Danny is a brachycephalic does not mean he had an operation to alter his comformation. The soft palette resection was needed because of an acquired condition - ie an illness.
> 
> ...


You are defending the indefensible.

Brachycephalic dogs need soft palette resections because their soft palattes are rammed down their throats and they struggle to breathe. Breathing is one of the most basic physiological functions and in humans conditions that obstruct the airway cause immense distress. Danny did not acquire brachycephalic airway syndrome from an infection, it was bred into him by cruel and selfish people. The fact that he had the surgery has not been denied or retracted since.

You are defending the cruel and indefensible when you a) defend putting a dog on an icepack because it cannot ventilate correctly in a 'normal' situation by maintaining it's the same as cooling a dog that has been out in very hot and direct sun and b) you defend a dog winning at crufts that is so deformed that it needed flesh removed surgically from its throat (I never once said it altered his conformation, as if that mattered). Call that a personal attack if you want but that's what I think.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> You are defending the indefensible.
> 
> Brachycephalic dogs need soft palette resections because their soft palattes are rammed down their throats and they struggle to breathe. Breathing is one of the most basic physiological functions and in humans conditions that obstruct the airway cause immense distress. Danny did not acquire brachycephalic airway syndrome from an infection, it was bred into him by cruel and selfish people. The fact that he had the surgery has not been denied or retracted since.


I am not defending the cruel and indefensible when I point out to you that you are not telling the truth about Danny. His owners and the KC and the vet that performed the operation have never denied here was an operation. According to the VET WHO DID THE OPERATION his soft pallet resection was needed because of an illness, no other reason. But hey, don't let that stop you believing the lies and attacking those who prefer to tell the truth.



lennythecloud said:


> You are defending the cruel and indefensible when you a) defend putting a dog on an icepack because it cannot ventilate correctly in a 'normal' situation by maintaining it's the same as cooling a dog that has been out in very hot and direct sun and b) you defend a dog winning at crufts that is so deformed that it needed flesh removed surgically from its throat (I never once said it altered his confirmation, as if that mattered). Call that a personal attack if you want but that's what I think.


Once more, the dog did not need surgery because of a deformity but because of an illness - unless, of course, you want to call the vet who performed the operation a liar. I don't know the vet, but I'm pretty sure no vet would put his whole carreer on the line by committing fraud - because that's what you are accusing him of. That's where your attack falls apart. Telling the truth is not defending the indefensible.

I repeat - because you are so intent on personal attack that you keep ignoring this - I am no fan of brachycephalic breeds and welcome the initiative to breed for longer muzzles. But hey, no doubt you'll ignore it yet again.

I will add that I am no fan of any exaggerations to any breed. It's no coincidence that the two breeds I own are both virtually unchanged since the breeds' origins.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> The only experience I've had with regards to teeth is when my friend's border collie knocked out a front tooth when racing for a ball. He had to send a letter to the KC from the vet to say that this is what had happened and that the tooth was not missing because of disease. The KC gave permission to show and my friend had to produce a copy of the KC letter allowing this each time he was shown. It didn't affect his show career; he was made up into a Show Champion.


That's exactly what I said above.
Teeth are a very big thing - as is any *ANY* kind of cosmetic procedure - and that includes operations for entropion and its opposite (ectropion); tacking skin on Shar Peis; and operations for cherry eye in breeds including Bulldogs and Boxers.

The BYBs don't need to monitor those things. Nobody is asking them to change. So - they are carrying on as normal.


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Not calling anyone a liar etc, but what illness can lead to the need of a soft palate resection in an otherwise healthy dog?


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> I am not defending the cruel and indefensible when I point out to you that you are not telling the truth about Danny. His owners and the KC and the vet that performed the operation have never denied here was an operation. According to the VET WHO DID THE OPERATION his soft pallet resection was needed because of an illness, no other reason. But hey, don't let that stop you believing the lies and attacking those who prefer to tell the truth.
> 
> Once more, the dog did not need surgery because of a deformity but because of an illness - unless, of course, you want to call the vet who performed the operation a liar. I don't know the vet, but I'm pretty sure no vet would put his whole carreer on the line by committing fraud - because that's what you are accusing him of. That's where your attack falls apart. Telling the truth is not defending the indefensible.
> 
> ...


Soft palette resections are simply not done to treat infection in 'normal' dogs, they are done purely to treat the complications caused by breeding dogs with no muzzle. You either don't know that or you're being deliberately misleading to prove a point. You are right that it is an 'illness' but it's one cause by disgusting, ribbon chasing breeding practices rather than any pathogen.

You have no reports from any vet. You have a quote from the KC saying the surgery didn't affect his conformation (soft palette resection doesn't) and a quote from his owner to say it was an infection (they would say that....). You are defending the indefensible on the grounds of what an individual with a strongly vested interest says is true.

You've doggedly tried to make excuses for this poor dogs surgical intervention and subsequent win and tacked on the end that you're 'no fan' of short noses. Many show people stood by and watched without comment whilst certain breed clubs turned their animals into sad, deformed caricatures of dogs but the same people will go out of their way to counter anyone who dares to criticise aspect of their hobby. That is my point and it's been pretty well proven here.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MerlinsMum said:


> That's exactly what I said above.
> Teeth are a very big thing - as is any *ANY* kind of cosmetic procedure - and that includes operations for entropion and its opposite (ectropion); tacking skin on Shar Peis; and operations for cherry eye in breeds including Bulldogs and Boxers.
> 
> The BYBs don't need to monitor those things. Nobody is asking them to change. So - they are carrying on as normal.


 Exactly. Good point well made. :thumbsup:


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> You have a quote from the KC saying the surgery didn't affect his conformation (soft palette resection doesn't) and a quote from his owner to say it was an infection (they would say that....). You are defending the indefensible on the grounds of what an individual with a strongly vested interest says is true.


Things have changed since that dog won.

Have you asked the KC what their *current* stance is on showing dogs that have had ops on elongated soft palates?

There is also the possibility that the dog had the op, and it wasn't reported. Or that it didn't have the op, and someone has made some trouble. Or that the KC has changed its policy since (I think it was already in place)

What's indefensible about that?


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

MerlinsMum said:


> Things have changed since that dog won.
> 
> Have you asked the KC what their *current* stance is on showing dogs that have had ops on elongated soft palates?
> 
> ...


The dog had no face, you do not need a soft palette resection to tell you that is unethical. A muzzle is not an optional extra in a dog, it is essential for normal passage of air and thermoregulation. This dog was held up as 'perfect' and heavily rewarded in the show ring without question, that's what's indefensible. The KC knew about the soft palette resection but rather vaguely called it a 'throat operation'.

I don't know what the KCs stance is now, although pekes still appear to have no face. I made a small point about the way things were going in 2003 using the peke as an example and Spellweaver, for reasons known only to herself, took issue with it- that's all this is about.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> Soft palette resections are simply not done to treat infection in 'normal' dogs, they are done purely to treat the complications caused by breeding dogs with no muzzle. You either don't know that or you're being deliberately misleading to prove a point. You are right that it is an 'illness' but it's one cause by disgusting, ribbon chasing breeding practices rather than any pathogen.
> 
> You have no reports from any vet. You have a quote from the KC saying the surgery didn't affect his conformation (soft palette resection doesn't) and a quote from his owner to say it was an infection (they would say that....). You are defending the indefensible on the grounds of what an individual with a strongly vested interest says is true.


An operation for a soft palette resection would alter the dog's conformation and would not be allowed under KC rules. I have posted links to an article which confirms that the KC have investigated the matter, have consulted their own vet, have a letter form the owner's vet, and have found that the operation was not done for cosmetic reasons nor to alter conformation, but was done after an illness.

And what links have you given? Oh yes, you remembered it form PDE. Well, as I said before, you believe what rubbish you want. But don't expect me to believe anything but the truth.

I am just sorry that you have such a desire to try to defend the untruths you have written that you feel it necessary to repeatedly carry on a personal attack by saying that my insistence on pointing out the real truth is making excuses, defending the indefensible, blah de blah de blah :Yawn:



lennythecloud said:


> You've doggedly tried to make excuses for this poor dogs surgical intervention and subsequent win and tacked on the end that you're 'no fan' of short noses.


I've made no excuses for anything. I've said nothing but the truth and posted links to that truth. I've spoken many times - on other threads as well as this one - on the way I feel about brachycephalic dogs -and cats, for that matter. You choose to ignore all that because admitting that I actually do care would nullify your argument that I'm defending the breeding of brachycephalic dogs. I have repeatedly said that the only thing I'm defending is the truth that you were wrong about this dog's operation. I am not, repeat not, defending the breeding of brachycephalic dogs.



lennythecloud said:


> Many show people stood by and watched without comment whilst certain breed clubs turned their animals into sad, deformed caricatures of dogs but the same people will go out of their way to counter anyone who dares to criticise aspect of their hobby. That is my point and it's been pretty well proven here.


Aaaand, despite your assertions to the contrary, we're now back to blaming show people for everything.

Because of course, the 99.93% of non-show people all bred perfectly healthy dogs while the show people were breeding these deformed monsters, weren't they? Oh, wait a minute, no they weren'r. Well, anyway, while the show people stood by and said nothing, the non-show people didn't stand by and say nothing, did they? Oh no, wait a minute, yes they did.

What's been done is slowly being undone - by the show breeders. But, sadly, not by the rest of the 99.93% of the rest of the pedigree breeders.

So you've actually proven nothing other than your own unwillingness to accept the truth and the lengths of character assassination to which you will go in order to try to defend your untenable position.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> An operation for a soft palette resection would alter the dog's conformation and would not be allowed under KC rules. I have posted links to an article which confirms that the KC have investigated the matter, have consulted their own vet, have a letter form the owner's vet, and have found that the operation was not done for cosmetic reasons nor to alter conformation, but was done after an illness.


So did he have a soft palette resection or not? In your last post you stated "his *soft pallet resection* was needed because of an illness, no other reason.". Now you've been informed what the operation is for you've changed your mind.

Most surgery alters or removes part of the dog, thus by your definition conformation, the dog had surgery. Brachycephalic airway syndrome causes 'illness' and this is what soft palette resection corrects. You seem to be under the illusion that an organisation with an awful lot to lose would not interpret their rules loosely to save face.



Spellweaver said:


> And what links have you given? Oh yes, you remembered it form PDE. Well, as I said before, you believe what rubbish you want. But don't expect me to believe anything but the truth.


Your 'truth' is what the dogs owner says it is, hardly the most reliable source.



Spellweaver said:


> I've made no excuses for anything. I've said nothing but the truth and posted links to that truth. I've spoken many times - on other threads as well as this one - on the way I feel about brachycephalic dogs -and cats, for that matter. You choose to ignore all that because admitting that I actually do care would nullify your argument that I'm defending the breeding of brachycephalic dogs. I have repeatedly said that the only thing I'm defending is the truth that you were wrong about this dog's operation. I am not, repeat not, defending the breeding of brachycephalic dogs.


Yet you claim that a dog bred so that it cannot thermo regulate to the point of requiring an icepack in 'normal' conditions is OK  - you tried to justify that, no links or 'truth required.

A very simple question for you Spellweaver - Do you think that peke should have been BIS in 2003?



Spellweaver said:


> Because of course, the 99.93% of non-show people all bred perfectly healthy dogs while the show people were breeding these deformed monsters, weren't they? Oh, wait a minute, no they weren'r. Well, anyway, while the show people stood by and said nothing, the non-show people didn't stand by and say nothing, did they? Oh no, wait a minute, yes they did.


Again it's 'we didn't do anything but they didn't do anything either so blame nobody'. Show people stood by at championship shows and watched these breathless, crippled beings drag themselves around a ring and applauded when they won. How many wrote letters of complaint? How many organised boycotts? how many spoke out at all? You say something was done pre PDE -what was actually done? It's a minority of breeds so the majority of decent breeders should have easily made a difference.



Spellweaver said:


> So you've actually proven nothing other than your own unwillingness to accept the truth and the lengths of character assassination to which you will go in order to try to defend your untenable position.


What has been done to the pekinese and others like it makes me viscerally angry and I'm glad that shows  .


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Personally I think you're both right. We can't actually know what happened to the dog unless we were stood next to him when it happened and knew enough to know what it was.

So, maybe the dog did and maybe the dog didn't have a soft palette resection.

So?

The dog has no face, as you say. Operations aside. He has no face. He's a disabled animal, deliberately bred to be disabled and it's horrible. No-one here has said that heavily brachy dogs are the best things since sliced bread and a prime example of human initiative and innovation. I would think most of us are cringing and it really doesn't matter what op he had. Though it probably does to him.

I don't stand at dog shows waving placards either though, do you? You don't have to compete to stand down the road from shows with a placard peacefully demonstrating. Or not so peacefully, though that would probably get you arrested. 

I don't think we can ask Spellweaver (and others) to stand at shows heckling other competitors, regardless of what they think. :crazy:

Would you know that show people who don't agree with brachy dogs are standing at ringside cheering them on? Maybe they're out back having a cup of tea and complaining about it. I wouldn't know.

From my pov, I agree with the assessment posted by Lenny and I suspect that the op was what Lenny has said it is and why. But I also see Spellweaver insisting on facts, not defending breeding these dogs, so I agree with her too. 

If we're going to say a dog is bad because it's had an op, then we need facts and evidence, not hearsay. If we're going to say the dog is bad because it has a horrible squashed face, amongst other things, we can see that for ourselves. It's like smoking in public and drink driving though, society had to change, before people stopped doing either and there are still some who do both. Just as there still some evil swine who run dog fights, which used to be acceptable behaviour too. 

When Joe Public sees these dogs as an abomination, instead of cute things to put in bags and start to vilify generally the people who breed them, they'll be embarrassed into changing breed and the deed will be done. Until then, pugs and frenchies are ever more popular and the flatter and more exaggerated, the cuter they are to many. I have a friend who coos over her disabled Frenchie and thinks that expensive vet bills come with the breed, it's normal and she has a particularly expensive, disabled version, who spends more time with the vet than at home I reckon.  Me, I think she's nuts and should see a psychologist.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

lennythecloud said:


> I don't know what the KCs stance is now


But surely that is what we should be discussing?

The debate seems to be stuck on the discussion about a dog that won over 10 years ago? Surely it would be far more relevant to discuss todays approach and the current stance by the KC and by show breeders, than be stuck in the past.

Its as irrelevant to me as those that state facts about the Cavalier King Charles that they gleaned from the BBC programme that was aired in 2008 *7 *years ago. And yet the number of people that turn out these facts as the latest info drives me crazy  I still get people saying to me I watched that programme, how can you have Cavalier.

Please. This is 2014. Lets talk about what professional bodies, individuals us  have done since these issues were first raised and what more could or should be done to improve healthy breeding.

In my experience the KC has been proactive in their response and there are a number of initiatives aimed at this very subject. As has been mentioned on this thread already the show fraternity have done the same. Breeders are now looking at correcting the over breeding of the past and applying modern medical knowledge to ensure that the lines that they breed from are health tested and fit. But don't think it will happen overnight.

Health tests for breeding Cavvies include -

	MRI scanned for Syringomyelia
	Clear heart certificate from a cardiologist and a clear eye certificate obtained through the KC/BVA scheme 
	DNA tested clear for Curly Coat/Dry Eye and Episodic Falling Syndrome

So if good breeders (of both show and pet lines) are being encouraged to work towards producing healthier dog lines through testing and looking to ensure that they gradually reduce conformity that does not promote good health (and I believe this is the case). What else can we do . should we be doing .to stop the absolute travesty of poor breeders, the so called back yard breeders continuing to breed unhealthy, untested, poorly brought up puppies?

Shouting at breeders that are doing something, is as misguided as shouting at insured drivers for the sins of those who cant be bothered to insure their vehicles. No, lets target the ones who are continuing to flout the directives. The byb, the puppy traffickers and the import puppies.

We should be looking to educate the buying public to ask questions of their breeder and choose wisely and helping them in this.

J


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> But surely that is what we should be discussing?
> 
> The debate seems to be stuck on the discussion about a dog that won over 10 years ago? Surely it would be far more relevant to discuss todays approach and the current stance by the KC and by show breeders, than be stuck in the past.
> 
> ...


Good point!

Starting this year the KC have introduced Breed Watch. There are three categories which all breeds are placed into.

Category 1.

Breeds with no current points of concern. BUT. Judges should look out for any examples with features which cause concern and make a voluntary health report to the KC if they have concerns.

Category 2.

Breeds with known points of concern which are not necessarily mentioned in the breed standard. The judge MUST complete a health form after judging at every Champ show (general or sing.le breed). I.e these dogs are closely monitored.

Category 3.

These are the 13 high profile breeds. The judge has to complete a health monitoring form after judging, and the dogs require a vet examination before allowed to compete in the a Group or Best in Show judging.

Dogs can move between categories. So whilst the French Bulldog is no longer in category 3, it in in Category 2 and closely watched.

Judges are receiving new training and instructions, and the completion of the health monitoring forms is compulsory.

Members of the public, breed clubs, judges, vets etc can report any concerns on breeds to the KC.

The KC are continually working on making sure pedigree dogs who appear at shows are healthy. This scheme is new and only started this year, and like anything will need to bed in to be seen to work.

Unfortunately there is no scheme in place for monitoring the vast majority of dogs who don't appear in the show ring.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

lennythecloud said:


> So did he have a soft palette resection or not? In your last post you stated "his *soft pallet resection* was needed because of an illness, no other reason.". Now you've been informed what the operation is for you've changed your mind.
> 
> Most surgery alters or removes part of the dog, thus by your definition conformation, the dog had surgery. Brachycephalic airway syndrome causes 'illness' and this is what soft palette resection corrects. You seem to be under the illusion that an organisation with an awful lot to lose would not interpret their rules loosely to save face.
> 
> ...


Sadly that anger blinds you to all the changes that have been made?

Here's a thing do you direct that anger to making things change or do you just expend it on a forum about something that happened a long time ago?

No one is defending the suffering of dogs, no one is defending appalling breeding practices, nor are they trying to shift the blame, people are saying yep humans messed up the breed clubs are trying to repair things, but who repairs the other 98% of dogs.

Again the question was nicely side stepped by a lot on the thread. Other than seeing Crufts and PDE how many of you have regularly attended shows in the last ten years or so? How many can say they have stood ring side at cat 3 breeds rings since PDE or even before that at champ shows?


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

I've had so many say to me they think dog showing is disgusting and when I ask have they ever been to one what is their answer? Nope never been to one


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> So did he have a soft palette resection or not? In your last post you stated "his *soft pallet resection* was needed because of an illness, no other reason.". Now you've been informed what the operation is for you've changed your mind.


Oh my, you do have a penchant for reading exactly what you want rather than what is written, don't you? Thiis is what I said in my first post telling you that you were wrong about Danny's operation:



Spellweaver said:


> _"Having thoroughly researched the matter and taken veterinary advice, the Kennel Club can now confirm that no breach of its regulations occurred. *The dog had undergone surgery* to alleviate an acquired respiratory tract condition but, *as this procedure did not alter the natural conformation of the dog*, 'permission to show' was not required from the Kennel Club"._


How did you get from that to saying I changed my mind about the fact that he had surgery? If you actually follow the link and read it, you will see that the operation was discussed.

Our Dogs Newspaper - News, breeders, showdogs, dog breeds, pedigree show dogs, canine clubs, web design, website uk



lennythecloud said:


> You seem to be under the illusion that an organisation with an awful lot to lose would not interpret their rules loosely to save face.


You are not making sense. What would the KC have to lose if they disqualified BOB at Crufts for having an operation to alter his conformation? Surely that would be kudos to them?

And you seem to be under the illusion that a) a vet would deliberately risk his livelihood and produce a fraudulent report about a dog of just one of his clients and b) PDE comtained the truth.



lennythecloud said:


> Your 'truth' is what the dogs owner says it is, hardly the most reliable source.


The truth I linked to was a report in a highly respected newspaper. Are you really accusing the journalist, the KC, the owner and the vet of colluding? Are you really trying to advocate that a program that deliberately set out to shock in order to gain viewing figures is a more reliable source?



lennythecloud said:


> A very simple question for you Spellweaver - Do you think that peke should have been BIS in 2003?


No, one of my border collies should have been 

It's not a simple quesiton; it's a very loaded question.

If you are asking about my personal preference I would say no. I've never liked pekes; I've never liked any brachycephalic breeds; and would prefer for them not to be promoted by the show world..

If you're asking about whether or not he was the best specimen of his breed over all the other specimens of their breed, my answer would have to be I don't know because I wasn't the judge either of the pekes, the group or BIS, so I can't say whether or not the peke was a better representation of its breed than the other dogs there.

If you are asking if he should not have won BOB because he did not conform to the breed standard, then I don't kow - I didn't judge him.

If you are asking whether, if he could win BOB by conforming to the breed standard, then the breed standard must be wrong, then I would say that the breed standard definitely needs looking at (if it hasn't already been since then)

If you are asking whether or not he should have won BIS because he had had an operation, then I would say that the investigation has proved his operation was within the accepted rules of the KC and that on its own was no reason for him not to win BIS.

If you are asking whether or not I think an exaggerated dog should win BIS, my answer is that I would personally prefer that unexaggerated dogs won every time.



lennythecloud said:


> Again it's 'we didn't do anything but they didn't do anything either so blame nobody'.


No. Yet again you are reading what you want to see, not what I've written. It's not "blame nobody" - it's blame *everybody*.



lennythecloud said:


> Show people stood by at championship shows and watched these breathless, crippled beings drag themselves around a ring and applauded when they won. How many wrote letters of complaint? How many organised boycotts? how many spoke out at all?


Your remarks above can equally be directed to all people who watch shows - how many people watched Crufts on TV? Did you? Did any of them do the things you mention above? Did you?

If you want to use the argument that the show world is responsible for all exaggerated pedigree dogs because the rest of the world copies what the show world does, then it follows that the rest of the world must have been watching these dogs and doing nothing too, and so must bear their share of the responsibility. You can't have it both ways.

And now, let that be enough of discussing what happened 11 years ago. Things have moved on since then. When you want to talk about what's happening now, I'll respond.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

BessieDog said:


> Unfortunately there is no scheme in place for monitoring the vast majority of dogs who don't appear in the show ring.


Dogs that compete in various sports, working dogs and all the dogs bred as assistance dogs have the best monitoring as far as I can see.

If they can't actually do the job into their later years by staying healthy and active, there would be no point breeding them


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> I don't know what the KCs stance is now, although pekes still appear to have no face..


Perhaps you would do better knowing what is happening now, and discussing that, rather than harping on about what was happening 11 years ago.

Like you, I had no idea what the present KC stance on pekes is. I've never liked pekes, never bred pekes, never owned pekes, never watched pekes being shown (toys are usually shown on different days to pastoral dogs), don't know anyone with pekes unless you count those who have made the headlines, had no idea what their breed standard was - in short, my knowledge of them is no different from the average man in the street. Yet it wasn't hard to find the following current information:

This is the present breed standrad for the peke:

The Kennel Club

Just a few excerpts

_"Nose not too short, broad, nostrils large and open. A slight wrinkle, preferably broken, may extend from the cheeks to the bridge of the nose in a wide inverted 'v'. This must never adversely affect or obscure eyes or nose. Pinched nostrils and heavy over-nose wrinkles are unacceptable and should be heavily penalised. Muzzle must be evident, but may be relatively short and wide"_

_"Free from obvious eye problems"_

_"any indication of unsoundness in feet and pasterns to be heavily penalised. Movement not to be hindered by excessive body coat"_

"_Length and volume of coat should neither impair the activity of the dog nor obscure the shapeliness of body. Excessive coat must be heavily penalised"_

_"Any departure from the foregoing points should be considered a fault and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion to its degree and its effect upon the health and welfare of the dog."_

But that's not all that's bee happening. Breed Watch ahs been created,and the peke is in category 3

"_Pekingese - Category 3
Particular points of concern for individual breeds may include features not specifically highlighted in the breed standard including current issues. In some breeds, features may be listed which, if exaggerated, might potentially affect the breed in the future.

Prior to 2014 the features listed below derived from a combination of health surveys, veterinary advice, a meeting of Kennel Club Group judges, feedback from judges at shows or consultation with individual breed club(s)/councils via the breed health coordinators.

From 2014 the structure of Breed Watch will allow for a greater involvement by judges in the reporting on and monitoring of the points of concern.
Points of concern for special attention by judges

Audible breathing
Difficulty breathing
Excessive coat
Excessive nasal folds
Excessively prominent eyes
Heavy overnose wrinkle (roll)
Incomplete blink
Insufficient length of muzzle
Pinched nostrils
Poor muscle tone
Sore eyes due to damage or poor eyelid conformation
Weak hindquarters_"
The Kennel Club

So that's what the show world has been doing about the peke. A bit different from your accusation that we are saying "don't blame us, blame others", isn't it?

What have the 99.93% of non-show breeders been doing?


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

rona said:


> Dogs that compete in various sports, working dogs and all the dogs bred as assistance dogs have the best monitoring as far as I can see.
> 
> If they can't actually do the job into their later years by staying healthy and active, there would be no point breeding them


That's an excellent point, Rona!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> So that's what the show world has been doing about the peke. A bit different from your accusation that we are saying "don't blame us, blame others", isn't it?
> 
> What have the 99.93% of non-show breeders been doing?


Also if you have a look at show results, it would a appear give the numbers in the classes and the places given, that they are also actively withholding..................................... Just saying........


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

I have heard of a few people doing agility with pugs.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> But surely that is what we should be discussing?
> 
> The debate seems to be stuck on the discussion about a dog that won over 10 years ago? Surely it would be far more relevant to discuss todays approach and the current stance by the KC and by show breeders, than be stuck in the past.
> 
> ...


Sadly not all breeders test BOTH the sire and dam for these conditions though. Think I've found one or two on my searches which is a small number considering the amount of litters I have seen advertised.

Though out of all the breeds that have been highlighted as genetic messes I feel the Cavalier is the one where most improvement is being made.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> Though out of all the breeds that have been highlighted as genetic messes I feel the Cavalier is the one where most improvement is being made.


What gives you this "feeling"? What research have you carried out? Again have you been to shows over the last 10 years and been at the Cat 3 rings?


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Meezey said:


> What gives you this "feeling"? What research have you carried out? Again have you been to shows over the last 10 years and been at the Cat 3 rings?


Because breeders do more extensive health testing than ever before. New screening tests became available making it easier for breeders to screen their dogs.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

Maybe it would be of use to consider the concept of "fit for function" *and incorporate it into breed standards?*

It can be taken as "fit for original function" and there have been some references to that in this thread. Dogless would perhaps be at a disadvantage here - assuming she wished to breed her ridgebacks - if she first had to prove that they were competent lion hunters!

OR it might be taken as "fit to function as a dog" in which case it's not hard to list doggie functions such as; able to run a certain distance in a certain time or breed without human intervention.

Most, the utterly overwhelming majority of dogs, function as pets. Perhaps that might be considered?

There's a very strong perception that pedigree dogs have the best breeding and that show dogs are the best pedigree dogs without too many people asking "What does "best" mean?" Does it mean best looking? Does it mean best of health. Does it mean best temperament?

I honestly think most people thought that pedigree dogs had the "best" of all the above and that successful show dogs ARE the best of the pedigree dogs. There's a bit of anger and disappointment around that is possibly related to a feeling of being "had" here.

Finding out that health testing is of VERY limited use (NOT saying NO use, I do believe in it as a Good Thing) and that a closed gene pool = problems and that some of the selection for appearance has also selected for horrors does lead to disillusionment.

I think that people do need to think critically about the ability of dogs that look different from the basic blue-print to function as happy, healthy dogs. I do think that the mindless "only pedigree dogs should be allowed to breed" needs to be reviewed. I do think that show dogs should be healthy and gain points for being able to do the "dog-thing".

I doubt that anyone on this forum would disagree with the paragraph above. Why do people continue to breed unhealthy dogs? Money? Ignorance? Prizes?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Meezey said:


> Also if you have a look at show results, it would a appear give the numbers in the classes and the places given, that they are also actively withholding..................................... Just saying........


Yep, have seen that happening both in border collies and the Imported Breeds Register - the latest was at Three Counties Champ Show in June this year, when Stuart Mallard withheld a Junior Dog placing:

Higham Press Show Results : Manchester 2012

ETA - don't know why the link says "Manchester 2012" - if you click on it, it definitely takes you to Three Counties 2014!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media/455665/dog_health_report_2013_web.pdf

http://www.thekarltonindex.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Karlton-Index-Scores-2013.pdf

I'd rather this stuff than "feelings" and information from 10 years ago


----------



## Badwolfe (Jul 19, 2014)

ozrex said:


> Maybe it would be of use to consider the concept of "fit for function" *and incorporate it into breed standards?*
> 
> It can be taken as Why do people continue to breed unhealthy dogs? Money? Ignorance? Prizes?


All three of those :mellow:


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> Because breeders do more extensive health testing than ever before. New screening tests became available making it easier for breeders to screen their dogs.


What about the French Bull dog? What about Pugs? This is it for me, we can all speculate and make our own judgement calls on who's doing what but until we know facts and figures it's all just personal speculation, it's not experience or knowledge.

So yes I'm going to put you on the spot, as the question keeps being ignored, other than PDE information and what you see at Crufts have you regularly been to champ shows in the last 10 years and been at group 3 rings and seen the dogs? Have you spoken to breeders and breed clubs abut their stance on things?


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Meezey said:


> http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media/455665/dog_health_report_2013_web.pdf
> 
> http://www.thekarltonindex.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Karlton-Index-Scores-2013.pdf
> 
> I'd rather this stuff than "feelings" and information from 10 years ago


And that relates to what I said because??

From what I understand of that second link ( which isn't much ) is that I'm right in my 'feeling'  and that things have improved within the breed based on those numbers. Small numbers yes, but improvements all the same.

Do you disagree?


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

From memory 2 placing of Manchester Terriers have been withheld this year


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Meezey said:


> What about the French Bull dog? What about Pugs? This is it for me, we can all speculate and make our own judgement calls on who's doing what but until we know facts and figures it's all just personal speculation, it's not experience or knowledge.
> 
> *So yes I'm going to put you on the spot, as the question keeps being ignored, other than PDE information and what you see at Crufts have you regularly been to champ shows in the last 10 years and been at group 3 rings and seen the dogs? Have you spoken to breeders and breed clubs abut their stance on things?*


You're rehashing old ground now, I answered this question way back in the thread


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> And that relates to what I said because??
> 
> From what I understand of that second link ( which isn't much ) is that I'm right in my 'feeling'  and that things have improved within the breed based on those numbers. Small numbers yes, but improvements all the same.
> 
> Do you disagree?


It relates to what you said because it's about the state of dog health and the improvements made or not, also breed club in put or not, so rather than taking snippets of information on PDE or feelings or limited personal knowledge it's research.

I don't agree it's the most improved breed no not by a long shoot at all, in fact I'd go as far to say it is one of the breeds who tried to pretend it wasn't happening and they had no issues.

I will be interested to see the Karlton Index Report when it's released in summer 2015, so at least there there will be a researched basis for peoples speculations and we will be able to see what impact has been made..

Edit to add and again it shows who is working to change things and who isn't...  it ain't the 98%.

On that note I'm out because personally these threads do upset me. They say a little knowledge is a dangerous things, I think second hand knowledge with a media spin is fatal . I'll carry on working to help that where I can and everyone can just carry on complaining about it when Crufts comes on or whenthe hack raises her head and then spends the rest of their time doing F all about it Least I can sleep well knowing I do something


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Elles said:


> I don't stand at dog shows waving placards either though, do you? You don't have to compete to stand down the road from shows with a placard peacefully demonstrating. Or not so peacefully, though that would probably get you arrested.
> 
> I don't think we can ask Spellweaver (and others) to stand at shows heckling other competitors, regardless of what they think. :crazy:


I'm not asking anyone to 'wave placards'. If I go onto a farm and see serious welfare concerns not being addressed then I'd consider it a failure if I didn't inform the relevant persons. Show people stood by and watched the systematic destruction of a handful of breeds over decades and now get upset when they're 'attacked'.

What was done before pedigree dogs exposed? There was no sense of outrage or wrong surrounding these breeds in the show world, in fact they were positively embraced. It's Ok to say you got it wrong historically and are now trying to make it right but the argument seems to be that nothing has ever been wrong and from where I'm standing the change has been forced and resented.



Spellweaver said:


> Perhaps you would do better knowing what is happening now, and discussing that, rather than harping on about what was happening 11 years ago.


ha, really? YOU brought it up, YOU decided to call me a liar and I replied in turn. I'm harping on but you've wrote at least as much on the subject as I have 



Spellweaver said:


> From 2014 the structure of Breed Watch will allow for a greater involvement by judges in the reporting on and monitoring of the points of concern.
> Points of concern for special attention by judges
> 
> Audible breathing
> ...


This was forced in after pedigree dogs exposed and threats from the EU, with great resistance from the breed club and the wider show community. It's a start but the results have yet to be seen and it's hard not to see it as a gimmick when French bulldogs have been downgraded to cat 2 despite stenotic nares still being rife in the breed (and still being rewarded).

What did the show community do, off their own back, prior to pedigree dogs exposed? Before you accuse me of looking to the past, it's a good indication of the true culture within the show community if they demonstrated positive, forward thinking action when not under duress.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

lennythecloud said:


> I'm not asking anyone to 'wave placards'. If I go onto a farm and see serious welfare concerns not being addressed then I'd consider it a failure if I didn't inform the relevant persons. Show people stood by and watched the systematic destruction of a handful of breeds over decades and now get upset when they're 'attacked'.
> 
> What was done before pedigree dogs exposed? There was no sense of outrage or wrong surrounding these breeds in the show world, in fact they were positively embraced. It's Ok to say you got it wrong historically and are now trying to make it right but the argument seems to be that nothing has ever been wrong and from where I'm standing the change has been forced and resented.
> 
> ...


and what do you do Lenny? This is what makes me angry you come on and shout the odds with "facts" from PDE, so come on what do you do about it all? Accusing people of standing by and doing nothing, what do you do? What have you done? What will you do?


----------



## Badwolfe (Jul 19, 2014)

lennythecloud said:


> I'm not asking anyone to 'wave placards'. If I go onto a farm and see serious welfare concerns not being addressed then I'd consider it a failure if I didn't inform the relevant persons. Show people stood by and watched the systematic destruction of a handful of breeds over decades and now get upset when they're 'attacked'.
> 
> What was done before pedigree dogs exposed? There was no sense of outrage or wrong surrounding these breeds in the show world, in fact they were positively embraced. It's Ok to say you got it wrong historically and are now trying to make it right but the argument seems to be that nothing has ever been wrong and from where I'm standing the change has been forced and resented.
> 
> ...


Whether you perceive it as forced or not the fact still remains that the show community are doing things to improve the breeds - the other 99% of pedigree breeders are not!

You also state that the wider show community resisted these changes - where is your proof of that? My breed (Japanese Shiba Inus) are a cat 1 breed and I know of no show person in my breed (and I know most of them) who once said that the changes should not be implemented.

Whilst I don't doubt there was resistance within the breeds actually affected because they wanted to protect their bloodlines (rightly or wrongly) I do take exception to the fact that you lump ALL of us exhibitors into the that group

Just because someone shows a breed doesn't mean they have knowledge of what's going on in other breeds. Most people go to a show, show their dogs and then leave without ever leaving the ringside of whatever breed they are exhibiting


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Even though this topic isn't about PDE I find it admirable that JH at least raised public awareness into the sorry state of some of our breeds. She might not be to everyone's taste, but all this talk of 'what do you do to try and make a difference', well she did. Whether you ( general you ) like it or not. It was only as a result of PDE and the public backlash that changes seemingly came about ( no, no, I don't have facts. That is more opinion right there *sigh* ) So yes, all good in my eyes


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Meezey said:


> and what do you do Lenny? This is what makes me angry you come on and shout the odds with "facts" from PDE, so come on what do you do about it all? Accusing people of standing by and doing nothing, what do you do? What have you done? What will you do?


Don't like it when the show community is 'attacked' for welfare issues? Want the spotlight to be somewhere else? Want to be seen to be responsible? Then you should, as a community, have done something.

So the answer is the show community did nothing prior to pedigree dogs exposed? If that is correct then you really are naïve if you wonder why the show world is getting negative attention.

What did I do? I did write to the KC after crufts 2003 and didn't attend any fee paying shows thereafter. I've always been vocal in my intense dislike of people who produce unacceptably disabled dogs for the way they look.

I also do fully support a documentary film maker who seems to have been the biggest and most important catalyst for change (sorry).

But it was the show community who had the responsibility to push for change within their 'hobby'. Blaming anyone else but them for the failings in the show ring is like blaming show people for puppy farming.



Badwolfe said:


> Whether you perceive it as forced or not the fact still remains that the show community are doing things to improve the breeds - the other 99% of pedigree breeders are not!
> 
> You also state that the wider show community resisted these changes - where is your proof of that? My breed (Japanese Shiba Inus) are a cat 1 breed and I know of no show person in my breed (and I know most of them) who once said that the changes should not be implemented.
> 
> ...


I like shibas, healthy long lived dogs, and when I loose my old akita I certainly wouldn't rule out a rescue. It is a shame that decent people have been lumped together but that is a result of what came before and after PDE. Before - a number of people, from all breeds, must have known what was going on in other breeds and seemingly did nothing. I occasionally attended shows, picked up 'dog world' or 'our dogs' and watched crufts - I could see it. Did nobody think it was damaging? That the culture that created the obvious disabilities in the bulldog and peke risked your breed? Did lax rules on inbreeding not concern anyone? 
After PDE - when changes were being proposed, rather than support change and heavily condemn what had been going on in certain breeds, the show community (in general, I'm sure it wasn't everyone) stood in solidarity, defended poor practice or stayed silent. Now that looks bad, really bad to outsiders and until people see that sort of culture change then I'm afraid the show community will continue to feel the heat.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

lennythecloud said:


> So the answer is the show community did nothing prior to pedigree dogs exposed? If that is correct then you really are naïve if you wonder why the show world is getting negative attention.
> 
> What did I do? I did write to the KC after crufts 2003 and didn't attend any fee paying shows thereafter. I've always been vocal in my intense dislike of people who produce unacceptably disabled dogs for the way they look.


So you are as guilty until then of standing by and doing nothing? So you did until then exactly what you have just accused all show people of doing. Interesting.

" I occasionally attended shows, picked up 'dog world' or 'our dogs' and watched crufts - I could see it."

Yet without knowing anyone here, you've accused the show world of seeing it and doing nothing..

I don't show btw...

But this is finally my last word on it.


----------



## Badwolfe (Jul 19, 2014)

lennythecloud said:


> Don't like it when the show community is 'attacked' for welfare issues? Want the spotlight to be somewhere else? Want to be seen to be responsible? Then you should, as a community, have done something.
> 
> So the answer is the show community did nothing prior to pedigree dogs exposed? If that is correct then you really are naïve if you wonder why the show world is getting negative attention.
> 
> ...


Yes I understand what you are saying Lenny but the point is you have been shown proof that the show world is striving to improve all the breeds and that the other 99% of dog breeders are not.

You are still concentrating your efforts on the 1% of people who are doing their utmost to get things sorted but doing nothing to solve the issues of the 99% who aren't

In realistic terms even if we can attain the goals of what is wanted in the show world regarding breeds the vast majority of these dogs will still have the problems they have now because people have concentrated on the 1% and not the 99% that they really should

You ask the majority of people what influenced them to have the breed they have and they will say because they saw one owned by a friend / family member or Joe Public in the street - not because they saw one at a show


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> Ha, really? YOU brought it up, YOU decided to call me a liar and I replied in turn. I'm harping on but you've wrote at least as much on the subject as I have


Yoiu posted the lie in the first place, This is a public forum and so I posted the truth, and then laughed at your attempts to wriggle out of it.



lennythecloud said:


> What did the show community do, off their own back, prior to pedigree dogs exposed? Before you accuse me of looking to the past, it's a good indication of the true culture within the show community if they demonstrated positive, forward thinking action when not under duress.


The show world was doing plenty. Off the top of my head there's the BVA/KC health schemes - didn't the hip dysplasia one start in the 60's? The KC Charitable Trust funded research into DNA testing by the AHT, among lots of other things - there's lots more and I could search out the links for you but tbh, as you have either ignored, dismissed, or lied about the links I have given previously, I really don't feel inclined to do so.

You're not interested in what is happening now; all you want to do is promote a 7 year old shock horror program and ridicule anyone who dares to point out the truth to you.

There's really not much point in supplying you with proof to the contrary when your head is so far up JH's backside that all you can see is the brown stuff.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> What did I do? I did write to the KC after crufts 2003 and didn't attend any fee paying shows thereafter. I've always been vocal in my intense dislike of people who produce unacceptably disabled dogs for the way they look.


So you wrote one letter and then played keyboard warrior?

Well while you were doing that, those of us on here who you are denigrating were out there, working for and improving our breeds. We were doing that before 2003, we were doing it in 2003, and are still doing it. And in spite of all your protestations to the contrary, that's the truth.

Who has had the most improving effect on the health of pedigree dogs? The ones actively doing something or the keyboard warrrior? Go figure.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

lennythecloud said:


> So the answer is the show community did nothing prior to pedigree dogs exposed? If that is correct then you really are naïve if you wonder why the show world is getting negative attention..


Please go back and read my posts. International concern resulted in a convention in 1987, revised in 1995 to include a list of 40 breeds considered to be at high risk. The KC established a working party and examined this which resulted in the 15 High Profile breeds.

All breed standards were rewritten and published in 2009.

This year Breed Watch categorises all breeds - 13 high profile, others where the judge has to complete a health report at every Champ Show.

Why am I repeating myself??

PDE was late to the party and inaccurate.

Why are you ignoring the facts?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

BessieDog said:


> Please go back and read my posts. International concern resulted in a convention in 1987, revised in 1995 to include a list of 40 breeds considered to be at high risk. The KC established a working party and examined this which resulted in the 15 High Profile breeds.
> 
> All breed standards were rewritten and published in 2009.
> 
> ...


The trouble is that actually makes it worse as many of the breeds suffered more and more as time went by, even after 1995 and you are saying there was concern by the show community way back in 1987 

Nothing was actually done until 2009, one year after PDE


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

PDE publicised the issues and brought it to the attention of Joe Public and to the attention of people outside of showing, breed clubs and the KC. People had suspected there was something going wrong with pedigree dogs for years before that, but PDE didn't pull punches.

The only thing that imo wasn't quite right about it was the focus on showing and the KC, implying that dogs bred outside of the KC and showing could be healthier. The focus should have been on everyone who breeds and owns pedigree dogs, not just people who take them to shows.


----------



## Badwolfe (Jul 19, 2014)

Elles said:


> PDE publicised the issues and brought it to the attention of Joe Public and to the attention of people outside of showing, breed clubs and the KC. People had suspected there was something going wrong with pedigree dogs for years before that, but PDE didn't pull punches.
> 
> The only thing that imo wasn't quite right about it was the focus on showing and the KC, implying that dogs bred outside of the KC and showing could be healthier. The focus should have been on everyone who breeds and owns pedigree dogs, not just people who take them to shows.


Exactly Elles the entire program was biased. Instead of portraying the problems as a result of all breeding it deliberately misled Joe Public into thinking that 1% of breeders were totally to blame


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Badwolfe said:


> Exactly Elles the entire program was biased. Instead of portraying the problems as a result of all breeding it deliberately misled Joe Public into thinking that 1% of breeders were totally to blame


It may have been biased but it got things moving and that can only be a good thing for the future of dogs as a whole.

If only a fraction of Joe public don't buy deformed dogs where ever they come from, and stops them being paraded as the best at shows then that will hopefully prevent those poor souls ever being born


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Badwolfe said:


> Exactly Elles the entire program was biased. Instead of portraying the problems as a result of all breeding it deliberately misled Joe Public into thinking that 1% of breeders were totally to blame


Exactly. Which is why we have lenny and others like him still denying that there is no-one but show breeders to blame.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Elles said:


> The focus should have been on everyone who breeds and owns pedigree dogs, not just people who take them to shows.


Of course the focus should be (can we come up to date please) on everyone who owns and breeds ...and not just pedigree dogs ...all dogs. Cross breeds are at risk of breeding for looks and not health, too.

Once again the debate is stuck in the past, proportioning blame and quoting an old TV show.

Actually I don't care who made the first move. (Although yes, hip scoring and the concern over hip dysplacia predated the show by a long way .. i had all my Labs hip scored early 2000's and I don't show)

What I want to know is where do we go from here not whose fault it is historically.

J


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> Of course the focus should be (can we come up to date please) on everyone who owns and breeds ...and not just pedigree dogs ...all dogs. Cross breeds are at risk of breeding for looks and not health, too.
> 
> Once again the debate is stuck in the past, proportioning blame and quoting an old TV show.
> 
> ...


Well said. I suggest that anyone who wants to rehash old news has a read through the many, many, many threads that were discussing it at the time. Meanwhile, those of us who care about what is happening now, and how we can continue to improve, can get on with our discussions unhindered by someone's inability to focus on today.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Exactly. Which is why we have lenny and others like him still denying that there is no-one but show breeders to blame.


Who is to blame then for deformed, disabled and suffering dogs being exhibited and rewarded at shows? byb, puppy farmers and the general public didn't do it, so who did?

Many byb and all puppy farmers are irresponsible and often cruel to the point of being evil - everyone except puppy farmers and the ignorant can agree on that. What byb and puppy farmers don't do is maintain that they are the most responsible, the standard that all should live up to. If show breeders want to be seen like that then they need to be bending over backwards to weed out poor practice rather than waiting for a TV program to come along or the EU to start making threats then taking credit for the reactionary changes they were forced to make.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> Well said. I suggest that anyone who wants to rehash old news has a read through the many, many, many threads that were discussing it at the time. Meanwhile, those of us who care about what is happening now, and how we can continue to improve, can get on with our discussions unhindered by someone's inability to focus on today.


Out of curiosity I have just been on the PDE- the Bog website.
Some very intersting and up to date pictures and news on there, if you just scroll down.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

Sorry meant The Blog website, afraid my Lap top not too good.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> Who is to blame then for deformed, disabled and suffering dogs being exhibited and rewarded at shows?


Probably not someone who shows border collies.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> Who is to blame then for deformed, disabled and suffering dogs being exhibited and rewarded at shows? byb, puppy farmers and the general public didn't do it, so who did?
> 
> Many byb and all puppy farmers are irresponsible and often cruel to the point of being evil - everyone except puppy farmers and the ignorant can agree on that. What byb and puppy farmers don't do is maintain that they are the most responsible, the standard that all should live up to. If show breeders want to be seen like that then they need to be bending over backwards to weed out poor practice rather than waiting for a TV program to come along or the EU to start making threats then taking credit for the reactionary changes they were forced to make.


Do you know, ther's no point in even answering you until you stop living in the past and talk about how things are now.

If you want to languish in the past, go and ressurrect all the past threads - you know, the threads that were writen when the subject was actually relevant. 

BTW, despite your claim to keyboard warriorship, I can't remember your name from all the discussions that took place then - either on this forum or others. Strange, that. Could it be you didn't actually do all the protesting you're claiming to have done?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> Probably not someone who shows border collies.


Or bergamascos


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Honeys mum said:


> Sorry meant The Blog website, afraid my Lap top not too good.


I prefer the description in your Freudian slip - sorry, in your mistake because of your laptop


----------



## Badwolfe (Jul 19, 2014)

Spellweaver can't you make your signature picture smaller? - my mouse scroll finger is going numb :biggrin5:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Badwolfe said:


> Spellweaver can't you make your signature picture smaller? - my mouse scroll finger is going numb :biggrin5:


I would gladly do this, but as I'm the least computer literate perosn on the forum I don't know how to  - so if anyone can help please do


----------



## Badwolfe (Jul 19, 2014)

Right click picture and select 'save picture as'


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Thank you - much better! :thumbsup:


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Well .... that's about a day of my life I'll never get back. 

If I were to buy a puppy (it's not going to happen), and I chose/was accepted for a BOB winner's puppy, of course I'm going to expect these dogs - and their offspring, to be healthy and able bodied. If they are not, you'd better believe I'd be furious to say the least.

And that's the bottom line, isn't it? 

Show breeders, whether they intend to do so or not, "advertise", or "showcase" their dogs as the elite - as the best of the best - especially the winners of BOB, and if their dogs have underlying health problems, deformities, etc, of course the puppy buying public are going to be outraged.

BYB and puppy farmers don't have that problem, because they're selling to the ignorant and the careless - the ones who don't know or don't care about health testing, temperament, conformation etc, and just "want a puppy".

I personally think this thread is going round in circles, and if I want to watch that, I'll get my mutts to do a couple spins for me. :crazy:  :tongue:

Having watched 2003 BIS on Youtube, I wouldn't have even given the Peke the reserve BIS, but what do I know? I admit, I've never been to a show in my life. I'm not berating the showing world, but in my humble, and fairly uneducated opinion, any one of the other 6 were much better contenders for BIS than the peke.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

LinznMilly said:


> Having watched 2003 BIS on Youtube, I wouldn't have even given the Peke the reserve BIS, but what do I know? I admit, I've never been to a show in my life. I'm not berating the showing world, but in my humble, and fairly uneducated opinion, any one of the other 6 were much better contenders for BIS than the peke.


It was 11 years ago seriously? Chances are most of the BIS line up are dead!?!??


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

OMG .....why are we still feeding the windup merchants ? 

The fact that I breed and show a single particular pedigree breed does NOT make me responsible for all the other breeds , in exactly the same way that you as the owner of a non Brachy breed are not responsible for the choices of those that do own them.

There are 210 breeds currently recognised by the KC plenty there for the puppy buying public to choose from if they truly want a moderate breed. But here's the bottom line - Pugs and Frenchies are way more popular than Schipperkes or Cairns etc and this is because an ever increasing number of puppy buyers really don't want their dogs to function as dogs ! ........The Brachy breeds can't really bark or chew stuff up, they don't need loads of annoyingly time consuming exercise oh and they're so busy making cute snuffly noises when they breathe that they don't have the energy to pull on the lead or challenge other dogs. Let's face it if we really wanted an end to Brachy breeds then folk simply need to STOP buying them.


I breed, own and show a breed as far removed from a Pug or a Bulldog as you can get , they're lively, active, demanding ......and way less popular !, it's not the show ring that's fuelling the continuing demand for such extremes ( in fact the show ring is the place where exaggeration is being reduced ) but the great British public who really want a dog shaped fashion statement without the inconvenience of real dog behaviour .


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Bijou said:


> *it's not the show ring that's fuelling the continuing demand for such extremes* ( in fact the show ring is the place where exaggeration is being reduced ) but the great British public who really want a dog shaped fashion statement without the inconvenience of real dog behaviour .


As borne out by the huge number of "new" and "rare colour" Pugs and Frenchies being imported from dubious sources and with dubious paperwork.

They will never see a show ring (as those colours are not permitted), but there's _nothing_ to indicate they are any "healthier" than those which are being shown - in fact, the reverse might be true, as they are mainly being bred and sold by people who think health testing means a once-over by a vet.


----------



## Wildmoor (Oct 31, 2011)

Leah-Pardo said:


> My neighbour owns a pug.. who I adore but she spends half the time panting desperately and making strange noises


my GSD plays with 2 pugs who are walked miles everyday, I also know another 2 pugs that go on the same walks as the owners GSDs all are very active slim dogs


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Meezey said:


> It was 11 years ago seriously? Chances are most of the BIS line up are dead!?!??


I'm aware it's 11 years ago. I was referring to a question lenny (?) posed for SW - would you have placed the Peke. Yes, I know it was for SW, yes, I know it's 11 years ago, but if it was a question personally for SW, Lenny could have PMed her. I don't see why I'm disqualified for answering a question on a public forum?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

LinznMilly said:


> I'm aware it's 11 years ago. I was referring to a question lenny (?) posed for SW - would you have placed the Peke. Yes, I know it was for SW, yes, I know it's 11 years ago, but if it was a question personally for SW, Lenny could have PMed her. I don't see why I'm disqualified for answering a question on a public forum?


No one is disqualified from answering a question but what purpose does it serve? What do we gain from it? It was 11 years ago? We learnt from it and moved on....


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Meezey said:


> No one is disqualified from answering a question but what purpose does it serve? What do we gain from it? It was 11 years ago? We learnt from it and moved on....


Obviously Lenny felt the question needed to be asked.


----------

