# Why do people think crufts is cruel?



## Annabelschnauzer (Feb 11, 2013)

I don't understand. Isn't crufts the other way round?


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

this is a long story..........
but just to put in short; some breeds are now maybe better looking, but many exaggerated features made those dogs suffer...like very very, very short muzzle causes breathing difficulties etc...some breeds have life expectancy of 7 years!!! and it is about 14 for average mongrel!!!!



saying that....

I still am compelled to watch it...


----------



## WhatWouldSidDo (Nov 17, 2012)

Annabelschnauzer said:


> I don't understand. Isn't crufts the other way round?


I think mainly it's because of the breeding practises,
The mating of closely related animals,
the continued breeding of unhealthy features just to meet a breed standard and win a rosette.
I don't know much about this thing though so could be wrong


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Inbreeding (father -daughter matches!!) may produce champs..but also may cause lots of heatlh problems!!!


plus some long haired dogs are derprived of "bormal dog life" as not to spoil the coat!!!

especially i have seen that in USA...


----------



## Alice Childress (Nov 14, 2010)

Because people believe everything they read in the newspapers


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Well this documentary didn't help: Pedigree Dogs Exposed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are lots of people that are uncomfortable with the exaggerated features of some breeds and the negative effect it has on their quality of life. Some show folk don't put themselves across too well, either, seeming to care more about winning than anything else.

Tbh though, I also think there's a bit of inverted snobbery going on sometimes, too. Like pedigree dogs are just for rich people or something.

Basically, there are a lot of reasons. Probably as many as there are people that think it's cruel


----------



## SixStar (Dec 8, 2009)

cheekyscrip said:


> this is a long story..........
> but just to put in short; some breeds are now maybe better looking, but many exaggerated features made those dogs suffer...like very very, very short muzzle causes breathing difficulties etc...some breeds have life expectancy of 7 years!!! and it is about 14 for average mongrel!!!!
> (


The Bernese has an average life expectancy of about 7 to 8 years - breed has barely changed since it was established. Same goes for many other giant breeds, nothing whatsoever to do with Crufts.

Saying the average mongrel lives to about 14 is a bit of a sweeping statement too - it depends entirely on what breeds make up the mix


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

Alice Childress said:


> Because people believe everything they read in the newspapers


Right, because having an issue with some aspects of dog showing makes one a gullible idiot.


----------



## Kicksforkills (Mar 27, 2012)

Because as in most things, people take things too far and people only take the extreme cases into view.

There are show people who use products some people think they shouldn't and there are those that think all show people are like this.

Also yes, recently the health issue has occurred in some breeds that won heir BOB.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

cheekyscrip said:


> plus some long haired dogs are derprived of "bormal dog life" as not to spoil the coat!!!


Shame Bess's behaviour meant she didn't have a chance of qualifying for Crufts this year. Maybe next.

So I didn't really take her out in the pouring rain watching her run through muddy fields just now, did I? I mean, she needs to keep her coat clean and groomed so she looks like a show dog all the time! 

Bess gets a quick brush over once a day - which is what all dogs should have I would think - and a bath and spruce up when she's going to a show. Mud does wash off you know!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Why do people think Crufts is cruel? Well, in the most part, people don't. Most people realise that as far as the showing of dogs is concerned, Crufts is merely a general championship show and as such is no more cruel than any of the other 26 general championship shows throughout the year.

All the dogs you will see at Crufts have attended some or most of these other championship shows, but you never hear anyone going on about those - and that's because trying to rake up dirt about a smaller championship show is not going to sell papers, so the gutter press leave them alone, so the know-it-alls who really know nothing other than what they do read in the gutter press have no bandwagon to jump on about them. 

The difference with Crufts is it is the biggie, the one that everyone has heard of, even when they don't know anything about showing. So you get these people who don't really know what they are talking about spouting off about all sorts of rubbish like Crufts is responsible for all that ails pedigrees, that all breeders at Crufts want to do is win a rosette and to hell with their dogs, and that Crufts is responsible for the breed standards. These know-it-alls who know nothing don't realise - in some cases do not even know - that dogs shown at all championship and open shows adhere to breed standards and that the breed standards are set by the dog clubs - not the Kennel Club, and certainly not Crufts.

No-one would deny that there are some health issues with a few pedigree breeds, but blaming Crufts for them is blatantly ridiculous. When you think that less than 30% of all dogs in the UK are registered with the KC, and of those registered with the KC only a very small percentage are show dogs, you can see how ridiculous their claims are.

Crufts is brilliant. Nowhere else in the world will you see so many healthy and happy and well-cared for dogs in one place.

Yes, in the sport of dog showing there are some bad breeders, and if you look hard you will find some at Crufts, just like you will find them at any other championship show throughout the year throughout the country. Dog showing is like any other walk of life; there are bad apples in every barrel. But contrary to what the know it alls who know nothing would have you believe, they are actually in a very small minority, both and at Crufts and at any other championship show. 
__________________


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

Some people don't like the idea of dogs being 'polished up', made to stand in one position for a couple of minutes (which I see Henry naturally stand in all the time) and then get walked in a circle for a bit. I guess some see showing as quite elitist, which it's really not when absolutely anyone with a pedigree dog can take part.

Problems also come in when breed standards have been exaggerated in dog breeding and then reinforced by some judges as the desireable thing. I can't deny there are problems there, but so many people forget that this is in the _minority_, and the vast majority of breed clubs and judges want dogs bred to the breed standard so that they're healthy, happy and fit for function. Crufts is just the big known target for frustrations about it.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

cheekyscrip said:


> this is a long story..........
> but just to put in short; some breeds are now maybe better looking, but many exaggerated features made those dogs suffer...like very very, very short muzzle causes breathing difficulties etc...some breeds have life expectancy of 7 years!!! and it is about 14 for average mongrel!!!!
> 
> saying that....
> ...


What on earth has that got to do with Crufts - I am confused.


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

BessieDog said:


> Mud does wash off you know!


Or in Henry's case it seems to fall off as soon as it's dried! :thumbup:


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

Blitz said:


> What on earth has that got to do with Crufts - I am confused.


They're arguing that in order to get Crufts winners, breeders are exaggerating breed standards in their litters which is having a damaging effect on the dogs health. I.e. pugs, bull dogs, shar pei's.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

cheekyscrip said:


> plus some long haired dogs are derprived of "bormal dog life" as not to spoil the coat!!!.





BessieDog said:


> Mud does wash off you know!


Absolutely BessieDog!

Oooh - I feel a photo thread coming on - wait a minute - I did one last year!

http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/227272-another-show-dog-not-allowed-proper-dog.html


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Because it's always ruddy hot, too hot for humans.... Christ knows what it's like for the dogs!!!!


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Taking for example a springer (just because i have springers) would he/she be allowed on the run up to a big show, be allowed to chase around like a typical springer in and out of bushes,race over uneven fields run in and out of woods or would he/she be restricted for fear of damage before a show. Ime not trying to upset or argue here its something i would have thought to be out of the question.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Pezant said:


> They're arguing that in order to get Crufts winners, breeders are exaggerating breed standards in their litters which is having a damaging effect on the dogs health. I.e. pugs, bull dogs, shar pei's.


I do know that but it is still nothing to do with Crufts! The breed societies decide on the breed standards - it honestly has nothing to do with Crufts!


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

haeveymolly said:


> Taking for example a springer (just because i have springers) would he/she be allowed on the run up to a big show, be allowed to chase around like a typical springer in and out of bushes,race over uneven fields run in and out of woods or would he/she be restricted for fear of damage before a show. Ime not trying to upset or argue here its something i would have thought to be out of the question.


Of course they would be - the only 'restriction' that might be placed on a dog right before a show is not being allowed to go jump in a muddy puddle. Even then I'm talking the actual morning of the show (or perhaps the night before in the case of an Afghan Hound or a Standard Poodle) when they've had a bath and a brush. A show dog is a _dog_ first and a show competitor second.


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

Blitz said:


> I do know that but it is still nothing to do with Crufts! The breed societies decide on the breed standards - it honestly has nothing to do with Crufts!


I know! I'm on your side about it.  But that's just the focus of the arguments - that Crufts being such a big deal promotes bad breeding in order to get a championship winner.


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2013)

Wasn't the winner last year never walked due to the risk of it ruining the coat? 

If thats true then I think that could be considered 'cruel'.


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

LurcherOwner said:


> Wasn't the winner last year never walked due to the risk of it ruining the coat?


I just Googled it and I'm taking that line (Shes far too precious to take out for walks,) with a massive pinch of salt, seeing as it's possibly the snottiest article ever written by the Daily Mail.

Crufts' biggest diva eats sirloin steak, has twice-weekly blow-drys and pedicures... and is FAR too posh for walkies | Mail Online


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

The media loves every chance to poke a stick at controversy and Crufts and Westminster give them the chance to poke about some of the problems that are seen perpetuated by dog shows.

This has been going on since longer than I can remember. This is a video from 1985, again with a huge mention of Crufts throughout, but before video there were plenty of articles etc. which did the same thing.

[youtube_browser]N5RMa7AW5u8[/youtube_browser]

Generally there is merit to some concerns. There is also merit to the fact that most involved in dogs and in clubs work hard to do well by them and that most competeted dogs live a very normal life.

The complaint is about the outliers that don't live a normal life due to the fact they are to be competed - and there are examples.

I've been around 50 years and I can't remember a time when an argument couldn't be stirred over this topic.

CC


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> Taking for example a springer (just because i have springers) would he/she be allowed on the run up to a big show, be allowed to chase around like a typical springer in and out of bushes,race over uneven fields run in and out of woods or would he/she be restricted for fear of damage before a show. Ime not trying to upset or argue here its something i would have thought to be out of the question.


You can't stop exercising your dog in the run up to a show. If you did you would have an overweight, out-of-condition dog who is boucning off the walls with boredom and pent up energy and hence is not going to win anything. And don't forget, all the dogs at Crufts will have been shown regularly throughout the year - for exhibitors, allowing a dog to be a dog and then doing a clean up operation the night before the dog show is just part of life!

It's been raining on and off here all day, and you should see the state of my border collies at the moment! They are being shown on Sunday but am I bothered about their state? No - it will all wash off on Saturday night.


----------



## GermanShepardOwner (Aug 20, 2012)

The main reason i dont agree with crufts and think its cruel is because certain breeds are made to look almost like barbie dolls, way over grooomed they just look abnormal in my opinion. And also some breeds are bred to have health issues such as the GSD with the sloped back.... which alot of GSD cruft breeders seem to think is right.. And also normally the dogs with the most health issues seem to always win :/ one dog last year had to sit on a ice pack because it was so hot? thats not normal.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> You can't stop exercising your dog in the run up to a show. If you did you would have an overweight, out-of-condition dog who is boucning off the walls with boredom and pent up energy and hence is not going to win anything. And don't forget, all the dogs at Crufts will have been shown regularly throughout the year - for exhibitors, allowing a dog to be a dog and then doing a clean up operation the night before the dog show is just part of life!
> 
> It's been raining on and off here all day, and you should see the state of my border collies at the moment! They are being shown on Sunday but am I bothered about their state? No - it will all wash off on Saturday night.


Thats good hope all show dogs are treated the same.


----------



## sharloid (Apr 15, 2012)

What I don't understand is the the KC advocates that dogs are 'fit for purpose'. Then why on earth are there 'working' lines and 'showing' lines of some breeds?

Can anyone explain that?!


----------



## Alice Childress (Nov 14, 2010)

picaresque said:


> Right, because having an issue with some aspects of dog showing makes one a gullible idiot.


No need to put words in my mouth. I said nothing about gullible idiots. However, a lot of people that know very little about what really goes on at Crufts or shows in general have a negative image of it simply because of something they once heard, or read, or saw on TV.

I doubt anybody here would support some of the things Crufts are _accused of_. However, a lot of what they are accused of is inaccurate propaganda.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

sharloid said:


> What I don't understand is the the KC advocates that dogs are 'fit for purpose'. Then why on earth are there 'working' lines and 'showing' lines of some breeds?
> 
> Can anyone explain that?!


Because the fit for purpose is a newish initiative and over the last few decades, many of the "working" types won't have had a hope in hell of doing a days work.

Even now some are questionable, but hopefully that will be sorted over the next decade or so


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

sharloid said:


> What I don't understand is the the KC advocates that dogs are 'fit for purpose'. Then why on earth are there 'working' lines and 'showing' lines of some breeds?
> 
> Can anyone explain that?!


Breed standards - ie the conformation and health of the perfect example of the breed - were produced by breed clubs. Breed clubs include breeders from all disciplines including both showing and working. Because show dogs are judged on their closeness to that standard, show breeders have bred true to the standard. Most working dogs, however, are bred without recourse to the breed standard and so over the years variations have crept in.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Alice Childress said:


> No need to put words in my mouth. I said nothing about gullible idiots. However, a lot of people that know very little about what really goes on at Crufts or shows in general have a negative image of it simply because of something they once heard, or read, or saw on TV.
> 
> I doubt anybody here would support some of the things Crufts are _accused of_. However, a lot of what they are accused of is inaccurate propaganda.


I couldnt really argue about how good or bad showing is as i know nothing about showing whats so ever its something that has never interested me in the slightest and yes people do judge on hearsay or what they see, i remember going to crufts and seeing the dogs stood for an age on the table been dries brushed sprayed and brushed again, going back a while later and they were still in the same position, not allowed to be stroked, then taken on to a patch of sawdust to toilet and i have to say i did feel sorry for them, now this is the only experience ive had but ime sure or hoping that that was the only downside to been a show dog.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Breed standards - ie the conformation and health of the perfect example of the breed - were produced by breed clubs. Breed clubs include breeders from all disciplines including both showing and working. Because show dogs are judged on their closeness to that standard, show breeders have bred true to the standard. Most working dogs, however, are bred without recourse to the breed standard and so over the years variations have crept in.


:lol::lol::lol:

Don't make me laugh


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

sharloid said:


> What I don't understand is the the KC advocates that dogs are 'fit for purpose'. Then why on earth are there 'working' lines and 'showing' lines of some breeds?
> 
> Can anyone explain that?!


In the case of the English Setter, it was because two lines were bred by two different people back in the early 1900s. Laverack was responsible for the original lines of the Setter which are more familiar today as a show look - long feathering, slightly longer and higher head. Llewellin then came along, took a couple of dogs from Laverack's lines and diversified into his own Setter 'type' for working in the field - slightly thinner coat, less feathering, flatter head. Both became equally as popular - in fact, the Llewllin type is pretty much all you'll see in the US while it's overwhelmingly Laverack lines in the UK.


----------



## Alice Childress (Nov 14, 2010)

haeveymolly said:


> I couldnt really argue about how good or bad showing is as i know nothing about showing whats so ever its something that has never interested me in the slightest and yes people do judge on hearsay or what they see, i remember going to crufts and seeing the dogs stood for an age on the table been dries brushed sprayed and brushed again, going back a while later and they were still in the same position, not allowed to be stroked, then taken on to a patch of sawdust to toilet and i have to say i did feel sorry for them, now this is the only experience ive had but ime sure or hoping that that was the only downside to been a show dog.


The show dogs I have met are just the same as any other family dog. They get dirty, they get wet, the go for long walks and play or sleep for most of the day. The only difference is that they occasionally spend weekends going on adventures with the person they love the most in the world and meeting new people and new dogs along the way. Oh and the fact that on the whole, their person knows far more about their breed than the average "pet owner" does (note the word 'average', as I do not think the members on this forum are representative of the average dog owner!).


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> :lol::lol::lol:
> 
> Don't make me laugh


Glad to tickle your fancy - but just what part are you laughing at?

That breed stanards were set by breed clubs? That's tue. :yesnod:

That working breeders belong to breed clubs and so were involved in setting the standards? That's true. :yesnod:

That show dogs are bred to breed standards? That's true. :yesnod:

That most working dogs are not bred to breed standards? That's true. :yesnod:

That if you breed without recourse to breed standards variations will creep in? That's true. :yesnod:

Laugh away - but do explain


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

> In the case of the English Setter, it was because two lines were bred by two different people back in the early 1900s. Laverack was responsible for the original lines of the Setter which are more familiar today as a show look - long feathering, slightly longer and higher head. Llewellin then came along, took a couple of dogs from Laverack's lines and diversified into his own Setter 'type' for working in the field - slightly thinner coat, less feathering, flatter head. Both became equally as popular - in fact, the Llewllin type is pretty much all you'll see in the US while it's overwhelmingly Laverack lines in the UK.


That is interesting.

I know of cases of breed standards being changed to suit politics and the influential breeders of the time, and I've heard of even sometimes a deliberate move to disqualify a feature to get rid of a competitive line (black coloring being dq'd etc.). The underbite being favored in the Lhasa and the Tibbie is another case of this, when originally it was discouraged by standard. I'd never considered the idea of substantially different lines being developed from the start.

CC


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

I suppose its because Crufts is the most famous and visible dog event in the country that people feel that the judges and competitors have a certain level of responsibilty towards their dogs. Showing a dog that cant breathe properly because its nose is too short or cant walk properly because its hips are wonky or its really tubby is almost like the 'experts' saying that this is acceptable.
Kinda like when Paris fashion week shoves a load of anorexic teenagers down the runway!!
We want top breeders to be showing wonderful examples of their breed who are also as healthy as they can possible be......or else why bother even going to a decent breeder to buy a dog in the first place!


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

SixStar said:


> The Bernese has an average life expectancy of about 7 to 8 years - breed has barely changed since it was established. Same goes for many other giant breeds, nothing whatsoever to do with Crufts.
> 
> Saying the average mongrel lives to about 14 is a bit of a sweeping statement too - it depends entirely on what breeds make up the mix


of course not ..but..alas some breeds were better off before; pugs, pekes etc...
and as to giant breeds,,,,eh...one also can argue back and forth...
and proper mutts..of no breed even known in their parentage seem to live very, very long...as my friends lil girl 22!! another one -19!...

but if BOB is given to unhealthy dogs then that promotes ill health?
If dogs had choice then they would choose health not "beauty" as seen by "hoomans"


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

BessieDog said:


> Shame Bess's behaviour meant she didn't have a chance of qualifying for Crufts this year. Maybe next.
> 
> So I didn't really take her out in the pouring rain watching her run through muddy fields just now, did I? I mean, she needs to keep her coat clean and groomed so she looks like a show dog all the time!
> 
> Bess gets a quick brush over once a day - which is what all dogs should have I would think - and a bath and spruce up when she's going to a show. Mud does wash off you know!


listen closely: some folks..and I mention USA ..not ESSex, do that!!!
I did not mean anyone specific???
yes, most dogs in show are healthy, normal pets..ok/
and Iwatch Crufts..but I also see some concerns about some dogs/breeds?


----------



## sharloid (Apr 15, 2012)

Pezant said:


> In the case of the English Setter, it was because two lines were bred by two different people back in the early 1900s. Laverack was responsible for the original lines of the Setter which are more familiar today as a show look - long feathering, slightly longer and higher head. Llewellin then came along, took a couple of dogs from Laverack's lines and diversified into his own Setter 'type' for working in the field - slightly thinner coat, less feathering, flatter head. Both became equally as popular - in fact, the Llewllin type is pretty much all you'll see in the US while it's overwhelmingly Laverack lines in the UK.


Are both actually able to work or is more hair etc dangerous or make it harder? Sorry that's worded badly, I couldn't think how else to put it.

If not then I still don't see how show lines are fit for purpose.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

sharloid said:


> Are both actually able to work or is more hair etc dangerous or make it harder? Sorry that's worded badly, I couldn't think how else to put it.
> 
> If not then I still don't see how show lines are fit for purpose.


There are some breeds that haven't been exaggerated to the point where they are unable to work.
In gundogs it's mainly the pointers and setters


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

rona said:


> There are some breeds that haven't been exaggerated to the point where they are unable to work.
> In gundogs it's mainly the pointers and setters


I certainly saw at dog shows some cockers spaniels and other spaniel breeds that never touched the ground...at least not the grass!!
not with this floor lenght silky coat!!!:yesnod:


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

cheekyscrip said:


> listen closely: some folks..and I mention USA ..not ESSex, do that!!!
> I did not mean anyone specific???
> yes, most dogs in show are healthy, normal pets..ok/
> and Iwatch Crufts..but I also see some concerns about some dogs/breeds?


I may have misunderstood you, but the poster later querying whether a springer would be allowed to run through hedges shows this is a common perception.

The breed standard for the Irish Setter states something to the effect that a setter must be built and move to show that it can run all day flushing game. So if Bess wasn't exercised her muscle development would be poor and she wouldn't get anywhere in shows.

I personally would never buy a dog whose conformation means it has difficulty breathing. Whether a pedigree or mongrel. I don't think you can blame crufts for these type of dogs - better blame the people who keep buying them for pets and creating a market for them. If people didn't want to own them, there would be no demand. There's a DDB at my ringcraft. He's only a year old, he's already had one operation to help his breathing, and last time I was there had to be taken out for fresh air as he couldn't breathe properly and was sick. That's heartbreaking to me.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Breed standards - ie the conformation and health of the perfect example of the breed - were produced by breed clubs. Breed clubs include breeders from all disciplines including both showing and working. Because show dogs are judged on their closeness to that standard, show breeders have bred true to the standard. Most working dogs, however, are bred without recourse to the breed standard and so over the years variations have crept in.


Variations have crept in even when there is a standard and dogs are not working dogs. It happens when judges continuously ignore parts of the standard when awarding dogs, and breeders continuously ignore parts of the standard when breeding dogs, and then, when the popular type in the ring is obviously non standard . . . they change the standard to suit.

















- source - http://www.cavaliers.co.uk/ecckcss/ecksopen03.htm








- source - Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Latvia » Aymi Cattleya

The original standard drawn up in 1928:
General appearance and soundness: Active, sporting, fearless; 15 points
Head: almost flat between ears, no dome, spot desired; 15 points
Eyes: dark, large and round, but not prominent; 10 points
Nose: Slight stop. About 1 ½ inches. Black: 10 points
Muzzle: Pointed; 10 points
Texture of coat: Long, Silky; 10 points
Colour: All recognised; 5 points
Chest: Moderate
Ears: Long and feathered, High set; 10 points
Tail: Longish, docked; 5 points
Legs and feet: Moderate bone, feet well feathered; 5 points
Weight: 10 to 18 lbs; 5 points
Faults: Undershot, light eyes

Ann's Son, breed founder (King Charles x Phalene) from whom the standard was drawn up was called a blenheim but he had a white blaze 'tipped with jet' which means he was a (mostly) clear sable on a white background. The standard was changed in 1973 to list four accepted colours, where as before the 'other' colors were simply undesirable. Sables along with blacks, black/whites and liver/whites were most discouraged, where in the 60s there was a well known Kormar black stud dog.















- Ann's Son

CC


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

BessieDog said:


> better blame the people who keep buying them for pets and creating a market for them.


this is why I have my little crossbreeds....nobody is breeding Dachshunds with a shorter (and less prone to injury) spine so I havent been able to get one!
Personally I would blame the breeders for continuing to slavishly follow breed standards when they are at the expense of the dogs health.
Conversely there is someone near me who breeds bassett hounds that are fit for purpose. They are more in proportion and dont have any loose skin and IMO looked about a million times better then the show quality examples!


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

BessieDog said:


> I may have misunderstood you, but the poster later querying whether a springer would be allowed to run through hedges shows this is a common perception.
> 
> The breed standard for the Irish Setter states something to the effect that a setter must be built and move to show that it can run all day flushing game. So if Bess wasn't exercised her muscle development would be poor and she wouldn't get anywhere in shows.
> 
> I personally would never buy a dog whose conformation means it has difficulty breathing. Whether a pedigree or mongrel. I don't think you can blame crufts for these type of dogs - better blame the people who keep buying them for pets and creating a market for them. If people didn't want to own them, there would be no demand. There's a DDB at my ringcraft. He's only a year old, he's already had one operation to help his breathing, and last time I was there had to be taken out for fresh air as he couldn't breathe properly and was sick. That's heartbreaking to me.


I do not blame Crufts directly!!! unless unhealthy dogs keep winning!!!

I had English setter/German pointer cross... Dad was the champ......
Close friend won everything with her Irish setter (my dog walk buddy)..and no doubt and working setters actually kept winning in my country!!! despite the rugged coat!!


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

BessieDog said:


> There's a DDB at my ringcraft. He's only a year old, he's already had one operation to help his breathing, and last time I was there had to be taken out for fresh air as he couldn't breathe properly and was sick.


Has he really already had an operation?  I knew he was a stubborn plodding thing, but I didn't realise it was because of breathing problems.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

BessieDog said:


> I may have misunderstood you, but the poster later querying whether a springer would be allowed to run through hedges shows this is a common perception.
> 
> The breed standard for the Irish Setter states something to the effect that a setter must be built and move to show that it can run all day flushing game. So if Bess wasn't exercised her muscle development would be poor and she wouldn't get anywhere in shows.
> 
> I personally would never buy a dog whose conformation means it has difficulty breathing. Whether a pedigree or mongrel. I don't think you can blame crufts for these type of dogs - better blame the people who keep buying them for pets and creating a market for them. If people didn't want to own them, there would be no demand. There's a DDB at my ringcraft. He's only a year old, he's already had one operation to help his breathing, and last time I was there had to be taken out for fresh air as he couldn't breathe properly and was sick. That's heartbreaking to me.


But it's not just conformation.
There's a "top"  breeder showing a dog that has thrown very sick progeny and covered it up, and has at least two other people covering it up too 
A gundog breed by the way 

Can't bloody prove anything or I'd be doing something about it!!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

To answer the question of the OP, it's not Crufts itself which is the problem. It's the attitude of the minority of people involved, condoned, if nothing else, by the lack of condemnation and denial by the majority.



Alice Childress said:


> No need to put words in my mouth. I said nothing about gullible idiots. However, a lot of people that know very little about what really goes on at Crufts or shows in general have a negative image of it simply because of something they once heard, or read, or saw on TV


Or look at some of the breeds with health issues and have done their own research into health issues. You can even look at the Kennel Club's own information to have them admit there are problems.

As has already been shown, discussion is not new. 80's video has been linked, there's also the When a Vet Should Speak Out from 1962.

How much has really changed in attitudes since and what encourages this attitude? Unfortunately it's some people's desire to win. Will not get many people who are into the scene to admit it though.


----------



## Vicki (Jul 28, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> That show dogs are bred to breed standards? That's true. :yesnod:
> 
> That most working dogs are not bred to breed standards? That's true. :yesnod:
> 
> ...


In fact, both show lines and workings lines are bred to standard. It's just that the standard is interpreted differently. And it seem that in most cases, working bred dogs deviates very little from early dogs of the breed, while show bred dogs deviates quite a lot from early dogs.

This is a German Shepherd from 1915:









This is a present day working line German Shepherd 









And this is a present day show line German Shepherd :









Which one looks more like the original?

This is a Belgian Shepherd Malinois born in 1899:









This is a present day working line Belgian Shepherd Malinois 









This is a present day show line Belgian Shepherd Malinois 









Which one looks more like the original?


----------



## foxiesummer (Feb 4, 2009)

Peoples perception of what makes a perfect example of a breed isn't exactly what mother nature produced. Take a look at what was done to the GSD 
They thought a sloped back was desirable and now the poor things have hip dysplacia. There are many more examples.
I know of someone who breed standard poodles which have never been allowed on grass in case it stains their coat. We had a rough collie brought to us via the RSPCA for rehoming, poor thing could only walk in a circle.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

which one has hip and back problems?


----------



## Kicksforkills (Mar 27, 2012)

Just in case anyone wasn't aware, the reason we have JRT and PRT as a seperate breed is because the JRT association didn't want their working lines "ruined" by show standards.

Just though I'd add that without taking sides.

I like Crufts as long as they are still family dogs and not overdone in grooming -which most are.


EDIT; Sorry I mean most are family dogs and not overdone.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Thing is, what the hell good is the "perfect" conformation if you forget completely about working ability.

I'm still not convinced in even the tiniest way that many breed clubs have the welfare of their breeds at heart 

Of course there are those that do


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

As someone who regularly attended shows before I even owned a show dog and then have shown my own dogs, I can firmly say there's nothing cruel about dog shows and Crufts.

It's a mentally stimulating day for the dogs, who do enjoy it and a good social event. 

There's water, places to use the bathroom, plenty of food stalls with free food samples and places for the dogs to sit/relax. It can be stressful for the owner but the dogs enjoy it. 

My dog Aiden gets so excited when he see's the hair dryer because he thinks hes off to a show. 

Dogs aren't welcome at most events so it's lovely that shows are around for dogs to go and enjoy.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Think it's also worth pointing out that the "show" side of crufts, despite getting the majority of publicity is only one side of the event. Agility for instance and people getting to know about different breeds are other sides which people need to be aware of and should be supported.


----------



## Vicki (Jul 28, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> I can firmly say there's nothing cruel about dog shows and Crufts.


I don't agree. Last summer I showed my dog and she didn't behave very well. I fully aware that's my fault; I didn't practice running with her very much beacuse I found it extremely boring (sometimes I even ran right instead of left just to get some variation :rolleyes5. Stand, however, she does perfect, but the running didn't go so well so the judge told me to pull her check collar at the top of her neck, give a quick jerk and then start running 

I refused to do that, so one of the secretaries offered me to loan a show lead which I felt forced to do. The show lead is also put at the top of the neck and tightened quite hard. My dog did behave very well with that on, but only because it inflicted her discomfort and possibly pain.

Most dogs on dog shows wear show leads like that and in my opinion that is cruel. People also tend to lift their dogs with the lead and tail (so as not to ruffle the well brushed fur), which isn't very comfortable for the dog. I'd never lift my dog that way, beacuse it would be cruel.

But that's dog shows in general, not Cruft's specifically. I doubt that Cruft's is worse (nor better) than any other dog show.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

foxiesummer said:


> Peoples perception of what makes a perfect example of a breed isn't exactly what mother nature produced. Take a look at what was done to the GSD
> They thought a sloped back was desirable and now the poor things have hip dysplacia. There are many more examples.
> I know of someone who breed standard poodles which have never been allowed on grass in case it stains their coat. We had a rough collie brought to us via the RSPCA for rehoming, poor thing could only walk in a circle.


But Mother Nature didn't produce the GSD  Humans did, and yes they have messed it up BIG TIME.... I don't think Crufts can be blamed for this the top GSD last year is a VA1 Sieger dog so does work to a very high standard, but still has a banana back *shrugs*

I have always said I would never buy a GSD from a show Kennel, as I've always worked GSD's but I'm pleased to say there are more and more great kennels out there breeding the "old" style GSD, and they are now getting placed in shows..... The pedigree does exposed did a great job of booting the breed clubs and the KC up the backside...

I've been round Rott show rings for years, and the dogs love it, and if the dogs don't the breeders don't show them... A dog who hates being in the ring is just not going to show well so why would people bring dogs who hated in to the ring


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Vicki said:


> I refused to do that, so one of the secretaries offered me to loan a show lead which I felt forced to do. The show lead is also put at the top of the neck and tightened quite hard. My dog did behave very well with that on, but only because it inflicted her discomfort and possibly pain.
> 
> .


I think to give justice to this, people who don't know, should know what a show lead looks like so they don't think people are putting pinch collars on their dogs:


----------



## maisey (Oct 26, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> As someone who regularly attended shows before I even owned a show dog and then have shown my own dogs, I can firmly say there's nothing cruel about dog shows and Crufts.
> 
> It's a mentally stimulating day for the dogs, who do enjoy it and a good social event.
> 
> ...


I have to disagree with this. I have been going to shows myself for quite a few years, yes alot of dogs enjoy it, mine love going it is a fun day out for them but for others it is not. 
The last show I was at, we got there at 8am and left at 1pm, there was one St Bernard tied up on its own the entire time. I had no clue on earth who owned it. 
I saw a woman slap her dog straight across the face 
I have seen St Bernards in the ring, clearly limping and they still got placed it. 
Honestly some of the people that show are just in it for the money.

Personally I feel there needs to be more health checks on the dogs, and the health checks to be done properly. 
Don't get me wrong there are some lovely parts to showing dogs and generally people care for there dogs but some times I think money and winning takes over.


----------



## mummyschnauzer (Sep 30, 2008)

Very well written, and some very good points, Spellweaver To add to your excellent post may I say, someone said on here, Crufts and pedigree dogs are only for the rich, what nonsense.

*Those fashion produced mixed pedigree breed puppies are being sold at prices way beyond normal pedigree breeds. *

I have had mostly pedigree dogs all my life, and I'm not rich, because owning any dog where it be pedigree or not, warrants you are never rich, with one thing and another including extortinate Vet fees, means a lot of people who own dogs are never rich LOL. 

The other thing I would like to add most pedigree breeders abide by the rules, and some don't. Most breeders I know, their dogs live a normal life before and after Crufts, unless they win Grand Champian overall, but thats another story.

I think overall pedigree breeders strive to produce puppies to the breed standard bar from a free breeds that still need more attention, but the area that needs seriously looking at are back- yard breeders of mixed pedigree and their off springs, and the prices they are asking for them.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

maisey said:


> I have to disagree with this. I have been going to shows myself for quite a few years, yes alot of dogs enjoy it, mine love going it is a fun day out for them but for others it is not.
> The last show I was at, we got there at 8am and left at 1pm, there was one St Bernard tied up on its own the entire time. I had no clue on earth who owned it.
> I saw a woman slap her dog straight across the face
> I have seen St Bernards in the ring, clearly limping and they still got placed it.
> ...


But this is nothing to do with the dog show itself, people hit their dogs in the street.............


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Pezant said:


> Has he really already had an operation?  I knew he was a stubborn plodding thing, but I didn't realise it was because of breathing problems.


Yes. Something to do with his throat. She's thinking of quitting as he doesn't enjoy it and gets puffed out easily, but his breeder is encouraging her.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

mummyschnauzer said:


> Very well written, and some very good points, Spellweaver To add to your excellent post may I say, someone said on here, Crufts and pedigree dogs are only for the rich, what nonsense.
> 
> *Those fashion produced mixed pedigree breed puppies are being sold at prices way beyond normal pedigree breeds. *


*Is that why I am quoted a ~ $3500 for a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel where I live, and as well my friend was quoted the same price area for a French Bulldog from current show lines, which is well above the mixed breed prices?*



mummyschnauzer said:


> I have had mostly pedigree dogs all my life, and I'm not rich, because owning any dog where it be pedigree or not, warrants you are never rich, with one thing and another including extortinate Vet fees, means a lot of people who own dogs are never rich LOL.
> 
> The other thing I would like to add most pedigree breeders abide by the rules, and some don't. Most breeders I know, their dogs live a normal life before and after Crufts, unless they win Grand Champian overall, but thats another story.
> 
> I think overall pedigree breeders strive to produce puppies to the breed standard bar from a free breeds that still need more attention, but the area that needs seriously looking at are back- yard breeders of mixed pedigree and their off springs, and the prices they are asking for them.


I agree with you fully that we need to focus on substandard breeders . . . but some of them do show their dogs at Crufts and I can't see how anyone has a problem with those that point out these breeders as well. Pointing out that we have some problematic pedigree breeders does not negate the fact we have problematic mixed breeders as well. Both areas deserve attention.

I have a problem with all substandard breeders and have no qualms what-so-ever pointing out the substandard practices whether they be of top purebred breeders or of those that breed mixes. I also have no qualms about praising the good efforts of each when they are deserved.

CC


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

You will always get a handful of people who show to win and nothing more, you will always get judges who give advice that you wouldn't dream of taking however that doesn't make Crufts Cruel....

Of course there's a few bad owners pedigree and non who will hurt their dogs through frustration ect.

I've been to a few pet shows in my time where you can enter any dog as long as it's a dog, at these "shows" I've seen normal pet owners hit, kick and strangle their dogs because their pet dogs didn't do what they want, but they've not been trained to do anything different.

I think it's naive and wrong to believe that these things only happen at pedigree dog shows. But I guess the anti-pedigree brigade will always find something wrong.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

It's not people thinking Crufts is cruel, it's because some of the breeds today in order to conform to the clubs breed standards are suffering. Problems with breathing due to too short snouts, walking due to weird shaped backs, problems with backs due to too short legs, problems with heads being too small to incorporate a normal sized brain and problems with too much saggy skin, creating sore areas in the over laps, sometimes needing to be surgically removed/lifted.

That's what's cruel and while judges were still awarding points for those things shows became unpopular with some members of the general public. If you look at some breeds a few decades ago you can clearly see how the standards have been changed and not for the benefit of the dog, or it's looks IMO.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> . . . I think it's naive and wrong to believe that these things only happen at pedigree dog shows. But I guess the anti-pedigree brigade will always find something wrong.


Did I miss it?

Where did anyone suggest this only happened at dog shows? Who in their right mind would believe that?

CC


----------



## Wiz201 (Jun 13, 2012)

The practise of showing is not cruel, it's the breeding of unhealthy breeds.


----------



## Vicki (Jul 28, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> But I guess the anti-pedigree brigade will always find something wrong.


I am not anti-pedigree. I have a pedigree dog, most of my previous dogs have been and I definitely will have pedigree dogs in the future. I recommend people to buy pedigree dogs, because there are a lot of advantages of doing so.

I am, however, anti-dog shows.


----------



## spaniel04 (Nov 27, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Glad to tickle your fancy - but just what part are you laughing at?
> 
> That breed stanards were set by breed clubs? That's tue. :yesnod:
> 
> ...


I wonder which one you prefer - this clumber spaniel bred according to the breed standard and seen at last years Cruft's http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2wvWnhJoyRI/TORwOLTpGGI/AAAAAAAAADA/pJMsJJvKnzk/s1600/clumber.jpg ....

... or my working bred clumber? Bred without recourse to breed standard.


----------



## hazel pritchard (Jun 28, 2009)

Watching crufts on tv now from the comfort of my lounge, so glad as just heard of someone who is still in car park at crufts waiting to go home, they have been in carpark over 2 hrs and seems so much traffic no-one is getting out of car park,


----------



## Vicki (Jul 28, 2009)

Wiz201 said:


> The practise of showing is not cruel, it's the breeding of unhealthy breeds.


Showing dogs can be cruel, too. It's cruel to use leads that are really tight and put them at the top of a dogs neck. It's cruel to jerk on the lead, especially while it's placed at the top of the neck. It's cruel to lift dogs by the lead and tail so as not to ruffle their fur. It's cruel to hold a scared dog by force to let a stranger look in it's mouth and touch it.

These are things that not everyone that shows does, but it's still very common. I've seen it myself many times.

People do things like these to dogs when they're not on dog shows too, of course, but it's still cruel and it doesn't justify being cruel to dogs in dog shows.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Why people believe/think Crufts is cruel isn't necessarily what is actually going on.
However a lot of 'bad' press around pedigree dogs hasn't helped.
A few pedigree breeds have been bred to exaggeration  which is sad - such as the pekingnese, bulldog, Basset Hound and Neopolitan Mastiff. 
A few show owners are all about the win in detriment to the dogs - be that breeding for looks alone or in some cases of the full long coated or white dogs keeping them away from grass and mud not to stain or tangle their coats.
There was a report last year of a winning Shih Tzu (if I remember correctly) never going beyound the concrete yard so not to ruin their coat 

However like most things in life it's the minority giving the majority a bad name.

And it's little known by the general public how much the KC invest in Canine Health research etc

I love watching Crufts, although I have no interest in showing my self and own 2 mutts and a rescue.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Malmum said:


> It's not people thinking Crufts is cruel, it's because some of the breeds today in order to conform to the clubs breed standards are suffering.


Think it's more a case of judges interpretation of those standards From what I can work out a lot of people know which judges like certain looks and award accordingly so they know if they have a chance of winning before they enter the ring.



> That's what's cruel and while judges were still awarding points for those things shows became unpopular with some members of the general public.


Two breeders.. one of whose dogs won Best of Breed at Crufts last year before being disqualified by the vet check. Worth a comparison:

Compare Big Boom's Kennel :: clumber spaniel & golden retriever main picture and Abbyford Clumber Spaniels with the third/fourth picture down.

As for crossbreeds, BYB etc yes, the situation needs fixing. One method of doing that is to admit to the problems with some show breeds, push for fixes and restore trust in the breeding practices. As it stands all you normally see is denial or deflection such as fix BYB etc. You also get the impression that health tests are the "fix" when in reality they are only a tool to help. Get your own house in order and others will be only too happy to also push the BYB/crossbreed problems. It's likely they already do as I am sure the majority are concerned about dogs in general, not simply anti show/pedigree dogs.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Vicki said:


> Showing dogs can be cruel, too. It's cruel to use leads that are really tight and put them at the top of a dogs neck. It's cruel to jerk on the lead, especially while it's placed at the top of the neck. It's cruel to lift dogs by the lead and tail so as not to ruffle their fur. It's cruel to hold a scared dog by force to let a stranger look in it's mouth and touch it.
> 
> These are things that not everyone that shows does, but it's still very common. I've seen it myself many times.
> 
> People do things like these to dogs when they're not on dog shows too, of course, but it's still cruel and it doesn't justify being cruel to dogs in dog shows.


But it's not just SHOWS... A slip lead or show lead can not do damage, people in the streets yank and pull their dogs round on choke chains.. I personally think choke chains are cruel because most people don't know how to use them... Most dogs in shows as are used to having people look in their mouths, as should ALL Pet dogs......


----------



## Wiz201 (Jun 13, 2012)

You would also notice that these show dogs are well behaved on the lead


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Most show dogs are kept well but in any competition and any species of animal there are going to be people willing to sacrifice their animal's health or temperment to win trophies. 

Some of the breeds need serious work of course they do and some can go from the field to the show ring with no issues.

It's not the activity that's cruel it's the humans involved in it.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Wiz201 said:


> You would also notice that these show dogs are well behaved on the lead


Having walked Rott's around Crufts on show leads, I'm thankful they are, as a show lead wouldn't stop a Chi legging it..


----------



## Indiandpuppy (Feb 24, 2013)

I don't think crufts or the kennel club or most of the people there are cruel however in some cases small aspects of dog breeding/showing are cruel

eg-
when people 'enhance' their dogs with human products - however this is rule breaking

exaggerated features- however crufts now do health tests and don't show any sort of 'tea cup' as they would be too small for breed standard

bad breeders- nobody has control over this but crufts encourage rescuing or going to a kc breeder, some of these have been in trouble in the past for abandoning dogs that are not show standard (wrong pedigree markings, too big a nose etc?), but most now just sell them cheaper as 'pet quality'.

I loved the Friend for life campaign today. I like crufts I am just saddened by the fact people watching may go buy a pup cos they are cute without researching first eg- oh those collies are clever lets get one- one month later collie is in rescue as it didn't 'go over jumps' or ' peed everywhere'.

 I loved the jr handler agility <3


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> Most show dogs are kept well but in any competition and any species of animal there are going to be people willing to sacrifice their animal's health or temperment to win trophies.
> 
> Some of the breeds need serious work of course they do and some can go from the field to the show ring with no issues.
> 
> It's not the activity that's cruel it's the humans involved in it.


Or when they are rewarded for sacrificing health by winning


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Goblin said:


> Or when they are rewarded for sacrificing health by winning


Again down the humans there are some great breeders working for healthier dogs and hopefully they're being rewarded. The basset in the group was certainly better


----------



## Vicki (Jul 28, 2009)

Meezey said:


> But it's not just SHOWS... A slip lead or show lead can not do damage, people in the streets yank and pull their dogs round on choke chains.. I personally think choke chains are cruel because most people don't know how to use them... Most dogs in shows as are used to having people look in their mouths, as should ALL Pet dogs......


A show lead works in the same way as a choke chain, with the exception that it always chokes the dog, while a choke chain hangs loose when it's not being jerked or the dog pulls.

However, I'm not defending choke chains and, as I said in my previous post, I don't think that the fact that people in the street are cruel to their dogs justifies that people are cruel to dogs in dog shows.

Yes, most dogs in shows are used to people looking in their mouths, but there are also quite a lot of dog that are scared of people and don't accept being handled by a stranger. In my opinion, dogs like that should be sent out of the ring (in Sweden the rules says that they should, and I'd think there are similar rules in the UK) but unfortunately that doesn't always happen.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> Again down the humans there are some great breeders working for healthier dogs and hopefully they're being rewarded. The basset in the group was certainly better


I agree 100%.. I am aware that the KC actually have implemented checks for judges to ensure they take health into consideration as an example but they are up against a culture which does not accept change easily. Slow, small detrimental changes have been accepted for so long the changes are now counted as part of the breed/acceptable and possibly necessary. Results of shows like Crufts are so important to change the culture of acceptance for the minority of show breeds which have problems due to looks. Will not solve all the pedigree problems but would be a great start as it's probably the most visible to the public.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

I think showing is fine as long as the standards don't call for unhealthy looks and by doing so have a detrimental effect on the individual dogs health. Just looking at last years Crufts on TV at the mo and there are loads of dog who look perfectly healthy, no saggy eyes, skin and no problem with breathing or movement. It's not very many breeds that are affected by bad breed standards and as long as things for those breeds change, breed standards re set for the benefit of the dog etc. I don't see a problem with showing. It's a good way to show a breed at it's best (or should be) and meet good breeders, find out about the dog you think you'd like and see them at their best. Information from a good source is invaluable surely and at shows you will see good examples of *most* breeds.

What I hate is dogs that are so pomped up they are not allowed to lead a normal life because of damaging their fur, getting dirty and just plain being a dog. I don't like the show type Yorkie neither the Lhasa Apso or Shih Tzu, they don't look at all like a proper dog to me - more like a child's toy.

I know a good Mal breeder who is judging this year, her dogs are also worked and she has Champions which she has bred herself. That's what I'd like to see more of, dogs that have an active, normal existance even if they are show winners but with some breeds I suppose that couldn't happen because the fur is so important and that would get ruined if the dog were treated like an ordinary dog.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Vicki said:


> A show lead works in the same way as a choke chain, with the exception that it always chokes the dog, while a choke chain hangs loose when it's not being jerked or the dog pulls.
> 
> However, I'm not defending choke chains and, as I said in my previous post, I don't think that the fact that people in the street are cruel to their dogs justifies that people are cruel to dogs in dog shows.
> 
> Yes, most dogs in shows are used to people looking in their mouths, but there are also quite a lot of dog that are scared of people and don't accept being handled by a stranger. In my opinion, dogs like that should be sent out of the ring (in Sweden the rules says that they should, and I'd think there are similar rules in the UK) but unfortunately that doesn't always happen.


If a dog is scared of people?? or just scared in general, there is little point of showing it. As it won't show well so it defeats the whole point of it being in shows... For most dogs to have got to Crufts they would have been at a lot of shows, therefore it would lead me to believe they like showing... I have a friend who's bitch utterly loves showing, she shows her tan socks off when in the ring, but she doesn't travel well, it stresses her, soooo they don't show her.... She has a male who got a bit narked when people looked in his mouth, despite being a cracking dog who would have done well, guess what?? She didn't show him........................... I've never seen quite a lot of dogs at shows being scared... Sometimes Crufts can be a bit overwhelming for some dogs on the day, how you can look at those dogs in the ring and think they are not enjoy it is beyond me


----------



## Vicki (Jul 28, 2009)

Wiz201 said:


> You would also notice that these show dogs are well behaved on the lead


But that's just it, they don't have to be.

I don't know if you read my post about when I took my dog to a dog show, but she was not well behaved and was bouncing in the ring. When I put a show lead on her, she stopped bouncing and seemed to be quite well behaved.

Not for a second do I believe that a show lead has some magical properties that makes dogs well behaved. The reason that she appeared to be well behaved is that the lead caused her discomfort and possibly pain and she no longer felt happy and bouncy.

I prefer the happy, bouncy dog anytime.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Vicki said:


> A show lead works in the same way as a choke chain, with the exception that it always chokes the dog, while a choke chain hangs loose when it's not being jerked or the dog pulls.
> 
> However, I'm not defending choke chains and, as I said in my previous post, I don't think that the fact that people in the street are cruel to their dogs justifies that people are cruel to dogs in dog shows.
> 
> Yes, most dogs in shows are used to people looking in their mouths, but there are also quite a lot of dog that are scared of people and don't accept being handled by a stranger. In my opinion, dogs like that should be sent out of the ring (in Sweden the rules says that they should, and I'd think there are similar rules in the UK) but unfortunately that doesn't always happen.


No they don't always choke the dog. They also come in different forms that are down to the handlers preference.

I've binned dogs for showing fearful temperament and also seen a lot of other judges do it.


----------



## Vicki (Jul 28, 2009)

Meezey said:


> If a dog is scared of people?? or just scared in general, there is little point of showing it. As it won't show well so it defeats the whole point of it being in shows...


I agree that there shouldn't be any point in showing a scared dog. Yet scared dogs is placed in dog shows all the time


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Meezey said:


> I think to give justice to this, people who don't know, should know what a show lead looks like so they don't think people are putting pinch collars on their dogs:


That might be an acceptable show lead for some breeds - it certainly would not work for border collies or bergamaschi and, I suspect, many of the larger or hairier breeds.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Vicki said:


> I agree that there shouldn't be any point in showing a scared dog. Yet scared dogs is placed in dog shows all the time


Well not in my experience  Just have to agree to disagree, because I seem to be going to VERY different dog shows to what you have been...


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Meezey said:


> If a dog is scared of people?? or just scared in general, there is little point of showing it. As it won't show well so it defeats the whole point of it being in shows... For most dogs to have got to Crufts they would have been at a lot of shows, therefore it would lead me to believe they like showing... I have a friend who's bitch utterly loves showing, she shows her tan socks off when in the ring, but she doesn't travel well, it stresses her, soooo they don't show her.... She has a male who got a bit narked when people looked in his mouth, despite being a cracking dog who would have done well, guess what?? She didn't show him........................... I've never seen quite a lot of dogs at shows being scared... Sometimes Crufts can be a bit overwhelming for some dogs on the day, *how you can look at those dogs in the ring and think they are not enjoy it is beyond me*


Because they are performing in a minuscule part of a very boring day on their benches and happy to be up and active, doesn't mean the dog enjoys the day


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> That might be an acceptable show lead for some breeds - it certainly would not work for border collies or bergamaschi and, I suspect, many of the larger or hairier breeds.


 Just a general show lead, I didn't have time to find lots and lots..


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> That might be an acceptable show lead for some breeds - it certainly would not work for border collies or bergamaschi and, I suspect, many of the larger or hairier breeds.


That's the same type of lead I show my DDB on 

As an aside for others, I use a thin lead as it blends in with the dog so it's not noticeable and shows the silhouette of the dog, certainly not used to choke them.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rona said:


> Because they are performing in a minuscule part of a very boring day on their benches and happy to be up and active, doesn't mean the dog enjoys the day


Again I've been to lots of shows, and the dogs have been happy


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

rona said:


> Because they are performing in a minuscule part of a very boring day on their benches and happy to be up and active, doesn't mean the dog enjoys the day


I have never used a bench at a show, ever. I put my bags on it and that's it, my dogs come around with me so they don't get bored. At crufts you can't move for dogs, there's far less on the benches than there is walking round the stalls.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> That's the same type of lead I show my DDB on
> 
> As an aside for others, I use a thin lead as it blends in with the dog so it's not noticeable and shows the silhouette of the dog, certainly not used to choke them.


I think it's the smaller breeds that suffer the most from being strung up. The worst I've seen seem to be the American Cockers  I think it's to try and make their necks look longer  or to force a certain pace from them


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

A lot of the terriers are strung up as well it looks horrible and it really can't be comfortable for them.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rona said:


> Because they are performing in a minuscule part of a very boring day on their benches and happy to be up and active, doesn't mean the dog enjoys the day


Show day is a lot less boring for my dogs than when I'm at work. I know it's a cliche, but they go beserk when the show bag comes out to the point where I now conceal my actions, lol. They obviously know the association with the bag and where they're going, there does appear to be some enjoyment on their behalf.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Snoringbear said:


> That's the same type of lead I show my DDB on
> 
> As an aside for others, I use a thin lead as it blends in with the dog so it's not noticeable and shows the silhouette of the dog, certainly not used to choke them.


Same lead as use to Rott's too, normally a slip collar and lead....


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rona said:


> I think it's the smaller breeds that suffer the most from being strung up. The worst I've seen seem to be the American Cockers  I think it's to try and make their necks look longer  or to force a certain pace from them


It always looks unnatural to me as it forces a certain type of movement. In my breed we show them on a loose lead so they drop their heads and move more naturally.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> Show day is a lot less boring for my dogs than when I'm at work. I know it's a cliche, but they go beserk when the show bag comes out to the point where I now conceal my actions, lol. They obviously know the association with the bag and where they're going, there does appear to be some enjoyment on their behalf.


Oh yes. I'm sure there are many dogs that enjoy it, but to say that what you see in the ring reflects the day is just wrong 

The boy I've got now would have loved it, the last one not so much but would have been ok, the other would have hated every minute.

Just because a dog is bred to show, doesn't mean it will enjoy it unfortunately, and there are many many people in showing, as there is in life that have no empathy with their dogs and don't even realise the misery caused


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rona said:


> Oh yes. I'm sure there are many dogs that enjoy it, but to say that what you see in the ring reflects the day is just wrong


I don't think it is, I think most dogs enjoy the whole experience from when they know they are going to a show to, getting to the show, to getting in the ring.........


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Think it's more a case of judges interpretation of those standards *From what I can work out *a lot of people know which judges like certain looks and award accordingly so they know if they have a chance of winning before they enter the ring.


The phrase I have highlighted says it all. From what you can work out - hmmm. Definitely not speaking from experience, then?



Goblin said:


> As for crossbreeds, BYB etc yes, the situation needs fixing. One method of doing that is to admit to the problems with some show breeds, push for fixes and restore trust in the breeding practices. As it stands all you normally see is denial or deflection such as fix BYB etc. You also get the impression that health tests are the "fix" when in reality they are only a tool to help. Get your own house in order and others will be only too happy to also push the BYB/crossbreed problems. It's likely they already do as I am sure the majority are concerned about dogs in general, not simply anti show/pedigree dogs.


In your inexperience, you are overestimating the influence of the show world on the rest of the pedigree world. Less than 30% of pedigree dogs in the UK are registered with the KC, and only a small precentage of those pedigrees who are registered are shown. Furthermore, only a minute percentage of dogs who are shown have health problems.

When you put it into perspective like that, you can why we show people cry so often for you to get off our backs and start tackling the real problem. Instead of going after a miniscule portion of the pedigree dog world - a miniscule portion that is already concerned about and working towards improving the health and welfare of its dogs - why do people not turn their attention to the 70+% of pedigree dogs who are bred indiscriminately by BYBs and puppy farms?

Saying that this miniscule precentage have to put their own house in order before anyone will tackle the true, larger, problem is just a load of rubbish. The true reason is that we are an easy target for people who have no knowledge of the subject they pontificate about other than what they read.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Meezey said:


> I don't think it is, I think most dogs enjoy the whole experience from when they know they are going to a show to, getting to the show, to getting in the ring.........


You must see very differently to me then. What breed are you in?


----------



## sharloid (Apr 15, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> That might be an acceptable show lead for some breeds - it certainly would not work for border collies or bergamaschi and, I suspect, many of the larger or hairier breeds.


Can I ask why it wouldn't work?


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rona said:


> Oh yes. I'm sure there are many dogs that enjoy it, but to say that what you see in the ring reflects the day is just wrong
> 
> The boy I've got now would have loved it, the last one not so much but would have been ok, the other would have hated every minute.
> 
> Just because a dog is bred to show, doesn't mean it will enjoy it unfortunately, and there are many many people in showing, as there is in life that have no empathy with their dogs and don't even realise the misery caused


Yes, it's a shame people won't put their dogs first. I've seen judges place dogs they can't get their hands on because they are so fearful. Painful to see on every level and I cross those judges off the list of people I'll enter under. Some friends have a dog that suddenly changed her mind and hated being shown, so they did the right thing and stopped showing her.


----------



## Alice Childress (Nov 14, 2010)

Goblin said:


> Alice Childress said:
> 
> 
> > However, a lot of people that know very little about what really goes on at Crufts or shows in general have a negative image of it simply because of something they once heard, or read, or saw on TV.
> ...


No, I'm afraid your 'Or...' does not follow on from what I said, as it is a different point completely to the one I was making. There are some people that know very little about crufts but pass judgement based on very little information. There are some people that research health issues. This second point does not change, nor impact the first point (and hence, my point) whatsoever.

Some people may well have done their own research and be concerned about certain health issues (I think we can safely say everyone on this forum wants dogs to be healthy), and have come to their own opinions. However, as other posters have pointed out, the breed clubs set the standard not the kennel club and certainly not Crufts. So if somebody was concerned about certain breeds due to health issues... It does not follow that Crufts is inherently cruel.

... So the fact that the kennel club are open about there being problems and aiming to change these is a bad thing in your eyes?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> Yes, it's a shame people won't put their dogs first. I've seen judges place dogs they can't get their hands on because they are so fearful. Painful to see on every level and I cross those judges off the list of people I'll enter under. Some friends have a dog that suddenly changed her mind and hated being shown, so they did the right thing and stopped showing her.


You are so refreshing. A show person who actually sees what is happening and admits it.

I know that the vast majority of show dogs and show people are just fine, honest and happy, but until those bad apples are winkled out and exposed for what they are (some are known by virtually everyone in their breed ) myself and many others will stay firmly against the show world in general.

I really don't understand the total denial by some, it does them and their past time no favours in the eyes of the general public!!

Mind. if they are so blind and bury their heads in the sand, they'll never even see what is happening


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rona said:


> You must see very differently to me then. What breed are you in?


Rottweilers and hopefully I will be back in to GSD's in the next year or so..


----------



## Vicki (Jul 28, 2009)

Meezey said:


> Well not in my experience  Just have to agree to disagree, because I seem to be going to VERY different dog shows to what you have been...


Just look at the Cruft's winner from 2000, the Kerry Blue Terrier. The dog is almost panicking when the judge approaches. :sad:

Oops, forgot the link : Crufts - YouTube


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Vicki said:


> A show lead works in the same way as a choke chain, with the exception that it always chokes the dog,


No it doesn't! My dogs are shown on half choke chains that hang loose because they are running around by the side of their handler.



Wiz201 said:


> You would also notice that these show dogs are well behaved on the lead





Vicki said:


> But that's just it, they don't have to be.
> .


Yes they do. I was once showing my eldest bergie at an open show in Newark and we did an up and down and a tirangle - and it wasn't until we came to the last stand in front of the judge that I realised the lead I was holding in my hand was not actually attached to his collar - he had done the whole pattern at my side, as if he were on the lead. This shows two things: firstly he is well behaved off the lead; and secondly, the fact that I never realised the lead was not attached to his collar is proof that at no time during showing him would I have tried to choke him as you insist show handlers do.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> Show day is a lot less boring for my dogs than when I'm at work. I know it's a cliche, but they go beserk when the show bag comes out to the point where I now conceal my actions, lol. They obviously know the association with the bag and where they're going, there does appear to be some enjoyment on their behalf.


Same here - even the oldies who aren't shown any more still get excited when the show bag comes out  It has the same effect as opening the drawer where the leads are ......


----------



## Vicki (Jul 28, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Yes they do. I was once showing my eldest bergie at an open show in Newark and we did an up and down and a tirangle - and it wasn't until we came to the last stand in front of the judge that I realised the lead I was holding in my hand was not actually attached to his collar - he had done the whole pattern at my side, as if he were on the lead. This shows two things: firstly he is well behaved off the lead; and secondly, the fact that I never realised the lead was not attached to his collar is proof that at no time during showing him would I have tried to choke him as you insist show handlers do.


I have never said that no dogs at dog shows are well behaved, because of course there are. Obviously your dog is one of them. But the fact that your show dog is well behaved doesn't mean that all of them are. Well behaved dogs can absolutely be shown on a loose lead (unless the breed "has" to be more of less strangled to be shown properly, as the case seems to be with most small dogs, terriers etc).

I was told by the judge to put a show lead on my dog to get her to behave. If you were to take a guess, why did he give me that advice? And why did my dog suddenly (seemingly) become well behaved?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

sharloid said:


> Can I ask why it wouldn't work?


It's got an integral collar, so you can only have the lead in one position. For the bergies I need a separate collar so that the lead can slip loosely aorund without getting caught in their maps. (They are shown on leather half-check collars with a fairly short lead held loosely and run by the side of handler) For the border collies, whose movement is a forward, driving movement, with the head down, an integral collar would not allow them the freedom of head movement they need. (They are shown on metal half-checks with a long lead held loosely and run by the side and slightly in front of the handler)


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> You are so refreshing. A show person who actually sees what is happening and admits it.
> 
> I know that the vast majority of show dogs and show people are just fine, honest and happy, but until those bad apples are winkled out and exposed for what they are (some are known by virtually everyone in their breed ) myself and many others will stay firmly against the show world in general.
> 
> ...


I've not seen anyone denying there is a problem, and certainly no-one on this thread is in total denial or burying their heads in the sand. :incazzato: Perhaps you would like to point out where they are?

The most I have seen is people saying that the problem is nowhere near as bad as those whose only knowledge of showing is what they read in the gutter press seem to imagine.

It's attitudes like this - unjustly and wrongly accusing people who dare to stand up for their sport of total denial and hiding their heads in the sand - that make show people so angry with those who think they know it all when in fact they know very little.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> The phrase I have highlighted says it all. From what you can work out - hmmm. Definitely not speaking from experience, then?


Funny how "you don't know anything" is your main form of defense when you don't like something isn't it? How about PREFERRED BREED TYPE: WHY THE STAND-OUT DOG CAN BE A LOSER! Oh it's American you will argue.. Want me to link in the post where I asked if this is also the case in the UK and what the answer was? I could also probably find the post which says judges sometimes award according to their own dogs own traits.

How about... 


Freyja said:


> I used to have a little book and every time we went to a show the judges names was put in along side the dogs I had entered and how he placed my dogs. If he/she didn't like my dogs I wouldn't bother with them again.


Not stop showing their dogs, only specific judges. Of course the people who show on these forums aren't to be believed either if they disagree with you.



> In your inexperience, you are overestimating the influence of the show world on the rest of the pedigree world.


We aren't talking about numbers, we are talking about the most visible event and the premier part of it for pedigree dogs in the UK. Why is it sponsored by the way? Could it be it can influence people, not just those who go to crufts? As such *those which are held up as being "BEST OF BREED" should be healthy*.



Alice Childress said:


> So if somebody was concerned about certain breeds due to health issues... It does not follow that Crufts is inherently cruel.


Nice turn of phrase there, inherently cruel. I don't agree that crufts is inherently cruel either. I do believe it's premier event, show dogs, can lead to cruel practices in terms of breeding to an interpretation of a standard.



> So the fact that the kennel club are open about there being problems and aiming to change these is a bad thing in your eyes?


1962, 1980's.. how much has changed when it comes to the winners at shows and the exaggerations involved? You only have to hear breeders saying "clumber spaniels eyes are like that as part of the standard" last year to realize what a struggle the KC have, especially when they cannot enforce anything.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> I've not seen anyone denying there is a problem, and certainly no-one on this thread is in total denial or burying their heads in the sand. :incazzato: Perhaps you would like to point out where they are?
> 
> The most I have seen is people saying that the problem is nowhere near as bad as those whose only knowledge of showing is what they read in the gutter press seem to imagine.
> 
> It's attitudes like this - unjustly and wrongly accusing people who dare to stand up for their sport of total denial and hiding their heads in the sand - that make show people so angry with those who think they know it all when in fact they know very little.


You only need eyes to see stressed and badly treated dogs


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Funny how "you don't know anything" is your main form of defense when you don't like something isn't it?


Not at all - it's just that your comments would add more weight and be more accurate if you had actually experienced what you are talking about instead of sitting at a computer and reiterating articles posted by others.



Goblin said:


> How about PREFERRED BREED TYPE: WHY THE STAND-OUT DOG CAN BE A LOSER! Oh it's American you will argue.. Want me to link in the post where I asked if this is also the case in the UK and what the answer was? I could also probably find the post which says judges sometimes award according to their own dogs own traits.
> 
> How about...
> 
> Not stop showing their dogs, only specific judges. Of course the people who show on these forums aren't to be believed either if they disagree with you.


Whoa! Not read your link, but you are accusing me unjustly here. I happen to agree with Freya - hell, everyone in the dog world will probably agree with Freya! I don't know anyone who does not keep a record of the judges who like and who don't like their dogs. In this economic climate, why would you want to waste money entering under a judge who does not like your particular lines?  Why do you think that is dreadful?



Goblin said:


> aren't talking about numbers, we are talking about the most visible event and the premier part of it for pedigree dogs in the UK. Why is it sponsored by the way? Could it be it can influence people, not just those who go to crufts? As such *those which are held up as being "BEST OF BREED" should be healthy*.


I know this is what _you_ were talking about. I was merely pointing out to you what an insignifcant number of pedigree dogs you were actually talking about and blaming for the whole of the ills of pedigree dogs.

The reality is that well over 70% of pedigree dogs and their breeders are not KC registered and will be unaffected by the show. Are youreally trying to argue that anyhting that happens at Crufts is going to influence a puppy farmer, amke him see the light, health test all his dogs, not overbreed his bitches, vaccinate his puppies etc etc, even though it will lose him money? Like hell it will. And THAT is why the focus should be shifted away from a minority group who are already working on the health and welfare of their breeds to where the *real* problem is.


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

It isn't Crufts itself I don't like, but I am not a fan of showing. 

Firstly there is the issue with the serious health issues that are within some breeds, that are just totally ignored... as long as they fit the breed standard and win, it is okay. 

I also do not believe that most of the dogs are 'fit for function'. It is commonly said that the show types have less drive etc than their working line counterparts. There is also the issue that some of them have coats that would hinder them... I have seen arguments about this many times before, and some show people will argue to the death that this isn't an issue, but I do not believe it for one minute. I walk an Irish Setter, he doesn't have a full show coat but it isn't as short as some working lines I have seen (he was a rehome so we aren't sure about his lines, although I now believe he is show lines but that his coat has suffered due to be extremely underweight when he was rehomed). Even with his coat at the length it is, he has some problems with it... he is forever getting things tangled in his coat, and coming out the trees with half a bush following him... I cannot imagine how bad that would be if he had a longer coat. 

BCs have clear different lines, and if I am honest, I do not like the show types you see at the likes of Crufts... they all look like carbon copies of each other. There is a lot of variation within the working lines, but they still look like what breed they are AND can fulfill the job that they were bred to do. 

I also do not like the way some of the dogs are handled... of course that isn't all people, and of course people outside the showing world do the same/similar... but saying 'other people do it' does not make it right, and is not IMO the right attitude to have. I also don't like the way some dogs are groomed to within an inch of their lives. There were also some dogs in last years Crufts which just did not look happy... I think it was the Malinois who was very anxious looking, and just do not look happy. I am sure there was another dog too who I didn't like how they acted, but I cannot remember which one or why just now. Will have a think of that one.

I know a lot of show people thanks to the internet, and the vast majority of them love their dogs and are brilliant owners... however, a small number I have come across refuse to admit that there is anything wrong whatsoever with showing, and that IMO is a big problem.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> You only need eyes to see stressed and badly treated dogs


You still haven't answered my question, as usual.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

. . . and due praise for a wonderful and involved top breeder showing at Crufts this year who has painstakenly taken every effort to help his breed out. What a wonderful man this is.



> Dear Jemima,
> 
> Thank you for your email of yesterday's date regarding my Chihuahua Long Coat dog Ch Ballybroke Harry, and the first thing I must put you right on is that I do not find it uncomfortable to answer you enquiry, I have been very open about the problem with SM in our breed and more importantly in some of my dogs.
> 
> ...


I shudder when I read people who believe that those of us willing to criticize some aspects means we believe all involved are despicable. Some of us LOVE a great deal of those in the show world, and are happy to relate that, but will still openly criticise what we see as wrong.

CC


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Vicki said:


> I have never said that no dogs at dog shows are well behaved, because of course there are. Obviously your dog is one of them. But the fact that your show dog is well behaved doesn't mean that all of them are. Well behaved dogs can absolutely be shown on a loose lead (unless the breed "has" to be more of less strangled to be shown properly, as the case seems to be with most small dogs, terriers etc).
> 
> I was told by the judge to put a show lead on my dog to get her to behave. If you were to take a guess, why did he give me that advice? And why did my dog suddenly (seemingly) become well behaved?


OH, I see. You have one experience, and it's ok for you to transpose that to apply to the whole of the show world. Someone else has one experience, and that has to be recognised as applying only to that person and that dog.

No double standards there then!


----------



## mummyschnauzer (Sep 30, 2008)

Vicki said:


> Just look at the Cruft's winner from 2000, the Kerry Blue Terrier. The dog is almost panicking when the judge approaches. :sad:
> 
> Oops, forgot the link : Crufts - YouTube


I could interpret that look ON THE kERRY BLUE'S face as one of disbelief, that the judge was picking him LOL


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Anyway, night night folks - I'm off to get some shut-eye because I'm going to the cruel and dreadful Crufts tomorrow to shop and watch all those sick and unhealthy dogs winning BOB and best of group, and all the cruel owners/breeders/handlers beating them to make them stay on their benches unless they are covering them in cosmetics or stringing them up on the ring.

And then, of course, I'll be doing ithe cruel owner/breeder stuff myself on Sunday!


----------



## Vicki (Jul 28, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> OH, I see. You have one experience, and it's ok for you to transpose that to apply to the whole of the show world. Someone else has one experience, and that has to be recognised as applying only to that person and that dog.
> 
> No double standards there then!


Who said that it's one experience? It was the one (and only) show with THIS dog. I've had other dogs before this one.

When I was younger I was very interested in dog shows and I've both been showing dogs (though mostly others, not own dogs) and been to a lot of shows just to look. But that was until I realized that dog shows is nothing more than a pointless beauty competition that does nothing good for the breeds and I lost all interest in it. Instead I turned my interest in more meaningful activities that are fun for both me and my dog AND can benefit the breed.


----------



## Thorne (May 11, 2009)

Crufts isn't cruel, but every walk of life has it's bad eggs. That's my two cents on the matter. 

I was there today and of course couldn't watch every class and every dog, but didn't see any obvious rough handling or abuse in the rings. However I did cringe at a young woman scolding a Hound she was on a retail stand with, getting in his face and raising her voice for some unknown reason. 
Less than half of the benches in use had dogs on, they were mostly out and about!
There was a very large, wide and extreme Bulldog on the DD stand who I pitied; he was with a small, moderate bitch to illustrate what's being bred away from. He didn't seem overheated or distressed (an overheating Bulldog is frightening to see), but he had been bred to an extreme. Him and the girl with the hound were the only things that struck me as sad, not bad considering the hundreds of relaxed and contented dogs I saw 

I've always thought that the handful of worried dogs we see on the tv coverage are probably spooked by the crowds, having seen otherwise bombproof horses spook or bolt to applause. It's a very different atmosphere in the grand ring to the rather sedate breed rings!

Can't comment on the long-term health or any "behind the scenes" treatment, but the same could be said for all dogs. Gun dogs, sheep dogs, obedience competitors, pet dogs chasing tennis balls in the park - any or all of them could potentially be being mistreated, handled cruelly, or prone to ill health, but there's not been any ground-breaking documentaries on these groups of dogs!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Not at all - it's just that your comments would add more weight and be more accurate if you had actually experienced what you are talking about instead of sitting at a computer and reiterating articles posted by others....
> 
> Whoa! Not read your link, but you are accusing me unjustly here. I happen to agree with Freya - hell, everyone in the dog world will probably agree with Freya! I don't know anyone who does not keep a record of the judges who like and who don't like their dogs. In this economic climate, why would you want to waste money entering under a judge who does not like your particular lines?  Why do you think that is dreadful?


You'll see nowhere where I say it's dreadful, only that all judges need to be consistent when it comes to judging health, encouraging those dedicated breeders who are making the effort.



> I know this is what _you_ were talking about. I was merely pointing out to you what an insignifcant number of pedigree dogs you were actually talking about and blaming for the whole of the ills of pedigree dogs.


Lady doth protest too much... Where do I state show dogs are the cause for all the ills of pedigree dogs? Wish all problems such as excess folds etc, were as easy to fix if the will was there.



> The reality is that well over 70% of pedigree dogs and their breeders are not KC registered and will be unaffected by the show. Are youreally trying to argue that anyhting that happens at Crufts is going to influence a puppy farmer, amke him see the light, health test all his dogs, not overbreed his bitches, vaccinate his puppies etc etc, even though it will lose him money? Like hell it will.


Joanne Smith, sees a dog, say having a squashed face, large eyes at crufts winning a prize for being the best of breed. Not knowing anything about dogs but thinks it's cute.. Yes I do blame the premier dog show advertising that this type of dog is desired and good to own. I do believe this sort of person will not go to a good breeder, possibly a puppy farm and provide a demand for that breed/style of dog.



> And that is why the focus should be shifted away from a minority group who are already working on the health and welfare of their breeds to where the *real* problem is.


Solve the problem and people will have to shift focus away. Should be far easier to correct a minority after all. Issues were raised 50 years ago. Isn't that enough time? How long did it take to ruin the health of some breeds?


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Just realised the age of the person I was addressing and then realised I'm a horrid old baggage who must edit and delete her post.


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

There will be some lovely ethical breeders at crufts. 
There will also be some naff ones. 

I went last year to watch the agility finals and shop.

I did see quite a few stressed dogs throughout- some of those being shown in the ring and others just out and about, in the holding areas, being groomed etc. 

I avoided watching the BOB for certain breeds (cavaliers, pugs, GSD) because frankly I have a big issue with the stupidity of the whole "but it's of standard" argument as justification for unhealthy dogs being bred. 

Then again there were some breeders who took really good care of their dogs during the whole showing process and were obviously doing it for the right reasons. 

I have rescue dogs, one of which is a KC reg Border Collie. She's very pretty and sweet but more of a dog "in a border collie suit". She is totally clueless with regards to sheep/working and shows few of the FAP responses to movement and hard-wired instinctual behaviours that border collies are renowned for and what makes them such good workers. In appearance she is very different to my worker too, who is clearly built for such work, she isn't. She's a "cottage loaf" collie (although nice and trim she is just much squarer).
So in that respect I don't really get the whole "dogs of the breed standard" are optimum for working argument. It's not the case with many many originally working breeds. 
She's a lovely pet though. Most sheepdog people know that on the whole it's better to get an ISDS reg dog for working (there will be the odd KC one that works- I can think of a few dual registered lines, but many of the others are "barbie collies").

The things I most have issues with are:

1. The unethical/unhealthy/over breeding of certain breeds (cavs, pugs, GSDs etc)
2. Stressed dogs in such a large busy environment. 

Otherwise though, I wish all the responsible, caring and doing it for the right reasons breeders all the best of luck. 
Showing doesn't interest me personally, as I say I usually watch for the agility/working dog displays.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

rona said:


> You are so refreshing. A show person who actually sees what is happening and admits it.
> 
> I know that the vast majority of show dogs and show people are just fine, honest and happy, but until those bad apples are winkled out and exposed for what they are (some are known by virtually everyone in their breed ) myself and many others will stay firmly against the show world in general.
> 
> ...


Thanks. I'm not alone on my convictions, they'res a lot of us that feel the same way.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

As i have posted before ime not a fan of dog showing, each to their own, i would rather have a dog that enjoys life doing what comes naturally, mine enjoy romping/chasing over the fields in and out of undergrowth because thats what comes "naturally" to them, show dogs have to be trained to a high standard so surely a large percent doesnt come naturally so is made to do this, that tells me its the owners choice not the dogs. Ime not saying some dont enjoy it but have had to accept this is what they do.To stand for hours been groomed, pranced around a show ring is not a "natural" activity for any dog but an activity they have been forced or put into and many dogs will just accept this. This is how i see it anyway, no doubt someone will post back and shoot me down.


----------



## Wiz201 (Jun 13, 2012)

haeveymolly said:


> As i have posted before ime not a fan of dog showing, each to their own, i would rather have a dog that enjoys life doing what comes naturally, mine enjoy romping/chasing over the fields in and out of undergrowth because thats what comes "naturally" to them, show dogs have to be trained to a high standard so surely a large percent doesnt come naturally so is made to do this, that tells me its the owners choice not the dogs. Ime not saying some dont enjoy it but have had to accept this is what they do.To stand for hours been groomed, pranced around a show ring is not a "natural" activity for any dog but an activity they have been forced or put into and many dogs will just accept this. This is how i see it anyway, no doubt someone will post back and shoot me down.


Not shooting you intentionally but show dogs need to be kept fit and even though they are trained to parade round a ring, most are given good walks and allowed to get dirty before they get bathed and ready for the show. If grooming is done properly they shouldnt have to stand around for hours anyway, and classes certainly don't last for that long. When I went to shows with Bonnie, we were certainly not very long in a class for more than 30 mins at a time and in between the judge looking at them, I certainly didn't make Bonnie stand for a long time.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Snoringbear said:


> Thanks. I'm not alone on my convictions, they'res a lot of us that feel the same way.


Lets hope you start to make some headway to change more attitudes :thumbup:

With the KC trying hard to make changes and people like yourself, I actually hold out a little hope this time 



haeveymolly said:


> As i have posted before ime not a fan of dog showing, each to their own, i would rather have a dog that enjoys life doing what comes naturally, mine enjoy romping/chasing over the fields in and out of undergrowth because thats what comes "naturally" to them, show dogs have to be trained to a high standard so surely a large percent doesnt come naturally so is made to do this, that tells me its the owners choice not the dogs. Ime not saying some dont enjoy it but have had to accept this is what they do.To stand for hours been groomed, pranced around a show ring is not a "natural" activity for any dog but an activity they have been forced or put into and many dogs will just accept this. This is how i see it anyway, no doubt someone will post back and shoot me down.


Even I don't really see your point here 

There are dogs which will love the attention,grooming and hustle and bustle of dog shows, they aren't there 24/7 and it can be just a small enriching part of a dogs life.

Even running around the fields and woodlands can be a bit boring for some dogs 
I know for a fact that Alfie would have loved to have gone to shows every few weeks


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Wiz201 said:


> Not shooting you intentionally but show dogs need to be kept fit and even though they are trained to parade round a ring, most are given good walks and allowed to get dirty before they get bathed and ready for the show. If grooming is done properly they shouldnt have to stand around for hours anyway, and classes certainly don't last for that long. When I went to shows with Bonnie, we were certainly not very long in a class for more than 30 mins at a time and in between the judge looking at them, I certainly didn't make Bonnie stand for a long time.


I remember going to crufts on gundog day and seeing the springers they were certainly groomed for a lot longer than i would want a dog to be stood. Ime sure they do have "dog" time but there has to be a lot of training to get them to walk just "right" stand just "right" and this has had been forced upon a dog they might enjoy to show life but originally it wasnt their choice its not a natural thing they have had to be trained and conditioned to just accept that what they do.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

rona said:


> Lets hope you start to make some headway to change more attitudes :thumbup:
> 
> With the KC trying hard to make changes and people like yourself, I actually hold out a little hope this time
> 
> ...


My point is that its not something that comes naturally to a dog, its been forced upon them, i wonder how many dogs that are shown really dont enjoy it but have been forced into that life.


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

haeveymolly said:


> I remember going to crufts on gundog day and seeing the springers they were certainly groomed for a lot longer than i would want a dog to be stood. Ime sure they do have "dog" time but there has to be a lot of training to get them to walk just "right" stand just "right" and this has had been forced upon a dog they might enjoy to show life but originally it wasnt their choice its not a natural thing they have had to be trained and conditioned to just accept that what they do.


You don't train a show dog to walk a certain way - you teach them how to move at the right _pace_, i.e not bounding around beside you or dragging you along the ring, but the judge is looking for how the dog naturally moves. You do teach them to stand in a certain position, but it's not an unnatural position - I see Henry naturally stand in a 'stand' all the time.

You also have to bear in mind that a show, unless in the case of the most intense competitors, is a minor _minor_ part of a dog's life. We take Henry to shows maybe a couple of times a month in which he's in the ring for a maximum of around half an hour at the very most, over the whole day. He goes to a weekly forty-five minute ringcraft class where he is made to 'stand' and then walk beside me for about...twenty minutes, I guess. Over the whole session. Once a week. And he gets treats for it and gets to play around with a dozen other dogs. That's less time than he gets walked for in a day. It is really, really not that much to ask your dog to do.


----------



## Alice Childress (Nov 14, 2010)

Goblin said:


> Nice turn of phrase there, inherently cruel. I don't agree that crufts is inherently cruel either. I do believe it's premier event, show dogs, can lead to cruel practices in terms of breeding to an interpretation of a standard.


I guess our disagreement on this subject often comes down to being on different ends of the same rope (... I think I may have just made that phrase up ), because I agree that it _can/could_ lead to cruel practices. I just think that to generalise as I have seen some on this forum do about showing/crufts etc being cruel, with "dogs not being allowed to be dogs" and "bulldogs only able to conceive artificially", is damaging and insulting to the fantastic ethical breeders out there doing everything in their power to produce the healthiest, happiest dogs they can.



Goblin said:


> 1962, 1980's.. how much has changed when it comes to the winners at shows and the exaggerations involved? You only have to hear breeders saying "clumber spaniels eyes are like that as part of the standard" last year to realize what a struggle the KC have, especially when they cannot enforce anything.


As always, no one here is saying that every breeder/show person is good. I don't think the above makes most of them evil bad people either though. I think they are just in denial because they love their breed and are scared of it changing. This doesn't make them right but it is understandable on some level.



Thorne said:


> Crufts isn't cruel, but every walk of life has it's bad eggs. That's my two cents on the matter.
> 
> I was there today and of course couldn't watch every class and every dog, but didn't see any obvious rough handling or abuse in the rings. However I did cringe at a young woman scolding a Hound she was on a retail stand with, getting in his face and raising her voice for some unknown reason.
> Less than half of the benches in use had dogs on, they were mostly out and about!
> ...


This is the point. Of course some people are not going to be doing their best for a number of reasons by their dogs (which makes me want to kill), but that doesn't mean everyone.

I always go on about how there are Bulldog breeders out there breeding dogs that give birth naturally, run like the wind, and live to 13. However, when I was at Crufts last year and saw so many different sorts of Bulldogs... I was horrified. A few looked unreal, almost as though they were made out of play-doh.

However, 1. I know that as you say, there are bad eggs in every walk of life and 2. that sometimes looks are deceiving. For example, you could walk past a very pretty lab without realising the pain they live in daily with their hips. You just don't know, and although some of these exaggerations _look_ shocking, unless we live with the individual ourselves we cannot be sure that they suffer.

For me, the point is, many brilliant people, who just want to go out and have a fun day with their dog, get painted as evil show people/breeders who only care about looks. Which in the vast majority of cases is just ridiculous. You only have to go to crufts to feel the excitement and love for dogs.


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

haeveymolly said:


> My point is that its not something that comes naturally to a dog, its been forced upon them, i wonder how many dogs that are shown really dont enjoy it but have been forced into that life.


More than likely there are several dogs being taken to shows who don't enjoy it, because their owners are competitive and want to win. I don't think anyone would deny that - when you're dealing with massive numbers of dogs in the show scene there are always going to be ones who love it and ones who hate it, much like you get with anything.

_However_

The majority of owners, and the majority of dogs, love days out at shows. You've had loads of people on this thread already tell you how much their dogs enjoy the day out, enjoy the attention they get, enjoy meeting all sorts of other dogs and enjoy showing off in the ring. You can't take a minority number of bad apples and apply it across the whole spectrum for reasoning as to why dog shows are 'forced' enjoyment. It just doesn't work, especially when you've got loads of evidence right in front of you as to why that just isn't the case.


----------



## Alice Childress (Nov 14, 2010)

haeveymolly said:


> My point is that its not something that comes naturally to a dog, its been forced upon them, i wonder how many dogs that are shown really dont enjoy it but have been forced into that life.


Dogs don't 'naturally' live in central heated houses and sleep of settees... But I don't think they mind it 

It's a cliche, but one that on the whole I think is true, but a dog that does not enjoy showing is not a good show dog. For a dog to win they needs to be confident and look as though they love what they are doing, opposed to being dragged around the ring.

There may well be some people that for selfish competitive reasons push their dog to anyway, but I have spoken to many show people that talk of one dog who would have been done well in showing BUT they didn't enjoy showing so they stopped showing them. They didn't want to force their dog to do something they did not enjoy.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

haeveymolly said:


> As i have posted before ime not a fan of dog showing, each to their own, i would rather have a dog that enjoys life doing what comes naturally, mine enjoy romping/chasing over the fields in and out of undergrowth because thats what comes "naturally" to them, show dogs have to be trained to a high standard so surely a large percent doesnt come naturally so is made to do this, that tells me its the owners choice not the dogs. Ime not saying some dont enjoy it but have had to accept this is what they do.To stand for hours been groomed, pranced around a show ring is not a "natural" activity for any dog but an activity they have been forced or put into and many dogs will just accept this. This is how i see it anyway, no doubt someone will post back and shoot me down.


But most show dogs that I have met are pet dogs the vast majority of the time and do what pet dogs do. I would argue that an awful lot of pet dogs cannot do what comes "naturally" to them, we have to train them not to as it is not acceptable in society. If I had left Kilo to it he would have chased every runner, bike, vehicle, cat etc etc and loved it. What comes naturally to him is to hunt and chase. He had to be (and Rudi is having to be) taught what he is allowed to hunt and chase and what he is not. It's not natural for dogs to have to wear a collar and lead or to walk at a deathly slow human pace either, but we need them to do it. I run with Kilo and he appears to love it - again, not natural to be put into a harness and run at my pace without stopping to sniff etc. We go to obedience classes, not natural. All this is the owner's choice, not the dog's.

Granted ridgies are a single - coated short haired breed but I have seen them playing and a bit muddy very shortly before going into the ring - they are wiped down and given a bit of a polish and are good to go. They spend all day at the show lounging about scrounging bits of peoples' food and being with their people. I know that a few judges I have spoken to are concerned about the lack of 'hard' condition they are seeing in dogs from street walking and insufficient exercise and are advocating more exercise. I know what exercise and fun my boys' breeder's dogs get and they run across fields, swim in the river, run alongside a bike....the same as (or more than) any pet dog. Their dogs who do not like showing are not shown.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

haeveymolly said:


> As i have posted before ime not a fan of dog showing, each to their own, i would rather have a dog that enjoys life doing what comes naturally, mine enjoy romping/chasing over the fields in and out of undergrowth because thats what comes "naturally" to them, show dogs have to be trained to a high standard so surely a large percent doesnt come naturally so is made to do this, that tells me its the owners choice not the dogs. Ime not saying some dont enjoy it but have had to accept this is what they do.To stand for hours been groomed, pranced around a show ring is not a "natural" activity for any dog but an activity they have been forced or put into and many dogs will just accept this. This is how i see it anyway, no doubt someone will post back and shoot me down.


Why would you assume that a dog "doing what comes naturally" and showing cannot be mutually conclusive? there are plenty of show dogs who also work. My Labradors father won Championship shows and an all-aged Field Trial.

I am not a fan of the primping and preening that goes on with some breeds of dogs, but it is naive to assume that most of them are incapable of being dogs or indeed, working.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

labradrk said:


> Why would you assume that a dog "doing what comes naturally" and showing cannot be mutually conclusive? there are plenty of show dogs who also work. My Labradors father won Championship shows and an all-aged Field Trial.
> 
> I am not a fan of the primping and preening that goes on with some breeds of dogs, but it is naive to assume that most of them are incapable of being dogs or indeed, working.


I don't think haeveymolly was making that point at all. I saw no mention that the dogs that are shown aren't capable of work  only that showing and all it entails is fairly unnatural for most dogs.


----------



## Dimwit (Nov 10, 2011)

I'm not a huge fan of showing but I certainly don't think it (or crufts) is inherently cruel. Granted, there are SOME breeds that have suffered due to being bred to have exaggerated characteristics but on the other hand there are many wonderful, healthy show dogs.
Showing, like any other discipline will always have extremes but for everyone whose dog is wrapped in cotton wool and never allowed to "be a dog" there will be the people whose show dogs are primarily pets and who have a great life.
The "doing what comes naturally" arguement is also a strange one - there are many things we do with our dogs that they would not naturally do and yet they love (flyball, agility etc) and even those disciplines that tap into what dogs would naturally do such as field trials are not exempt from "cruelty".

I have been to Crufts a couple of times and saw a lot of happy dogs, enjoying themselves and getting lots of fuss and attention and was amazed at how "normal" and friendly a lot of the handlers were


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Alice Childress said:


> I don't think the above makes most of them evil bad people either though. I think they are just in denial because they love their breed and are scared of it changing. This doesn't make them right but it is understandable on some level.


I agree it is understandable. People knowing each other, small changes over periods of time make noticing the problems hard. Then there's the "but it's part of the breed". This in some ways is why I feel the culture of protectiveness seen frequently actually does far more harm than good. There are a lot of breeders working hard to correct problems but the bad ones are supported and the problems trivialized (as you can see even in this thread) when people should really be saying no it's never acceptable. There's an image of two bulldog skulls floating around the web. 100 years difference side by side. It's frightening.

In 1962 the author, a vet pointing out problems stated


> There is no suggestion that dog breeders and exhibitors of pedigree dogs are deliberately dishonest. Their worst faults are ignorance and a disinclination to face up to unpleasant facts.


Now people are not ignorant however the culture still seems to be one of hiding the problem from the public view.. yet those same people complain about trust lost..

Kevin Colwill I think summed it up when talking about the push to allow chalk, hairspray etc..


> With the upmost respect to Mr Gadsby and his supporters, I suggest the truth is rather less heroic. It strikes me as ironic that the dog showing community mounted no mass protest against unhealthy dogs being rewarded in the show ring, no mass protest against ultra-close breeding practices and no mass protest against the systematic exaggeration of some breeds. We manned the barricades in defence of hair spray, silicone, chalk and lacquer. The Elnett revolution; nice to know where priorities really lie.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

rona said:


> I don't think haeveymolly was making that point at all. I saw no mention that the dogs that are shown aren't capable of work  only that showing and all it entails is fairly unnatural for most dogs.


Well the vibe I got from that post was that behaving "naturally" and showing were not mutually conclusive.

I don't see how showing is any more unnatural than anything else we inflict on our dogs. Flyball, agility, heelwork to music, etc. None of that is natural. There is nothing natural about the way we keep pet dogs full stop so IMO that is a strange arguement.


----------



## Dimwit (Nov 10, 2011)

labradrk said:


> I am not a fan of the primping and preening that goes on with some breeds of dogs, but it is naive to assume that most of them are incapable of being dogs or indeed, working.


I must be in a minority but the primping doesn't bother me that much - I think that some breeds look a bit ridiculous with thier show cuts but I would far rather see a dog with a harmless haircut and a bit of chalk to make the white bits whiter than a dog that has been bred to have such a squashed up face that it has had to have surgery to enable it to walk around the ring a couple of times...


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Dimwit said:


> I must be in a minority but the primping doesn't bother me that much - I think that some breeds look a bit ridiculous with thier show cuts but I would far rather see a dog with a harmless haircut and a bit of chalk to make the white bits whiter than a dog that has been bred to have such a squashed up face that it has had to have surgery to enable it to walk around the ring a couple of times...


Oh I agree with you there.

I saw an obese Bulldog the other day waddling along so slowly, gasping for breath with its owner dragging it along. Poor creature.


----------



## samuelsmiles (Dec 29, 2010)

I just don't understand dog showing. I watched a few minutes of the judging of the terriers last night and they were all, I'm sure, healthy, fit, well looked after dogs. 

I looked at each of the dogs and they were all beautiful examples of their breed. First I thought the Norfolk terrier was best, then the Skye terrier, then the Irish terrier, then the Welsh, then the Westie.... and so on. 

I'm sure I could see the same thoughts going through the mind of the judge. Different judge, different day, different side of the bed from which he exited in the morning - different winner. 

So, the owners of those that don't win, walk away with a forced smile through gritted teeth thinking, "my little Fido should have won that." I just don't understand it at all.

I have to admit, however, I'm all in favour of Miss World making a comeback on primetime TV.


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

samuelsmiles said:


> I looked at each of the dogs and they were all beautiful examples of their breed. First I thought the Norfolk terrier was best, then the Skye terrier, then the Irish terrier, then the Welsh, then the Westie.... and so on.
> 
> I'm sure I could see the same thoughts going through the mind of the judge. Different judge, different day, different side of the bed from which he exited in the morning - different winner.


I'm not sure how other handlers feel, but I would personally feel more triumphant about a best of breed than a best in show (against other groups). It means that my dog is the very best example of his breed that he could possibly be, and any more wins on top of that against other breeds is just icing on the cake.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

haeveymolly said:


> As i have posted before ime not a fan of dog showing, each to their own, i would rather have a dog that enjoys life doing what comes naturally, mine enjoy romping/chasing over the fields in and out of undergrowth because thats what comes "naturally" to them, show dogs have to be trained to a high standard so surely a large percent doesnt come naturally so is made to do this, that tells me its the owners choice not the dogs. Ime not saying some dont enjoy it but have had to accept this is what they do.To stand for hours been groomed, pranced around a show ring is not a "natural" activity for any dog but an activity they have been forced or put into and many dogs will just accept this. This is how i see it anyway, no doubt someone will post back and shoot me down.


Can I asked why you think the level of training given to show dogs is any higher than any normal pet dog?? Given my breed is Rottweilers what difference does having a pet dog walking to heel in a controlled manner, that having a dog that can run in a controlled manner? I have never seen a Rott "prance" round the ring, they move round the ring showing a natural movement, that's the idea of showing  Your dog being under control walking on a lead is NO different to a show dog moving round the ring..... So you are forcing your dog to do something unnatural


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

I think we need to get a bit of perspective on this - very roughly 40 % of all pedigree dogs are registered with the Kc - out of that number around 4 % are show dogs and out of that roughly 2% will have qualified for Crufts.

That 2% will include examples of all the 210 breeds currently recognised by the KC and out of that 210 only 15 are deemed to be high profile breeds and out of that 15 HP breeds only 6 failed their health checks last year at Crufts -are we in all seriousness saying that this teeny tiny number of dogs is the MOST important issue in canine welfare ? - more important than the thousands of puppy farmed pups pouring in from Eastern Europe ?- more important than the 100's of unhealth tested, unregulated unsocialised and poorly reared pups bred by BYB's up and down the country ?- more important than ending the heart breaking misery of the Welsh and Irish puppy farms ? - words fail me .

What is all this really about ? - what kind of mind set truly believes that taking part in a dog show is the worst thing that can happen to a dog ?

..and for those that believe that only the show world breeds for exaggeration take a look at what's happening to the temperaments of some dogs bred to 'work' at man work sports

Belgian Malinois 2,5months Defence training bite work,(MIRO a spol)Veznica,21.10.2009. - YouTube

So You Think You Want a High Drive Puppy - YouTube

is this not compromising a breeds mental health in order to win ?

.where's the condemnation for this kind of exaggeration ?-

Rescues are not full of show bred Cockers, Springers, BSD or Border Collies - but sadly they do have more than their fair share of their high drive counterparts many of who struggle to find suitable homes .


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Bijou said:


> I think we need to get a bit of perspective on this - very roughly 40 % of all pedigree dogs are registered with the Kc - out of that number around 4 % are show dogs and out of that roughly 2% will have qualified for Crufts.
> 
> That 2% will include examples of all the 210 breeds currently recognised by the KC and out of that 210 only 15 are deemed to be high profile breeds and out of that 15 HP breeds only 6 failed their health checks last year at Crufts -are we in all seriousness saying that this teeny tiny number of dogs is the MOST important issue in canine welfare ? - more important than the thousands of puppy farmed pups pouring in from Eastern Europe ?- more important than the 100's of unhealth tested, unregulated unsocialised and poorly reared pups bred by BYB's up and down the country ?- more important than ending the heart breaking misery of the Welsh and Irish puppy farms ? - words fail me .
> 
> ...


Very well said.............. :yesnod:


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

Bijou said:


> What is all this really about ? - what kind of mind set truly believes that taking part in a dog show is the worst thing that can happen to a dog ?
> .


Couldn't agree more, sending rep.

If taking your dog in the car, to a show to socialize with other dogs/humans, have their coats pruned a little if needed and drive home with loads of goodies from the show is cruel then what is it that puppy farmers who keep their dogs locked in cages all day doing?

What about the dogs in cages being transported for food in China? What about those in pounds waiting to be put down? What about those dogs locked outside in the garden with no love or attention? I bet they would rather have a day out at a dog show than live the very very cruel life they live.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

I think what concerns me, is that people seem to think people at shows or who show, turn a blind eye to cruelty?? Or that most people who show care more about winning than then their dogs..

There are bad pet owners, bad show people and bad breeders.... 

My personal experiences, around my breed, OH showing and Judging and best friend showing and Judging, is that 99% of people who show have their dogs and their breeds best welfare at heart, in the Rott's I can say a lot of people are also heavily involved in Rescue, and I can honestly say I have seen people in the Rott Community come together when they know there is someone "dodgy" in the ranks...........

It's not as easy as people think, a breeder and exhibitor was banned last year by the KC and this had taken YEARS to happen... The Rott Community didn't just sit by and turn a blind eye to it "multiple complaints giving rise to the convictions extending over a period of years.


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

Bijou said:


> I think we need to get a bit of perspective on this - very roughly 40 % of all pedigree dogs are registered with the Kc - out of that number around 4 % are show dogs and out of that roughly 2% will have qualified for Crufts.
> 
> That 2% will include examples of all the 210 breeds currently recognised by the KC and out of that 210 only 15 are deemed to be high profile breeds and out of that 15 HP breeds only 6 failed their health checks last year at Crufts -are we in all seriousness saying that this teeny tiny number of dogs is the MOST important issue in canine welfare ? - more important than the thousands of puppy farmed pups pouring in from Eastern Europe ?- more important than the 100's of unhealth tested, unregulated unsocialised and poorly reared pups bred by BYB's up and down the country ?- more important than ending the heart breaking misery of the Welsh and Irish puppy farms ? - words fail me .
> 
> ...


Rep for putting this in perspective.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

So a Slovakian and US link have relevance to the UK show fraternity how?

The US gundog people use Electric Collars extensively, you can't even compare the them to the majority of UK trainers.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rona said:


> So a Slovakian and US link have relevance to the UK show fraternity how?
> 
> The US gundog people use Electric Collars extensively, you can't even compare the them to the majority of UK trainers.


Do UK working dog trainers not then?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Do UK working dog trainers not then?


A few bad ones, but the vast majority no


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rona said:


> A few bad ones, but the vast majority no


Yet there are a lot of articles about the use of E Collars and purchasing E collars on Gun Dog Forums, in Gun Dog Publications...?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Yet there are a lot of articles about the use of E Collars and purchasing E collars on Gun Dog Forums, in Gun Dog Publications...?


Which ones?

http://www.thegundogclub.co.uk/


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Bijou said:


> I think we need to get a bit of perspective on this - very roughly 40 % of all pedigree dogs are registered with the Kc - out of that number around 4 % are show dogs and out of that roughly 2% will have qualified for Crufts...


Why is it that when it comes to this everything is mutually exclusive? Can't people push for changes in multiple areas? Let's face it show dogs are picked on partly due to the fact they are visible, have titles such as "best of breed" and some problems are purely due to cosmetic reasons. A lot of other problems come from thing which are not as easy.. gene pool diversity etc. A lot of people dislike beauty pageants for children as they are demeaning and unhealthy. Was a program I think on american TV which was frightening. Same attitude of some contestants though..

Why is it things which should also be highlighted are only brought up when people want to distract from issues being discussed?

As you say it's a minority. Why aren't the majority forcing change and ensuring the minority get visibly pressured into realizing it's simply not acceptable rather than saying "but it's a minority, they'll get it sorted" and going about business as usual?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rona said:


> Which ones?
> 
> The Gundog Club


Google E Collars and Gun dog Training...


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Google E Collars and Gun dog Training...


Yeah and you find conversations mainly about the merits of Clicker training


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rona said:


> Yeah and you find conversations mainly about the merits of Clicker training


Ahh but see, if I was to go from this thread, then most gun dog training is cruel, and most gun dog trainers use e collars, and most gun dog trainers don't let their dogs have a normal life........

From The Field:
However, when things go wrong dog training, modern technology can help. A friend of mine had a home-bred springer bitch that he sent away to be dog trained professionally. She returned well versed in all the disciplines required, but as she got older she became unreliable, twice leading my pal off on a wild chase as she pursued pheasants, hare and deer, all the time ignoring the whistle. More hours of intensive training were devoted to her, but she still remained untrustworthy despite being delightful in every other respect.

"The cure came with an electric training collar of the type banned in Wales, and which the Kennel Club would like to see outlawed in the rest of the UK. The spaniel received three mild shocks each time she ignored her handler. This was enough to cure her errant behaviour, and she hasn't had to wear the collar since. There's no doubt that in the wrong hands an electric collar can be cruel, but then so can a stick or a boot. In the right hands, it's a proven lifesaver.

Modern electric collars are sophisticated and with most you can adjust the severity of the shock - on the lowest setting it's just a tingle. With many dogs, even the lowest setting is enough to make the sinner stop and return to its handler. However, if the thought of a shock collar upsets you, there are highly effective alternatives. The Jetcare Pro, for example, works on a similar principle but instead of administering a shock, gives the dog a cold spray. It can be operated at up to 300 metres with the remote control, and the spray is sufficient to give most dogs a surprise that will stop them misbehaving."

Thankfully I have my own mind, and although I see lots of adverts for E Collars in these publications, I don't tar all trainers with same brush or think gun dog training is cruel


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

I'd like someone to find the posts on this thread that say 'most' showing is cruel and 'most' show dogs don't live a normal life.

I can't recall them and suggest they would be a minority of posts. I've read many that don't like showing . . . but that does not imply they believe it is cruel. I don't like dog shows. I can't stand attending . . . but that has nothing to do with thoughts they are cruel for the animals. I can't stand crowds, commotion or line-ups and hate shopping venues, quite frankly. It would be cruel to subject ME to that.

For you to say _"if I was to go from this thread, then most gun dog training is cruel"_ is off base IMHO.

It has been clear, to me, it is the minority that is being spoken of with regard to 'cruel' and Crufts. I don't know how it is not clear to others . . . and the objection to the minority of breeders who do not let their dogs live a normal life and to those who string their dogs up on leads IS a worthwhile objection. That is NOT to be understood as 'ALL' show breeders are cruel.

I believe it is always worthwhile to be completely open and forth-right about the problems even if they are problems seen only in the minority. As pointed out tackling problems from all areas at once should not be objectionable to anyone.

CC


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Ahh but see, if I was to go from this thread, then most gun dog training is cruel, and most gun dog trainers use e collars, and most gun dog trainers don't let their dogs have a normal life........
> 
> From The Field:
> However, when things go wrong dog training, modern technology can help. A friend of mine had a home-bred springer bitch that he sent away to be dog trained professionally. She returned well versed in all the disciplines required, but as she got older she became unreliable, twice leading my pal off on a wild chase as she pursued pheasants, hare and deer, all the time ignoring the whistle. More hours of intensive training were devoted to her, but she still remained untrustworthy despite being delightful in every other respect.
> ...


Well if you only go on what you read, particularly only one persons view and not first hand experience or those of others in the know then you are as bad as those you wish to discredit.

Most don't actually see with their own eyes any e collars being used on gundogs unlike the spectacle that is Crufts which is an open public display of what is right and also what is wrong with showing dogs.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

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



> So a Slovakian and US link have relevance to the UK show fraternity how?


no relevance to the Uk show fraternity - but breeding for exaggeratedly high drive sadly does go on in the the working world here in the Uk as part of sports such as Shutzhund, Mondio and ring sports.....yet no-one questions whether these competitions are 'cruel'

We have had 20 WL Malinois handed in to our breed rescue - their temperaments are such that it will be almost impossible to rehome them ( in fact we had to have three of them PTS )- one WL breeder admitted that he culls any surplus pups rather than sell them to the wrong kind of home - on the surface this may seem responsible but he is surely JUST as guilty of breeding for exaggeration as the worst kind of show breeder.

you ask why the majority of show breeders are not forcing change on the minority - explain just how I as a BSD breeder can force change on a breeder of Pugs (for example ) ? - only the KC and the Pug breed clubs can do this and of course they can only affect the tiny minority of Pugs that are shown - the brachy breeds are incredibly popular and even though the Breed standard has been changed and more moderate Pugs will be eventually bred for the show ring this will have absoloutely NO effect on the Pugs churned out by pupy farms or coming in from Europe whose breeders will not even have read the breed standard never mind be breeding towards it.

You accuse the entire show world of being in denial of the problems that affect a few breeds but this is just not true - breed standards have been changed, health testing has been implemented, judges contracts have been reworded and breeding programmes changed ..... apart from wearing a hair shirt and reciting a 'mea culpea' every time we enter our dogs in a show I'm at a loss to know what else we can do !

Rona -


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

comfortcreature said:


> For you to say _"if I was to go from this thread, then most gun dog training is cruel"_ is off base IMHO.
> 
> CC


I was being facetious..

With the title of the thread being is Crufts Cruel.

There are problems in the showing world, as there are in the breeding world, as there are in the pet world, as there are in the working world.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Bijou said:


> . . . .you ask why the majority of show breeders are not forcing change on the minority - explain just how I as a BSD breeder can force change on a breeder of Pugs (for example ) . . . .


My thoughts on this has always been to be open about the problems in those breeds when they are discussed, instead of defensive about the show world, and then they will see the pressure from the public.

Since the problems in Cavaliers were highlighted very publically in 2008 we have seen the publics demand (in the UK) for Cavaliers drop in ~half. Those breeding with health in mind are having no trouble homing pups, however as more and more committed Cavalier buyers are asking for health testing to be done. One of the most common questions on Cavalier forums now has become 'where can I find a health testing breeder?'

Am Cockers fell out of favor with the public (most popular breed regularly for decades) when temperament, ear infections and bladder control problems became well realized commonly. The breeders of such now are working incredibly hard at rectifying these.

We need more highlighting of the problems in brachy breeds and breeds with other confo problems . . . but whenever those campaigning to educate the public about pure breed health problems do so they are met with TONS of defensive objections from others in the fancy that want to speak in generalities rather than on specifics. That is not constructive.

CC


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Mmm now how could that happen??

Work with the KC instead of against it maybe?

CRUFTS VET CHECK VIDEO - PROPAGANDA? | The Canine Alliance


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Bijou said:


> you ask why the majority of show breeders are not forcing change on the minority - explain just how I as a BSD breeder can force change on a breeder of Pugs (for example ) ? - only the KC and the Pug breed clubs can do this and of course they can only affect the tiny minority of Pugs that are shown - the brachy breeds are incredibly popular and even though the Breed standard has been changed and more moderate Pugs will be eventually bred for the show ring this will have absoloutely NO effect on the Pugs churned out by pupy farms or coming in from Europe whose breeders will not even have read the breed standard never mind be breeding towards it
> ...
> I'm at a loss to know what else we can do !


How about standing up as a majority body and saying breeding for looks without care for health is unacceptable no matter what the minority thinks should be their breed's standard. How about standing up as a body as saying loudly to the public dogs like X are wrong as they do have breathing problems caused by their looks? How about the show community on this forum, instead of distraction and dismissal, point out the positive steps being taken... How about they make an effort to educate Joe Public as to the mistakes of the past and the reasons BYB/European dogs with these looks are not a good idea..

Generally speaking the representatives of the show culture shown in this thread have pushed an attitude of denial, not education.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Just out of interest.. how many breed clubs have a point in the rules/code of ethics that forbid anyone from saying anything detrimental about the breed, the club or breeders? Things like



> Members should conduct themselves at all times in a manner that is a credit to the Club and ownership of XXXXX. *Members should not use any method of communication whatsoever in a way that could be considered defamatory, insulting or detrimental to another member, or the Club, or to the breed in general* nor furnish information including pedigrees and photographs of dogs not owned by them without prior written consent of the owner.


According to rules like this you are not allowed to actually stand up and say things are wrong in the breed to the outside world.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

That is how Margaret Carter was thrown off the Cavalier committee following her public testimony in 2008. This is what they used to expell her.

_"Members should conduct themselves at all times in a manner that is a credit to the Club and ownership of Cavaliers. Members should not use any method of communication whatsoever in a way that could be considered defamatory, insulting, or detrimental to another member, or the Club, or to the breed in general, nor furnish information including pedigrees and photographs of dogs not owned by them without prior written consent of the owner." _

This, of course, is the piece in their COE that they ignored as they targetted Margaret while letting many other breeders slide. _"No dog which has a known physical defect that could be detrimental to the health and well being of the offspring or the breed in general should be used at stud"_ 

EVERY one of those types of COE rules that protects the club breeders over the dogs needs to get thrown out.

CC


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Don't forget, as we keep hearing how it's a only a minority...

204 voted for removing Margaret from the committee of the Cavalier Club
31 voted against her removal.
4 people abstained.
Of the people who spoke, just one person spoke in favour of Margaret. As Margaret read out her defence the Chairman had to silence hecklers.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Don't forget, as we keep hearing how it's a only a minority...
> 
> 204 voted for removing Margaret from the committee of the Cavalier Club
> 31 voted against her removal.
> ...


But then you have the good breed clubs... I believe the Irish Setter people aren't too bad


----------



## Thorne (May 11, 2009)

Just switched on the TV to watch more unhappy dogs being dragged around at Crufts :thumbup: 
They're discussing how to responsibly choose a breed and breeder, always good to see the topic being broadcast to the masses. Harrods' puppies just got a mention and not a positive one!

On a more serious note, some good points being made on this thread; it is a shame that there are people in the show world whose vision is clouded by "what wins" and "the way things are" in showing, but equally it's a shame that there are people so adamant that showing is cruel and maintain this despite having little to no experience of it.

Was thinking earlier about the horse shows I've been to - positively in the dark ages compared to dog shows! Whips, spurs, harsh bits and tantrums from riders at all levels of competition. Crufts looked like a holiday camp in comparison, but that's another thread


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Wish all problems such as excess folds etc, were as easy to fix if the will was there.


The will is there and they are being fixed in the show world. Have you not noticed how many of the high profile breeds have passed their vet health check this year? Or are you just ignoring that because it doesn't fit in with your argument that show breeders have no will to correct these things and that Crufts promotes unhealthy dogs?

However, health is *not* being addressed at all in the rest of the pedigree world. And as the show world consists of a minority of pedigree dog breeding, your fixation with this minority is bordering on an obsession.

If you were really concerned about the health of pedigree dogs rather than just wanting to indulge in your obsession of Crufts bashing, you would be concentrating on where the problem really lies- ie in the majority of pedigree breeding that has nothing at all to do with Crufts.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Bijou said:


> I think we need to get a bit of perspective on this - very roughly 40 % of all pedigree dogs are registered with the Kc - out of that number around 4 % are show dogs and out of that roughly 2% will have qualified for Crufts.
> 
> That 2% will include examples of all the 210 breeds currently recognised by the KC and out of that 210 only 15 are deemed to be high profile breeds and out of that 15 HP breeds only 6 failed their health checks last year at Crufts -are we in all seriousness saying that this teeny tiny number of dogs is the MOST important issue in canine welfare ? - more important than the thousands of puppy farmed pups pouring in from Eastern Europe ?- more important than the 100's of unhealth tested, unregulated unsocialised and poorly reared pups bred by BYB's up and down the country ?- more important than ending the heart breaking misery of the Welsh and Irish puppy farms ? - words fail me .
> 
> ...


Brilliant post and factually true! But you know what this means - Goblin will be lumping you in with me for "trivialising" the problem


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> Well *if you only go on what you read*, particularly only one persons view and *not first hand experience or those of others in the know* then you are as bad as those you wish to discredit.


Oh I _s*ee*_ - it all becomes clear now. It's ok for people who have no experience in dog showing to read about it and suddenly decide they are experts in the subject, ignore people in the know, and make numerous posts about it. But it's _*not*_ ok for people to read about horrendous practices in the "holier than thou" working dog faternity and post about it?

No double standards there then!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rona said:


> Well if you only go on what you read, particularly only one persons view and not first hand experience or those of others in the know then you are as bad as those you wish to discredit.
> 
> Most don't actually see with their own eyes any e collars being used on gundogs unlike the spectacle that is Crufts which is an open public display of what is right and also what is wrong with showing dogs.


But it's also the fact when people SHOW you, tell you that people in shows and breeds are trying to change things, you and people who are so against showing chose it ignore that, and still rant on about what's what wrong with showing...

Rome wasn't build in a day, and no it's not a perfect world, and yes it has it's bad eggs, and yes some of the breed's have been ruined ( again it's ignored when people admit to that), but it is slowly changing, and people are trying to change it.... and people admit that it's not all fluffy angels and snow clouds... and you know what, I think if things were perfect in the show world, people would still pick faults......... :rolleyes5:


----------



## Vicki (Jul 28, 2009)

Bijou said:


> ..and for those that believe that only the show world breeds for exaggeration take a look at what's happening to the temperaments of some dogs bred to 'work' at man work sports
> 
> Belgian Malinois 2,5months Defence training bite work,(MIRO a spol)Veznica,21.10.2009. - YouTube


What's wrong with this puppy? The people in the video are idiots for lifting the puppy like that and, in my opinion, it's a stupid way to start training a Schutzhund, but surely you can't mean that's the puppy's fault?

I can see nothing wrong with this puppy. He's a happy, playful puppy, just as puppies should be.



Bijou said:


> So You Think You Want a High Drive Puppy - YouTube
> 
> is this not compromising a breeds mental health in order to win ?
> 
> ...


There's nothing wrong with this puppy either. It's just playful. I don't agree with everything he says in the video, though. For example, you don't have to have an exercise pen to raise a Mali without having your home destroyed. I have never crated my Mali when she's been left home alone when I've been at work and neither have any Mali owner I know, even if their dogs, just like my dog, are working bred and high drive.

I do, however, agree that high drive dogs aren't for everyone and I think it's great that someone tries to educate people about that. When you buy a dog you should choose a breed that suits your needs. If you're not interested in training, then don't buy a breed that requires a lot of mental stimulation. If you're not interested in long walks, then don't buy a dog that requires a lot of exercise. It's as simple as that.

The fact that some breeds are high drive and not easy to handle (and therefore not for everyone) isn't really a problem as long as the right people buy them. The problem is that the wrong people doesn't like them the way they are (and as they should be) because they can't handle it and try to change the high drive breeds into boring, bland and drive-less pet dogs that anyone can handle.

There is a need for high drive dogs in society, so if you want a pet/show dog that is easy to handle- then buy one of the ca 350 breeds that already are suitable for that and leave the working, high drive breeds alone!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> My thoughts on this has always been to be open about the problems in those breeds when they are discussed, instead of defensive about the show world, and then they will see the pressure from the public.


Everyone from the showing fraternity on this thread has been open about the problems in certain breeds. No-one has denied the problems or trivialised the problems.

However, different posters (or, more accurately, I should say the same few different posters) have accused us of all these several times on this thread. Do you really wonder why, with these sorts of attack tactics, we become defensive?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Meezey said:


> But it's also the fact when people SHOW you, tell you that people in shows and breeds are trying to change things, you and people who are so against showing chose it ignore that, and still rant on about what's what wrong with showing...
> 
> Rome wasn't build in a day, and no it's not a perfect world, and yes it has it's bad eggs, and yes some of the breed's have been ruined ( again it's ignored when people admit to that), but it is slowly changing, and people are trying to change it.... and people admit that it's not all fluffy angels and snow clouds... and you know what, I think if things were perfect in the show world, people would still pick faults......... :rolleyes5:


I don't think you've read what I've written on this thread, or, you are so defensive you and others are not noticing the positives only the negatives, unlike me about showing rrr:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> How about standing up as a majority body and saying breeding for looks without care for health is unacceptable no matter what the minority thinks should be their breed's standard. How about standing up as a body as saying loudly to the public dogs like X are wrong as they do have breathing problems caused by their looks?


They have done. Ever heard about the Canine Alliance, who want the health checks extended to all breeds? Oh, hang on a minute ................. I seem to remember that when the CA was formed you were against it, weren't you?

As is Rona:



rona said:


> Mmm now how could that happen??
> 
> Work with the KC instead of against it maybe?
> 
> CRUFTS VET CHECK VIDEO  PROPAGANDA? | The Canine Alliance


Hmmm. So when we do stand up and do exactly as you "dictate" above, what happens?

Rona's post says it all.

We are still castigated.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Vicki said:


> There is a need for high drive dogs in society, so if you want a pet/show dog that is easy to handle- then buy one of the ca 350 breeds that already are suitable for that and leave the working, high drive breeds alone!


The GSD that won BOB in Crufts last year is VA1 SchH3 kkl1 Lbz? So I take it that's not a high drive working dog?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> They have done. Ever heard about the Canine Alliance, who want the health checks extended to all breeds? Oh, hang on a minute ................. I seem to remember that when the CA was formed you were against it, weren't you?
> 
> As is Rona:
> 
> ...


Decade after decade after decade 
And the dogs still suffer


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

have you seen that maltese in Toy group..poor thing was tripping falling over its coat...???

That pekingese did not look as it can breathe...but it maybe the streaming?
these were both BOB!

(do not kick me, I am just an average dog owner...


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> Decade after decade after decade
> And the dogs still suffer


:incazzato: :incazzato: :incazzato:

But something is being done about it and YOU are not only castigating the very people who are doing something about it, but you are also denying that they *are* doing something about it.

In every walk of life there are those who work to achieve something and those who sit back and do nothing but criticise. I am just glad I can hold my hand up and say that I am one of the former.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> :incazzato: :incazzato: :incazzato:
> 
> But something is being done about it and YOU are not only castigating the very people who are doing something about it, but you are also denying that they *are* doing something about it.
> 
> In every walk of life there are those who work to achieve something and those who sit back and do nothing but criticise. I am just glad I can hold my hand up and say that I am one of the former.


You only read into my posts what you need to to be able to be defensive. Doesn't help your points at all. I have said on this very thread several times about certain breed clubs actually getting their house in order, even highlighted one breed. 
I haven't info on every breed so couldn't possibly comment. I do know that things are wrong in several though and not just the common suspects.
The Lab people need a bloody good kick up the arse.

You only have to read the CA site to realise they are still self protecting. :nonod:


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

rona said:


> You only have to read the CA site to realise they are still self protecting. :nonod:


So if show folk do nothing about the conditions of the breed they are bad people who encourage dogs to suffer with various health problems and are the lowest of the low....

But....

If show folk group together to promote health checking all breeds, encouraging health testing and promoting better standards they are "self protecting".

Apart from stopping breeding pedigree dogs and shows all together what would you like the Canine Alliance / Ethical show breeders to do?


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Meezey said:


> But it's also the fact when people SHOW you, tell you that people in shows and breeds are trying to change things, you and people who are so against showing chose it ignore that, and still rant on about what's what wrong with showing...


That is not what has happened at all. No-one has ignored the fact that there are those working hard to change things in some areas.

There has been acknowledgement for the people trying to change things and those that do well and for those clubs that do well on this thread.

There is also room to continue to complain about the changes that still need to be made.

It is not all one side or the other. Many on this thread can see both.

CC


----------



## Thorne (May 11, 2009)

rona said:


> Decade after decade after decade
> And the dogs still suffer


Which dogs? Are we talking about every show dog, a majority, a minority, or a handful? Do you mean all pedigree dogs or just the high profile breeds? Does this extend to those being bred as less extreme than their predecessors by responsible and caring breeders? How are you defining suffering?

I'm not trying to make this sound like a rant, just playing devils advocate.

There's no denying that certain dogs and certain breeds are predisposed to health problems and that is indeed sad and avoidable, but surely show breeders are more likely to breed away from these traits than a BYB or puppy farmer producing pet quality pups from untested, randomly selected parents?

I thought the Shar Pei BOB was very nice, far less exaggerated than what I've seen winning in previous years. The Peke on the other hand was very much unchanged to my untrained eye, one wonders what their leg conformation is like under all that fur to cause their "rolling gait". 
Will be interesting to see how other high profile breeds get on with the vetting procedures over the course of the show, am I right in thinking they've all passed so far?

Dog showing is not inherently cruel, nor is dog ownership as a whole, but it now has such a high profile in the media that it only takes a few bad apples for the rest of the show world to be tarred with the same brush.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> So if show folk do nothing about the conditions of the breed they are bad people who encourage dogs to suffer with various health problems and are the lowest of the low....
> 
> But....
> 
> ...


Oh for heavens sake. Have you actually read that site?
Did you not go to or watch the original meetings?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Thorne said:


> Which dogs? Are we talking about every show dog, a majority, a minority, or a handful? Do you mean all pedigree dogs or just the high profile breeds? Does this extend to those being bred as less extreme than their predecessors by responsible and caring breeders? How are you defining suffering?
> 
> I'm not trying to make this sound like a rant, just playing devils advocate.
> 
> ...


I give up. read my posts


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> You only read into my posts what you need to to be able to be defensive.


I don't read anything into your posts other than what you write.

Good tactics though Rona - attack and then when the attcked reply to refute your comments accuse them of being defensive. THAT is bullying. (Thought you were all against bullying?)

Well, bully away, accuse away - I'm not the kind of person who succumbs to bullying tactics. If you attack me and the things I stand for, I will defend myself. Live with it.


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

rona said:


> Oh for heavens sake. Have you actually read that site?
> Did you not go to or watch the original meetings?


I'm actually a member of the Canine Alliance, I keep upto date on all their meetings, plans and support them majorly as a minority trying to encourage health checks to be across the board.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Can somebody explain to me why those involved in the show world are so ultra sensitive that when a weakness is pointed out about what some do in their world - and it is clearly pointed out the object is 'some' and not all - that they understand that to mean 'they are all being tarred with the same brush.'

Meanwhile, going through the thread:

Page 2 - name calling and blanket accusations.



Spellweaver said:


> . . . But contrary to what *the know it alls who know nothing *would have you believe, they are actually in a very small minority, both and at Crufts and at any other championship show.
> __________________


Page 11 - taking things to a personal level. (To Goblin)



Spellweaver said:


> The phrase I have highlighted says it all. *From what you can work out - hmmm.* Definitely not speaking from experience, then?
> 
> In your *inexperience*, . . ..


A response on page 13 to a post by Vicki



Vicki said:


> I have never said that no dogs at dog shows are well behaved, because of course there are. Obviously your dog is one of them. But the fact that your show dog is well behaved doesn't mean that all of them are. Well behaved dogs can absolutely be shown on a loose lead (unless the breed "has" to be more of less strangled to be shown properly, as the case seems to be with most small dogs, terriers etc).
> 
> I was told by the judge to put a show lead on my dog to get her to behave. If you were to take a guess, why did he give me that advice? And why did my dog suddenly (seemingly) become well behaved?





Spellweaver said:


> OH, I see. *You have one experience, and it's ok for you to transpose that to apply to the whole of the show world. * Someone else has one experience, and that has to be recognised as applying only to that person and that dog.
> 
> No double standards there then!


Page 17: exaggerated accusations of what has been said.



Bijou said:


> . . . *You accuse the entire show world of being in denial *of the problems that affect a few breeds but this is just not true . . .


Page 18 - more name calling



Spellweaver said:


> Oh I _s*ee*_ - it all becomes clear now. It's ok for people who have no experience in dog showing to read about it and suddenly decide they are experts in the subject, ignore people in the know, and make numerous posts about it. But it's _*not*_ ok for people to read about horrendous practices *in the "holier than thou" working dog faternity* and post about it?
> 
> No double standards there then!


CC


----------



## Thorne (May 11, 2009)

rona said:


> I give up. read my posts


I've read the whole thread.


----------



## Vicki (Jul 28, 2009)

Meezey said:


> The GSD that won BOB in Crufts last year is VA1 SchH3 kkl1 Lbz? So I take it that's not a high drive working dog?


That is not a high drive dog. It wasn't easy to find a picture or video of this dog that showed some kind of work, but finally I found a video of him working and it's far from impressing. SV BSZS 2009 Ulm Ruden protection service part 8 - YouTube (Elmo is about 3.40 into the video).

However, I'm glad to see that this GSD is slightly less exaggerated and deformed than show-GSD:s usually are (even if it's still far from the ideal for a working dog).

As a comparison, here's a video of a (working line) German Shepherd that is a high drive dog: Imzedrift&#39;s Maxxa, 2009 WUSV WM Schuzdienst - YouTube


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

rona said:


> You are so refreshing. A show person who actually sees what is happening and admits it.
> 
> I know that the vast majority of show dogs and show people are just fine, honest and happy, but until those bad apples are winkled out and exposed for what they are (some are known by virtually everyone in their breed ) myself and many others will stay firmly against the show world in general.
> 
> ...





rona said:


> But then you have the good breed clubs... I believe the Irish Setter people aren't too bad


I'll go back and look for more if need be.

I believe if people are believing Rona's posts were an attack on all they need to check their reading comprehension.

CC


----------



## Vicki (Jul 28, 2009)

Meezey said:


> If a dog is scared of people?? or just scared in general, there is little point of showing it. As it won't show well so it defeats the whole point of it being in shows... For most dogs to have got to Crufts they would have been at a lot of shows, therefore it would lead me to believe they like showing...


Look at the Belgian Shepherd Malinois (about 13.08 into the video)
Group Judging (Pastoral) and Presentation - Crufts 2012 - YouTube

This dog is clearly scared and definitely doesn't like being handled by the judge. And still it was BOB at Cruft's last year...


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Vicki said:


> Look at the Belgian Shepherd Malinois (about 13.08 into the video)
> Group Judging (Pastoral) and Presentation - Crufts 2012 - YouTube
> 
> This dog is clearly scared and definitely doesn't like being handled by the judge. And still it was BOB at Cruft's last year...


Fair point, I've seen much worse though. Maybe the judge who put it up BOB is just crap though?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

comfortcreature said:


> I'll go back and look for more if need be.
> 
> I believe if people are believing Rona's posts were an attack on all they need to check their reading comprehension.
> 
> CC


Thanks 
This is another



rona said:


> Thing is, what the hell good is the "perfect" conformation if you forget completely about working ability.
> 
> I'm still not convinced in even the tiniest way that many breed clubs have the welfare of their breeds at heart
> 
> Of course there are those that do


----------



## Vicki (Jul 28, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> Fair point, I've seen much worse though. Maybe the judge who put it up BOB is just crap though?


Yes, I've seen worse too (I've even seen dogs trying to bite the judge and still get placed ). Of course the judge is to blame, not the dog or the owner (even though I don't understand why someone would show a dog that clearly doesn't like it ), but as long as there are crap judges there will be scared dogs in the rings.

You seem to be one of the (few?) good ones, though


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Vicki said:


> Yes, I've seen worse too (I've even seen dogs trying to bite the judge and still get placed ). Of course the judge is to blame, not the dog or the owner (even though I don't understand why someone would show a dog that clearly doesn't like it ), but as long as there are crap judges there will be scared dogs in the rings.
> 
> You seem to be one of the (few?) good ones, though


Few years back I saw a dog which wouldn't let the judge go over it. Just kept sitting down and turning away. Got second place in the end and my dog was binned despite being perfectly fine with the judge. Judge was a breed specialist, same as me, and we all know that you need to check the tail for faults like fused vertebrae but they never got their hands on it. Poor temprement is flagged in breed watch as an issue and should be penalised. If you can't put your hands on the dog you can't judge it, you can't place it above dogs you can. Interestingly the BOB winner thought it was disgusting and won't enter under them again.


----------



## Thorne (May 11, 2009)

Sad to see that Malinois, so very different from the bold, working counterparts. I'm sure the BOB judge could have selected another Mal of good type with a more confident demeanor, all comes down to personal preference and priorities at the end of the day I suppose.
He/she was definitely relieved when the physical examination was over, poor thing! 
Am yet to see a similarly spooked dog on this year's coverage, but there's been a few lip licks during the exams which doesn't surprise me and the Italian Greyhound was a bit shivery too.

Neither of mine could show even if they were standard, Breeze would be one of the frightened ones and Scooter probably wouldn't let the judge handle him; the majority of show dogs do very well I think!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> I believe if people are believing Rona's posts were an attack on all they need to check their reading comprehension.
> 
> CC


 Yeah yeah yeah Rona's an angel who hasn't attcked pedigree breeders by posting things like:



rona said:


> Because the fit for purpose is a newish initiative and over the last few decades, many of the "working" types won't have had a hope in hell of doing a days work.





Charleigh said:


> Even now some are questionable, but hopefully that will be sorted over the next decade or so





rona said:


> :lol::lol::lol:
> 
> Don't make me laugh





rona said:


> Because they are performing in a minuscule part of a very boring day on their benches and happy to be up and active, doesn't mean the dog enjoys the day





rona said:


> Oh yes. I'm sure there are many dogs that enjoy it, but to say that what you see in the ring reflects the day is just wrong





Charleigh said:


> and there are many many people in showing, as there is in life that have no empathy with their dogs and don't even realise the misery caused





rona said:


> I really don't understand the total denial by some, it does them and their past time no favours in the eyes of the general public!!
> 
> Mind. if they are so blind and bury their heads in the sand, they'll never even see what is happening


And then I got bored and stopped looking, but I am sure there are more.


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

Had a look at the pastoral breeds clip and that has to be the weirdest Blue Heeler (sorry, Australian Cattle Dog) I've ever seen.

My ignorance, I've never seen a show-heeler before. Must have hit the Royal Melbourne Show on the wrong days. It's shaped like a BOX! Either it's overweight or it has the funniest bottom-line ever. All the blue heelers I've ever seen have a tuck like a dingo or they're fat. Incidentally, they are partly dingo and you can usually see the resemblance. If that dog looked anything like a dingo then so do I.

I'd like to see that thing do a full day's work in 35C+. It has a great coat of thick fur on it as well as being shaped like a brick.

The dog had a nice nature and _that's_ an improvement. Generally they haven't got much use for strangers and are known for being quite snappy. Well anything bred specifically to bite the heels of cattle is likely to be a bit stroppy.....


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Yeah yeah yeah Rona's an angel who hasn't attcked pedigree breeders by posting things like:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If these are being held up as examples of an attack on 'breeders' or 'breeders in general' they truly show a complete oversensitivity as not a one does that. It would, in fact, be very difficult to construe them to even imply that.

People can converse about what the ills of the show world are without it being an 'attack' on breeders. It is really that simple.

CC


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Thorne said:


> Sad to see that Malinois, so very different from the bold, working counterparts. I'm sure the BOB judge could have selected another Mal of good type with a more confident demeanor, all comes down to personal preference and priorities at the end of the day I suppose.
> He/she was definitely relieved when the physical examination was over, poor thing!
> Am yet to see a similarly spooked dog on this year's coverage, but there's been a few lip licks during the exams which doesn't surprise me and the Italian Greyhound was a bit shivery too.
> 
> Neither of mine could show even if they were standard, Breeze would be one of the frightened ones and Scooter probably wouldn't let the judge handle him; the majority of show dogs do very well I think!


Some dogs that a generally ok, must balk at the odd judge. They can't like everyone.
My old boy, though pretty laid back, acts very oddly around certain men.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Thorne said:


> Sad to see that Malinois, so very different from the bold, working counterparts. I'm sure the BOB judge could have selected another Mal of good type with a more confident demeanor, all comes down to personal preference and priorities at the end of the day I suppose.
> He/she was definitely relieved when the physical examination was over, poor thing!
> Am yet to see a similarly spooked dog on this year's coverage, but there's been a few lip licks during the exams which doesn't surprise me and the Italian Greyhound was a bit shivery too.
> 
> Neither of mine could show even if they were standard, Breeze would be one of the frightened ones and Scooter probably wouldn't let the judge handle him; the majority of show dogs do very well I think!


Our grey girl. Calli, never really liked showing. We took her to a couple of shows and she was placed in both of them, but it was clear that she wasn't really comfortable with it so we stopped showing her. I don't thnk there are many exhibitors who would continue to show a dog that doesn't like showing - it would be impossible to fool judges for very long. Once you get out of puppy classes judges are going to start marking you down for temperament anyway.

Having said that, even the most bomb-proof dog can have an off-day. Neo, onne of the border collies we bred, part-owned and showed, was the most placid dog you could wish for, and he loved being at shows and usually did very well, Yet one day at Leeds he took a dislike to the judge and barked at her when she came near him. We apologised and took him out of the ring. When she broke for lunch she asked us to bring him in again, and this time he was as normal - allowed her to go over him with no problem whatsoever.

We were really puzzled about why he had reacted as he did - but the problem was solved when we took him back to his part-owner (who he lived with) that night. We just happened to arrive at the same time as the pizza delivery man was delivering next door, and Neo set off barking at him straight away. His part owner exlpained that she had once caught the pizza delivery man teasing Neo and making him bark by banging on the fence, and ever since then he associated everyone wearing a white coat with the pizza delivery man and barked accordingly. And yes, you guessed it, the judge was wearing a white jacket the first time, but had taken it off by lunchtime.

So th upshot of this rambling story is that even if a dog does look as if it is spooked in the ring, it could be something entirely unconnected with showing. It does not necessarily mean that its temperament is questionable and so should not have been placed, or that it does not like showing.


----------



## sharloid (Apr 15, 2012)

I've only watched a small amount of Crufts footage, but I do think it's unfair to show a doing that clearly isn't comfortable.

I'm taking one of my dogs to ringcraft, so depending on how we go she may get shown. We're going as I see it as extra training, just like obedience etc. She's learning to be calm around other dogs and to listen to me - I personally don't see anything wrong with that.

Oh, and she's going to be worked too.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Yeah yeah yeah Rona's an angel who hasn't attcked pedigree breeders by posting things like:
> 
> And then I got bored and stopped looking, but I am sure there are more.


I was having conversations with people but if you want to take them out of context.......................
You really need to read the whole thread 

Just noticed to actually split some of my statements to make them look worse!!!!


----------



## Thorne (May 11, 2009)

rona said:


> Some dogs that a generally ok, must balk at the odd judge. They can't like everyone.
> My old boy, though pretty laid back, acts very oddly around certain men.


Very true, my Breeze is reserved but relaxed around most people but was terrified of my nan, Scooter is grumbly with older men after a couple of bad experiences.
The dog may well have been relaxed in the breed rings but worried about this particular judge or ring but it's out of character for the breed which should be "wary, neither timid, nervous nor aggressive". Hopefully the Mal isn't as nervous as it appears to be and was just a bit overwhelmed.

Regardless of why, it was sad to see a dog so worried while most seemed to be in their element!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> If these are being held up as examples of an attack on 'breeders' or 'breeders in general' they truly show a complete oversensitivity as not a one does that. It would, in fact, be very difficult to construe them to even imply that.
> 
> People can converse about what the ills of the show world are without it being an 'attack' on breeders. It is really that simple.
> 
> CC


Whoa - just a minute there CC! Who said anything about it being an attack on breeders? If you are going to accuse people of not reading posts properly, the least you could do is apply your own advice to yourself! 

Edited to add - sorry about the above sentence. Until Rona pointed it out, I genuinely thought I had written "pedigree show people" and not "pedigree breeders", as the rest of the post goes on to show. However, as this makes your comment perfectly valid, I apologise for what I said in the above sentence but have left it here instead of deleting it so it would make sense when you come to read it, and Rona's thread below, if you see what I mean! The rest of my post is still relevant, though!

Rona was attacking the show people on this forum. And if you don't see that someone posting the things Rona has posted as an attack on the show people on this forum, then I'm afraid it is your comprehension that is sadly lacking.

Just one more thing - responding to attacks is not an act of over-sensitvity. It is just what it says on the tin - a response to an attack.

If people attack me, or speak unfairly and unjustly about something I am passionate about, then I *will* respond.

And rather than labelling that response as "oversensitivity" or "protesting too much" or "lacking in comprehension" or any of the other such comments, it would be so much better if people would respond with a cogent argument about the points raised. The fact that some people choose to do the former rather than the latter merely leads me to believe they are unable to forum a cogent argument because of the shaky ground they are on in the first place.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Yeah yeah yeah Rona's an angel who hasn't attcked* pedigree breeders* by posting things like:
> 
> And then I got bored and stopped looking, but I am sure there are more.





Spellweaver said:


> Whoa - just a minute there CC! Who said anything about it being an attack on breeders? If you are going to accuse people of not reading posts properly, the least you could do is apply your own advice to yourself!
> 
> Rona was attacking the show people on this forum. And if you don't see that someone posting the things Rona has posted as an attack on the show people on this forum, then I'm afraid it is your comprehension that is sadly lacking.
> 
> ...


Cough Cough

It's not us who are twisting quotes and others words 
Or being insulting


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> Cough Cough
> 
> It's not us who are twisting quotes and others words
> Or being insulting


Really? I've been insulted by several of your posts. But hey, according to CC that's just my oversensitivity.

As for twisting quotes - I've done nothing of the sort. I've merely quoted the things in your posts that I took issue with. The things I haven't quoted I have no issue with. Simples!

As for the "breeders" bit - well, even I can make a mistake!  I've been up since 5 - been at the awful Crufts all day, remember? Meant to write, and thought I'd written, "pedigree show people" - as the rest of the post goes on to show.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

rona said:


> Cough Cough
> 
> It's not us who are twisting quotes and others words
> Or being insulting





Spellweaver said:


> Rona was attacking the show people on this forum. And if you don't see that someone posting the things Rona has posted as an attack on the show people on this forum, then I'm afraid it is your comprehension that is sadly lacking.


If Rona was attacking show people then some examples could have been provided . . but they were not. You have not yet been able to provide a single post showing an attack yet you want to continue with this accusation.

These were the quoted posts provided.



> rona said:
> 
> 
> > Because the fit for purpose is a newish initiative and over the last few decades, many of the "working" types won't have had a hope in hell of doing a days work.
> ...


No. I do not see, at all, any of these posts as an attack on the show people of the forum or of breeders in general. I see Rona pointing out ongoing problems that occur in the show world and stating opinions AS WE ALL SHOULD FEEL FREE TO DO and others construing that to be a general attack for reasons that I cannot imagine.



> If people attack me, or speak unfairly and unjustly about something I am passionate about, then I will respond.


Ditto.

CC


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> No. I do not see, at all, any of these posts as an attack on the show people of the forum or of breeders in general. I see Rona pointing out ongoing problems that occur in the show world and stating opinions AS WE ALL SHOULD FEEL FREE TO DO and others construing that to be a general attack for reasons that I cannot imagineCC


Really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rona 
Because the fit for purpose is a newish initiative and over the last few decades, many of the "working" types won't have had a hope in hell of doing a days work. Some show people posting on here have working dogs who do work as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rona

Don't make me laugh A direct respnse to me when I gave an explanation about why show lines and working lines differ

Quote:
Originally Posted by rona 
Because they are performing in a minuscule part of a very boring day on their benches and happy to be up and active, doesn't mean the dog enjoys the day In response to show people who were telling he that their dogs enjoyed the whole of the show day - in other words either sayng we are lying or that we do not understand our own dogs

Quote:
Originally Posted by rona 
Oh yes. I'm sure there are many dogs that enjoy it, but to say that what you see in the ring reflects the day is just wrong Another response to someone who actually shows and has experience of the subject, telling them that they are wrong

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charleigh 
and there are *many many *people in showing, as there is in life that have no empathy with their dogs and don't even realise the misery caused Inferring that the show people on here do not realise they are causing their dogs misery, when this is not the case

Quote:
Originally Posted by rona 
I really don't understand the total denial by some, it does them and their past time no favours in the eyes of the general public!! Inferring that the total denial is by the show people on here when that is clearly not the case. 

Mind. if they are so blind and bury their heads in the sand, they'll never even see what is happening ditto

I also said I got bored and stopped looking, but I that I was sure there were more. And there are - for example, there are accusations that we are not doing enough to improve the health, and accusations that the ones of us who are part of CA are not really doing anything. Anyone can sit at home and be an armchair critic, but some of us are actually putting our money where our mouth is and are working towards healthier breeds.

CC, you and Rona can pretend all you like that these were meant to be general comments, but they have not come across as such to the show fraternity on here. My pms were zinging last night from irate show people thanking me for putting the point over so eloquently.

And I make no apologies for the following capitals as you saw fit to begin the shouting:

THE SHOW PEOPLE ON HERE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE ANGRY AND ANNOYED AT THE NON-SHOW PEOPLE (THE ARM-CHAIR CRITICS) PRINTING BARBED COMMENTS. AND WHEN THEY ARE ANGRY AND ANNOYED, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO RESPOND TO THE POSTS THAT MADE THEM ANGRY AND ANNOYED WITHOUT THE NON-SHOW PEOPLE GANGING UP ON THEM AND CALLING THEM OVERSENSITIVE.

You non-show people do not own the forum. Get over it. Stop telling us what we can and can't and should or should not feel in response to someone's written words.

In other words - YOU did not write the words. You are merely responding to someone else's written words. My response to those written words does not *have* to be the same as yours. And just because my response is different to yours does not mean it is any less valid than yours. Even if everyone else on the froum agreed with your interpretation (which they don't) I still have the right to feel the way I feel and I have a right to post about how I feel, without you or anyone else dictating otherwise.

You and I can argue about our different interpretations of written words all day, but it is pointless to do so because at the end of the day they are just that - mere interpretations - both equally valid. Now, if it had been Rona on here defending her words and explaining why she did not mean the things she has written in the way they have been taken, that's a totally different kettle of fish.


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

I can honestly say I agree with Spellweaver, it's not defensive/over sensitive to try to inform people about something we are passionate about and have experience in.

Spellweaver shows much more than I do but our level of passion for showing is very much the same.

No-one on this thread has denied that there will be some show folk who show their dog despite it being unhappy and quite possibly raise their hand to their dogs to get what they want however it is "some", not all and it really does seem wrong to try to argue that as I know many who wouldn't sit there and watch someone hit/punish their dog in the ring or ring side.

A few years ago I went to a show to take some photo's and I witnessed someone hit their dog, I took their show number and reported them, as did a few people who witnessed it. 

That's the only time I've seen someone hurt their dog at a show, not saying it doesn't happen but I've only actually seen it that one time and people like that should be punished.

Everyone I know with show dogs agree that the dogs enjoy showing much more than we do, why wouldn't they? Attention, treats, mental stimulation, meeting other dogs and of course a car full of goodies on the way home.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

shetlandlover said:


> I can honestly say I agree with Spellweaver, it's not defensive/over sensitive to try to inform people about something we are passionate about and have experience in.
> 
> Spellweaver shows much more than I do but our level of passion for showing is very much the same.
> 
> ...


I have seen a dog repeatedly sprayed with a Pet Corrector and hit for barking (toy breed) at a show once. They were reported I believe.

Conversely, Kilo's breeder drove a dog from the North of England to Bath for a show once. She wasn't happy for whatever reason when she got there, so they took her out of the ring and called it a day. Same as when Kilo just wasn't happy at ringcraft (I used to go with them) one night; they just told me to take him home and give him a rest - their attitude is that if a dog doesn't want to do it for whatever reason, then don't force the issue.

As you say, some people will show their dogs despite them being unhappy but then I see people making their dogs do all sorts that they are unhappy with in all walks of life. A dog was being dragged behind it's running owner the day before yesterday - I said "Evening" as we passed and she said "Oh he hates running" and laughed. That doesn't mean that everyone who runs with their dogs needs to be condemned just as all who show shouldn't be condemned.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Dogless said:


> I have seen a dog repeatedly sprayed with a Pet Corrector and hit for barking (toy breed) at a show once. They were reported I believe.
> 
> Conversely, Kilo's breeder drove a dog from the North of England to Bath for a show once. She wasn't happy for whatever reason when she got there, so they took her out of the ring and called it a day. Same as when Kilo just wasn't happy at ringcraft (I used to go with them) one night; they just told me to take him home and give him a rest - their attitude is that if a dog doesn't want to do it for whatever reason, then don't force the issue.
> 
> As you say, some people will show their dogs despite them being unhappy but then I see people making their dogs do all sorts that they are unhappy with in all walks of life. A dog was being dragged behind it's running owner the day before yesterday - I said "Evening" as we passed and she said "Oh he hates running" and laughed. That doesn't mean that everyone who runs with their dogs needs to be condemned just as all who show shouldn't be condemned.


Exactly.

Over the years I have actually reported a couple of people myself - one (which I think I have posted about somewhere on the forum already) was a DDB that had an attitude problem - it went for Gabby in the ring and both the owner and the judge totally ignored it. I reported them both. Another was a woman who left her dog on a bench and did not return to it all day - the poor thing would have been ill if I hadn't given it drinks. I reported her too.

You also see the odd report in the dogs papers about someone who has been reported and fined by the KC.

No-one is pretending that such things don't happen - just that they are not happening as regularly and/or as often as the armchair critics would have us believe, or that they go unreported by those of use who care (ie the majority!)

And like Dogless, I have seen much more cruelty by pet owners when walking the dogs than I have ever seen whilst showing.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> They have done. Ever heard about the Canine Alliance, who want the health checks extended to all breeds? Oh, hang on a minute ................. I seem to remember that when the CA was formed you were against it, weren't you?


I was against the idea of the breeder who stated eye deformation is part of the breed. Of course where is the canine alliance now when it comes to informing the general public of all the potential dog issues, BYB etc? It's breeders/show people as a lobbying group looking out for their own interest. As I said at the time what is needed is an independent element to judge both sides of the discussion.



rona said:


> You only read into my posts what you need to to be able to be defensive. Doesn't help your points at all. I have said on this very thread several times about certain breed clubs actually getting their house in order, even highlighted one breed.


Same old, same old. They're right you are wrong. They don't even attempt to understand, which shows just the attitude some people think is actually the problem.



Spellweaver said:


> I don't read anything into your posts other than what you write.
> 
> Good tactics though Rona - attack and then when the attcked reply to refute your comments accuse them of being defensive. THAT is bullying. (Thought you were all against bullying?)


ROFL. Pot calling kettle black..

Personally I find it great when people are prepared to actually discuss the issues. You always get the odd person who simply blasts away without actually listening. In fact if you look at this thread it started off with the theoretical reasoning why people think crufts is cruel. I think the attitude of certain people within this thread shows why. For me in answer to the original question, it's not the actual issues themselves, I do think progress is being made. It's the attitude which it creates and is demonstrated by certain people within this thread.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> I was against the idea of the breeder who stated eye deformation is part of the breed. Of course where is the canine alliance now when it comes to informing the general public of all the potential dog issues, BYB etc? It's breeders/show people as a lobbying group looking out for their own interest. As I said at the time what is needed is an independent element to judge both sides of the discussion.


You dictated  that the show people should get their own house in order. I replied that the CA were doing just that - ie a group of show people getting thier own house in order. ie - I gave you proof that what you dictated _should_ happen was, in fact, already happening. Yet instead of acknowledging the point, you instead move the goalposts to pretend that what you really meant was that the CA should *inform the general public* 

Bad logic, bad arguing skills - but that to one side, if you are an example of how much notice the general public take of what is really happening in the show world then the CA could dance naked around the NEC with its messages on placards and you would still be sitting there in your armchair, denying that they have informed you of anything at all. And why should they inform you? They are a group of show people getting their own house in order, working for the good of pedigree dogs within their discipline. What you or any other of the Crufts bashers want does not concern them. Hard to accept your unimportance in the world of dog showing, but there it is. Live with it.



Goblin said:


> Same old, same old. They're right you are wrong. They don't even attempt to understand, which shows just the attitude some people think is actually the problem.


Pot, kettle, black. If you don't accept the arguments of the people who do know what is happening, how can you ever increase your knowledge? Fortunately, although you try to put yourself forward as typical of the general public, all you are typical of is the minute part of the general public who prefers to ignore the truth so they can continue to have a pot at the show world and Crufts. Well, keep sitting in your armchair and doing sweet FA to improve the lot of pedigree dogs. Meanwhile those of us who really do care, those of us who are actually out there doing the work, will get things done.



Goblin said:


> Personally I find it great when people are prepared to actually discuss the issues. You always get the odd person who simply blasts away without actually listening. In fact if you look at this thread it started off with the theoretical reasoning why people think crufts is cruel.


And also the theoretical reasons why people think it is NOT cruel.  And then the armchair Crufts bashers came on and ruined it.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

I enjoy dog shows..._shame on me..._

I am armchair Cruft watcher (shame too)..

as and average dog owner just want dogs that participate to be healthy animals (my concern is mainly with some toy breeds ,,but not only...)
I would not enjoy any less if pekes have muzzles or dashies do not touch the ground..or maltese can run without falling over their Rampunzel hair...

I have firnds who show ..I used to help them and realise how much effort goes into it...

there are some people who put their ambitions before their dogs wellbeing though (I have seen it myself!!)...and that should be stamped out...shame on them!!


----------



## fluffybunny2001 (Feb 8, 2008)

what i don`t like is what goes on behind the scenes.
Having worked for a breeder/shower and owning one of their dogs,i know first hand how corrupt it is.
My dog is very ill,due to his breeding,yet his pedigree is full of american and show champions.
his grandad was reserve best in show at crufts back in 97 and his owner is still showing now.
But then my dogs breeder is not so great,clearly,although my dogs breed are not shown by this breeder,they are there to make puppies
The breed that they do show,although kept better,once past showing age or no good for breeding,they aren`t important.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Find very little reason to even continue this simply because no matter what is said the haters will hate!
So we know people are trying to change the breed standards and we know there are good and bad, quick question for those so passionate about bashing Crufts and the show scene what are YOU doing to change it? 

I don't breed, so not an irresponsible breeder or a byb but I help rescue, I don't have a problem dog, but as ex Army dog handler I help people with problem dogs so do my bit to help the pet and rescue world!!,

On that note hope all my friends showing their Rott's and GSD's tomorrow have a great day and the dogs have a great day out  

Oh and FYI I don't show dogs I show my Siamese it's the OH that shows and Judges Rott's so I technically not a "dog show person"


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

It seems that even if the day after pde came out suddenly every puppy born was unexaggerated and perfect and everyone did every health test known to man people would still be complaining the show ring creates unhealthy dogs .


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

And if the show ring is creating unhealthy dogs "even after every health test known to man" was being done what is wrong with some complaining about it and others stating that healthy dogs are created too and having full discussions continue on that?

What is wrong with stating the problems that are seen and obvious even IF other areas also create problems as well?

Or is it the wish of many here to censure? It has already been shown in numerous places that if someone disagrees and states they disagree they are perceived as 'attacking'. If someone states they find fault they are perceived as 'attacking'.

I have a HUGE problem with the idea that disagreement is an 'attack'.

If I look you in the eye and state 'I don't like what you do' - that is not an attack. When someone looks me in the eye and states that - I don't perceive that as an attack.

If I state - I don't agree with your opinion - that is not an attack. When someone states they disagree with my opinion I don't perceive that as an attack.

If I state - I think you did this wrong - that is not an attack. If someone states 'I think you did that wrong' - I don't perceive that as an attack.

If someone looks me in the eye, for pete's sake, and suggest they dislike my hair color - that is not an attack. It is a statement of opinion. Simple as that.

You cannot possibly have conversation if people perceive disagreement and discussion about disagreement as an 'attack' . . . but I do believe that is the goal of some . . . to not discuss, which is a shame as this is a discussion forum.

CC


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Of course there are problems with some breeds but these won't be fixed over night as some people seem to expect them to be. Look at the dogs being rewarded at Crufts a king charles who's owner prides herself on doing agility with him, a lovely shar pei and a better bulldog. The improvement is happening but people seem to refuse to acknowledge that.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Nicky10 said:


> Of course there are problems with some breeds but these won't be fixed over night as some people seem to expect them to be. Look at the dogs being rewarded at Crufts a king charles who's owner prides herself on doing agility with him, a lovely shar pei and a better bulldog. The improvement is happening but people seem to refuse to acknowledge that.


No one here has stated they expect these problems to be fixed overnight.

Please show me posts that state improvements have not been made. Many have stated there has been improvement.

Many have also stated they still have complaints.

All part of discussion.

What is wrong with continuing to discuss complaints?

CC


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Anyone who doesn't see there are problems is blind or in denial the peke last night :frown2: but not all showdogs are crippled wrecks.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

A discussion on the complaints about some show dogs does not imply all show dogs are crippled wrecks.

CC


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

comfortcreature said:


> A discussion on the complaints about some show dogs does not imply all show dogs are crippled wrecks.
> 
> CC


So in this discussion that you and others feels so passionately about, what are YOU personally doing to help the breeds that are struggling, who standard's are going to help change? How do you plan to help the peke's etc?


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

> So in this discussion that you and others feels so passionately about, what are YOU personally doing to help the breeds that are struggling, who standard's are going to help change? How do you plan to help the peke's etc?


I make very specific and aimed contributions but that is not the topic of the discussion.

I and others can be doing absolutely nothing and STILL have every right to discuss and complain about the breeds the are struggling and the wrongs that are seen.

I am very attached to the right to freedom of speech. Are you implying that those who don't contribute shouldn't get to discuss?

CC


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> You dictated  that the show people should get their own house in order. I replied that the CA were doing just that - ie a group of show people getting thier own house in order.


But are they.. independent vet check last year, massive complaints and formation of the CA/lobby group. This year vet checks are led by a vet closely integrated with the show scene, who is himself a judge and is closely involved with one of the 15 high profile breeds. CA advertise that they will lobby the KC for their own system.. I'll wait with baited breath to see the result. Bets on that an independent viewpoint will be an essential part of the process?



> What you or any other of the Crufts bashers want does not concern them.


I know it doesn't concern you, the continuation of cruel practices can continue far easier without transparency. Also where does


> I don't agree that crufts is inherently cruel either. I do believe it's premier event, show dogs, can lead to cruel practices in terms of breeding to an interpretation of a standard.


relate to being a Cruft basher.. maybe you want to deny that last bit. Wait maybe it's..


Goblin said:


> Think it's also worth pointing out that the "show" side of crufts, despite getting the majority of publicity is only one side of the event. Agility for instance and people getting to know about different breeds are other sides which people need to be aware of and should be supported.


Yes I'm totally against all shows and pedigrees as I criticize one small part.



> If you don't accept the arguments of the people who do know what is happening, how can you ever increase your knowledge?


Funny.. when I've shown by direct example that I actually listen to people, including those from the show world and take things on board even in this thread when you first brought this up about me. Unlike some I'll continue to listen, even take on board things but not to simply defensive rants which contain little to no real information.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

comfortcreature said:


> I make very specific and aimed contributions but that is not the topic of the discussion. Why are YOU trying to change the topic?
> 
> I and others can be doing absolutely nothing and STILL have every right to discuss and complain about the breeds the are struggling and the wrongs that I see.
> 
> ...


So you watch it, complain about it, complain about others doing nothing about it, chose to read and see what you want to read and see, but do nothing? I complain about and discuss rescue accidental litters etc but do something, what I struggle with is those who love to complain, pick fault, point out what is wrong with something, belittle opinions who try to explain that changes are being made! You are allowed to debate passionately about something you do nothing about, but those who are involved and get upset about their passion being shredded are accused of being one of the problems in the show world! Not changing the subject, everyone is free to discuss, but if you and others like you feel so much is wrong and that breeds are struggling why not take that passion and do something about it, help those people who are trying to change it rather than just discussing it!!! Just an idea! You know those things that get thrown around in discussions.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Meezey said:


> So you watch it, complain about it, complain about others doing nothing about it, chose to read and see what you want to read and see, but do nothing?.


Please read more carefully. You are mistaken with this perception, however our freedom of speech allows all of us to complain even if the choice is to only complain and discuss.



Meezey said:


> I complain about and discuss rescue accidental litters etc but do something, what I struggle with is those who love to complain, pick fault, point out what is wrong with something, belittle opinions who try to explain that changes are being made!


I started in rescue over 30 years ago, up to and including raising and placing foster litters . . . and I have no problems with people exercising their right to complain even if that is all that they do.



Meezey said:


> You are allowed to debate passionately about something you do nothing about,


Wrong accusation again but never the less, yes, anyone who wants to debate passionately should be able to.



Meezey said:


> but those who are involved and get upset about their passion being shredded are accused of being one of the problems in the show world! Not changing the subject, everyone is free to discuss, but if you and others like you feel so much is wrong and that breeds are struggling why not take that passion and do something about it, help those people who are trying to change it rather than just discussing it!!! Just an idea! You know those things that get thrown around in discussions.


I think it is a great idea. It is one I already follow but it is not one that should be imposed.

Our freedom of speech allows all of us to complain even if we choose to use complaint as their only tool for change.

CC


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

How many of us have posted saying we feel that we are not being listened to about not all breeds being ill/sickly and that changes are being made yet we are all "mistaken" or being "over sensitive" or "defensive".

:001_huh:


----------



## Wobbles (Jun 2, 2011)

I don't think Crufts is cruel. You can't make a dog be happy in the ring, and some are obviously enjoying themselves. I think most breeders just want the best for their dogs, but I also think there are some who are cruel and don't care as they only want to win. But you get bad apples in everything, especially things that involve accolade, status, first prize and of course, the big one - money. And for the ones whose motivation are those four things, they are unlikely to change unless they loose said motivation. Mainly the money.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> How many of us have posted saying we feel that we are not being listened to about not all breeds being ill/sickly and that changes are being made yet we are all "mistaken" or being "over sensitive" or "defensive".
> 
> :001_huh:


Show me the posts that display you have not been listened to . . . that state changes have not been made.

Show me the posts that display statements saying all breeds are ill/sickly. I have gone through and can't find so they must be rare.

The posts I have been shown are posts that simply disagree - that does not mean someone has not listened. No one has to "accept" what they are told. Disagreeing with what is said and offering another point of view does not show listening has not happened.

We all have the right to 'listen' and not agree and then state we don't agree. We all have the right to state exactly what that disagreement is about. That is part of discussion. It is a welcomed part of discussion IMHO and something I have always encouraged as a mother and an educator. That is not an attack.



Goblin said:


> . . . Personally I find it great when people are prepared to actually discuss the issues. . .


Amen

CC


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

shetlandlover said:


> How many of us have posted saying we feel that we are not being listened to about not all breeds being ill/sickly and that changes are being made yet we are all "mistaken" or being "over sensitive" or "defensive".
> 
> :001_huh:


Very true, those who dislike it are at pains to point out how they are not being unreasonable and are merely "discussing" it, those who do like it are one of the problems in the show world *sighs*

Oh my look at all the waggy tails in the gun group wait is that a dog on its back getting it's belly rubbed, wow can see why people hate the whole thing because of a minority bad things!!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> I have a HUGE problem with the idea that disagreement is an 'attack'.


If you take off your anti-Crufts slanted specs and look at the posts again, in an unbiased fashion, you will see that no-one has said that disagreement is an attack. What IS an attack, and what we are concerned about and complaining about, are posts like this:



Goblin said:


> I know it doesn't concern you, the continuation of cruel practices can continue far easier without transparency.


Being told by one poster that I am not concerned with the welfare of dogs and that I do not want transparency so that cruel practices can continue IS an attack. It is a personal attack. Besides the fact that it is not even true (the opposite is the truth); it is not a disagreement about anything the thread is concerned with. It is merely a personal attack.

And despite your refusal to acknowledge them when they have been pointed out to you, there are many more on this thread.

I rest my case.

Anyway, I am off to bed now. Getiing up at 4.30 to take my poor unwilling dogs who hate showing to Crufts, where I shall spray them liberally with hairspray, put mascara on their eyes, drag them round the ring strung up on a tight lead, and then leave them on their bench for the rest of the day while I go off with other breeders to plan how I can breed litters who are more and more inbred with more and more exaggeratoins whilst keeping it all away from the armchair police.

And ALL THAT, CC, is what we show people have been accused of on this thread, whether you hide your head in the sand and pretend it happened or not.


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

catz4m8z said:


> I suppose its because Crufts is the most famous and visible dog event in the country that people feel that the judges and competitors have a certain level of responsibilty towards their dogs. Showing a dog that cant breathe properly because its nose is too short or cant walk properly because its hips are wonky or its really tubby is almost like the 'experts' saying that this is acceptable.





Goblin said:


> To answer the question of the OP, it's not Crufts itself which is the problem. It's the attitude of the minority of people involved, condoned, if nothing else, by the lack of condemnation and denial by the *majority*.





foxiesummer said:


> Peoples perception of what makes a perfect example of a breed isn't exactly what mother nature produced. Take a look at what was done to the GSD
> They thought a sloped back was desirable and now the poor things have hip dysplacia.


Straight backed German Shepherds can suffer with HD, it's a breed that has had this issue along with many other breeds and cross breeds for many years.



Kicksforkills said:


> Just in case anyone wasn't aware, the reason we have JRT and PRT as a seperate breed is because the JRT association didn't want their working lines* "ruined" by show standards*.





rona said:


> Thing is, what the hell good is the "perfect" conformation if you forget completely about working ability.


Many show dogs are still capable of working. However breeds like the Pug or the Peke were not bred to work. Thus would be difficult to "work" them.



Goblin said:


> *As for crossbreeds, BYB etc yes, the situation needs fixing. One method of doing that is to admit to the problems with some show breeds, push for fixes and restore trust in the breeding practices. As it stands all you normally see is denial or deflection such as fix BYB etc.* You also get the impression that health tests are the "fix" when in reality they are only a tool to help. Get your own house in order and others will be only too happy to also push the BYB/crossbreed problems. It's likely they already do as I am sure the majority are concerned about dogs in general, not simply anti show/pedigree dogs.





rona said:


> You are so refreshing.* A show person who actually sees what is happening and admits it.*
> 
> I know that the vast majority of show dogs and show people are just fine, honest and happy, but until those bad apples are winkled out and exposed for what they are (some are known by virtually everyone in their breed ) myself and many others will stay firmly against the show world in general.
> 
> ...


Two words, Canine Alliance.



rona said:


> You only need eyes to see stressed and badly treated dogs





lozzibear said:


> *Firstly there is the issue with the serious health issues that are within some breeds, that are just totally ignored.*.. as long as they fit the breed standard and win, it is okay.
> .


Again not being ignored, infact CA are encouraging the Kennel club to extend health checks to all breeds.



haeveymolly said:


> *i would rather have a dog that enjoys life doing what comes naturally*, mine enjoy romping/chasing over the fields in and out of undergrowth because thats what comes "naturally" to them, show dogs have to be trained to a high standard so surely a large percent doesnt come naturally so is made to do this, that tells me its the owners choice not the dogs.


Many show dogs can and do live life to the fullest at home, shows are at the most 1 day at the weekend, 6 and a half days a week the dog gets to run around, get muddy ect but for a few hours on a weekend they get groomed and given treats to do something that for many dogs is mental stimulation.



Goblin said:


> As you say it's a minority. *Why aren't the majority forcing change and ensuring the minority get visibly pressured into realizing it's simply not acceptable rather than saying "but it's a minority, they'll get it sorted" and going about business as usual?*


You mean like you have complained throughout this thread but have you done anything to help change it?

Also I guess the minority in this case would be those who support the Canine Alliance ect, what do you think they are doing? Pushing for better breed health and standard.



rona said:


> Decade after decade after decade
> And the dogs still suffer





rona said:


> You only read into my posts what you need to to be able to be *defensive*. Doesn't help your points at all. I have said on this very thread several times about certain breed clubs actually getting their house in order, even highlighted one breed.
> I haven't info on every breed so couldn't possibly comment. I do know that things are wrong in several though and not just the common suspects.
> The Lab people need a bloody good kick up the arse.
> 
> *You only have to read the CA site to realise they are still self protecting*. :nonod:


I've picked out these as I find these are just some of those I've come across on the thread that makes me and other show people feel that we are not being listened to......at all.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Excessive tweed, should be referred to the ECHR


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

This is a hard one isn't it.

Firstly I'd like to apologise if anything I've said has hurt anyone. I peered most anxiously through the quotes and I don't seem to feature....phew! But, if I have caused hurt I really am sorry.

I DON'T think Crufts is cruel. I like watching it. I have to admit I was very upset by the "Clumber Spaniel incident" and a few other things but to be honest I'd be surprised if any thinking person wasn't upset by it.

Yes, I yell and jump up and down over some aspects of dog breeding, who wouldn't?? Anyone who cares about dogs would yell. if enough people yell then things will change. Without the "yell" things stay the same.

*You can always trust people.* You can always trust them to behave in their own best interests. If breeding Clumbers with dodgy eyelids brings a reward then they'll be bred with dodgy eyelids. If it brings public opprobrium then the eyelids will change shape. If the "new" eyelids bring reward......

When I trained Rock in Obedience I used a choke chain. I was proud of it. He was really good and enjoyed his work. I was rewarded for using it. Now I think he enjoyed his work_ despite_ the choke chain. Do I use one now? Not in a fit. Would I be rewarded by other dog people for using one........not in a fit.

There was a bloke at the Club with an unusual breed of gun dog. His dogs worked brilliantly. Each and every dog had a lovely nature and flinched from a quick hand movement. They cowered at a stand stay for examination. They cringed from the owner. We never saw him hurt a dog but he left the Club because no-one liked him.

Just because one man was - allegedly - unkind to his dogs doesn't mean we all are. Just because I did something - that I now regret - in Obedience doesn't mean that I can't learn and move on. Obedience should be fun for dogs and it usually is. Where it isn't people need to "yell".

Just because there are bad breeders doesn't mean all breeders are bad. Just because a dog is unhappy showing doesn't mean all dogs are. However, it's the "yell" that will effect change and we DO need change. Crufts is a great place for a "yell" because it is very important and the "yell" gets heard.

In my opinion the KC would do FAR better to invite the media in rather than selectively exclude critics. They don't have very much to hide and what they're trying to hide should be named and shamed for the sake of the dogs.

*NO! Crufts is not cruel nor is showing nor is breeding.* It's just that some cruel people do those things and some ignorant people are cruel and in my opinion need a "yell".


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

> To answer the question of the OP, it's not Crufts itself which is the problem. It's the attitude of the minority of people involved, condoned, if nothing else, by the lack of condemnation and denial by the majority.


Where is the massive support for independent vet checks or similar? The shaming of those breeds and breeders who are wrong? It has been stated.. "as an X breeder I can't influence Y breed". Why not?

By not standing up against poor breeding people are condoning the continuation of those practices. Now are you standing up and saying this is wrong? Would you be one of the 31 supporting Margaret Carter when it came to "punishing her" for saying the truth? Not needing an answer as it's simply a question I feel everyone needs to ask themselves in frequent situations.. Are you personally, really condoning or condemning things you don't approve of by your actions? I don't know you so cannot personally say about you can I?

Wow, the Canine Alliance(CA), the solution to all our problems  The NRA is also the solution to gun crime in the States. The CA didn't say.. "..we've got problems with health which needs to be fixed.." when created.. it was "..vet checks aren't fair.." and "..X breed can't pass the vet check..". I think they need to prove themselves before listing them as the solution somehow 



> Again not being ignored, infact CA are encouraging the Kennel club to extend health checks to all breeds.


Tests across all breeds.. Wait is this show vet checks or health tests like genetic tests? If health tests, while a useful tool they are not the solution to all problems, especially those which the vet checks at crufts were supposed to be for. If vet checks, isn't it a minority which have the problems which required vet checks at shows? Why test when breeds do not have problems. You are not doing proper tests anyway so why dilute the potential effectiveness of targeting limited breeds for specific problems. Is the CA also going to be pushing for allowing the use of the basic tools of a vet's trade? Do you think vet checks should be carried out by someone who will be influenced to accept those very problems he is supposed to pointing out?



> that makes me and other show people feel that we are not being listened to......at all.


You've actually say little.. we are going to.. progress is being made... Not things like the KC are vetting judges to ensure health is foremost in their minds, just one example I've acknowledged as progress. I linked in a couple of clumber spaniel links near the beginning.. shock horror, Compare images of a breeder (show winner with what I feel is bad eyes) with a breeder who is in the UK and a member of the Health and Welfare Sub Committee of the Clumber Spaniel Club (great eyes in my opinion).  looking and taking note of actual progress and acknowledging that progress, even using it as an example. That sort of not listening and noting progress


----------



## ozrex (Aug 30, 2011)

OH DOG!

Just read PDE blog. Andreas Schemel, a pug breeder and judge is one of the independent vets at Crufts.

WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?????

This gentleman might be totally professional in his veterinary work but it wouldn't look that way just because of who he is.

ARE THE KC MAD???? There are thousands of vets in the UK - the majority of whom can recognise one end of a dog from the other - why not call upon one of them to do so?! This just looks sooooo bad. There's enough ammunition for people who want change in pedigree dog breeding without the KC _giving_ them/us some.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> independent


:lol:

If he's a judge, doesn't really matter which breed, how is he independent?

Adding to it that he breeds pugs.. well.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

ozrex said:


> OH DOG!
> 
> Just read PDE blog. Andreas Schemel, a pug breeder and judge is one of the independent vets at Crufts.
> 
> ...


That might explain why such an overweight pug was in the group :frown2:. They need vets highly experienced with dogs of course but to pick an hpb breeder just looks bad.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Where is the massive support for independent vet checks or similar?


Have you seen how many members the CA has? All show people.



Goblin said:


> Wow, the Canine Alliance(CA), the solution to all our problems


Ah, I see. The massive support you talk about IS there but you refuse to acknowledge it is.

Damned if we do and damned if we don't, eh?

And this is what I mean about the opinions of armchair critics such as yourself having little value to those of us in the dog show world. It has nothing to do with transparency or the lack of thereof. We can explain what we are doing and talk about it until we are blue in the face - and then you dismiss it all with a few words. So why waste our time? That time can be spent on actually doing something to improve matters. And in the meantime, we let you get on with your ineffectual bleating on pet forums while we get the real work done.

Sitting at your computer, and typing long tirades against those who are actually doing the work, does nothing at all for the health of dogs, no matter how self-righteous it make you feel. Perhaps you ought to think about that once in a while and, instead of castigating those who are doing things, ask yourself instead, "What can I do?"


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Straight backed German Shepherds can suffer with HD, it's a breed that has had this issue along with many other breeds and cross breeds for many years.
> 
> Many show dogs are still capable of working. However breeds like the Pug or the Peke were not bred to work. Thus would be difficult to "work" them.
> 
> ...


Spot on, Sheltandlover - rep to you for this. However, I suspect CC will deny all these examples just as she denied all the examples I gave her. The next time she asks for proof, I'm going to tell her to look for her own - I've no intention ever again of spending my time trawling through replies, quoting the relevant phrases, only for her to deny the words actually mean what they say.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> That might explain why such an overweight pug was in the group :frown2:. They need vets highly experienced with dogs of course but to pick an hpb breeder just looks bad.


I think this is the problem. No matter what progress is made incidents like this set back outside opinion. One of the main complaints made about the vet checks where animals were disqualified after the fact was "but X passed Y check at the next show". Acceptance of the problems we are discussing when it comes to shows is a gradual process and acclimatization. You have to question what vets passed the animals in subsequent shows and how inured they are to the problems.

I think any vet check should be by vets not associated with any of the high profile breeds. Vet checks at a premier event such as crufts, being high profile should be by a vet not directly connected to the KC or showing scene. People could say it's a publicity stunt but at the end of the day, it's up to the show world to prove, through actions that they do take the problems seriously.



Spellweaver said:


> And this is what I mean about the opinions of armchair critics such as yourself having little value to those of us in the dog show world. It has nothing to do with transparency or the lack of thereof. We can explain what we are doing and talk about it until we are blue in the face - and then you dismiss it all with a few words.


So you think things like genetic health tests solve the problem of accepting extreme structural malformations do you? It's useful for possible other problems, if the health checks exist or can be developed, but not the key point under discussion here.


----------



## CassiaPercival (Mar 5, 2013)

I would like to suggest to the people that are so against Crufts, that you go and see for yourself if your opinion is based purely on what Media has led you to believe.
I were once against crufts... but guess what... as much as some of you may hate this... I went and saw for myself and allot of what I thought were wrong.

People are so wrapped up in what they hear and what media chooses to tell them that they are so blind to what Crufts actually means for dogs. 

I can understand why people might be angry with Crufts (as I were) but allot of these people haven't even been to Crufts... and I have good friends who show at Crufts, the dogs they own and show are like family to them and are treated with nothing bust respect, love and care... they are treated like any other dog.

It's very sad that people are so eager to judge people who show dogs... very sad, it angers me a little because I know that allot of what people think is misled and untrue.

I'm just really sick of people judging Crufts like it's some sort of Satan worshiping cult... EDUCATION IS KEY HERE... Crufts do allot more good than bad! And like with EVERYTHING... there are exceptions. DON'T BE BLIND TO THE GOOD JUST BECAUSE YOUR SO OBSESSED WITH NEGATIVES.

I know EXACTLY how you feel, this is the thing, I were just as against the show as you are now and this is why I find it so frustrating... I know it's hard to challenge your own beliefs and opinions sometimes but I think people would learn a whole lot more in life if they did. Who knows, you may find that you are just confirming what you already thought... but you know what, you could also be opening your eyes to allot more positivity and good that's around. You may surprise yourself.
It MAY mean swallowing your pride but it'd be worth it.

I DON'T agree with breeding health damaging extremities into dogs also, I really don't... but I'm able to see the whole lot of good this show does for dogs. 

OPEN YOUR MIND SOMETIMES... ALLOW YOURSELF TO MAYBE BE PROVEN WRONG! It's nice to see the happy/good things instead of the negative/bad things in life constantly...


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2013)

ozrex said:


> OH DOG!
> 
> Just read PDE blog. Andreas Schemel, a pug breeder and judge is one of the independent vets at Crufts.
> 
> ...


*sigh* I just read that too. Absolutely disgusting If I'm honest.

I personally quite like crufts, I like seeing the different dog breeds, I like the stalls, the obedience shows, the HTM, flyball etc etc.

Some examples of certain breeds are better than they were a couple years ago. Compare the 2013 basset to the one last year. Much better. Still not like the Albany hounds, but I'm sure with time and co-operation (thats a key word that is) they'll get there. 
And the Shar-pei looks alot neater too.

The fact the Peke and the Pug were allowed to pass the vet checks though. Awful IMO. The fact that the vet checks can only use their hands and eyes isn't very good either. I'm sure a stethoscope wouldn't hurt would it?

Independent vet checks should be done by independent vets.

Having a vet thats matey-matey with the KC does not look good at all.

On a side note. Reading the kennel club website it says that Cavalier breeders that Are Assured must follow the eye scheme and heart valve scheme. Maybe they ought to update it with SM Imo.

I do think health tests should be mandatory. Pedigree or not.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

I said:



Spellweaver said:


> And this is what I mean about the opinions of armchair critics such as yourself having little value to those of us in the dog show world. It has nothing to do with transparency or the lack of thereof. We can explain what we are doing and talk about it until we are blue in the face - and then you dismiss it all with a few words. So why waste our time? That time can be spent on actually doing something


which you quoted and then replied:



Goblin said:


> So you think things like genetic health tests solve the problem of accepting extreme structural malformations do you? It's useful for possible other problems, if the health checks exist or can be developed, but not the key point under discussion here.


Now quite how you get to that conclusion from that quote, when I mention neither genetic health tests nor their efficacy in working towards combatting extreme structural malformations, is beyond me.

However it does give quite an interesting insight into the way you read something and jump to erroneous conclusions - hoist by your own petard, I fear! 

If we HAD been discussing that subject, I would have replied something along the lines of the results of genetic health tests being a necessary and very useful tool for breeders to aid their selection of suitable matings. Structural malformation is not the only thing you have to take into consideration when proposing to breed a healthy litter.

That to one side, the key point under discussion here is actually whether or not Crufts is cruel. The fact remains that Crufts is not cruel. It is merely a championship show and as such is incapable of cruelty. If you are asking whether or not Crufts can lead to cruelty, the anwer is still no. Less than 30% of pedigree dogs are KC regsitered, and of the 30% that are KC registered, around 2% are shown. Of those 2% that are shown, around 14 breeds have been shown to have a few dogs in those breeds with extreme structural malformations. Of those (by now a very tiny amount compared to the pedigree dog population of this country) work is being done by dedicated breeders to correct these.

Now, I know that you have this fond airy-fairy dream that all the puppy farmers in the land will suddenly say to themselves, "Oh look, all the best of breed winners at Crufts are healthy. Dear me, I'd better stop breeding my eight bitches season after season after season. I'd better stop keeping them in dreadful conditions. I'd better start do health checks. I'd btter start socialising the pups. I'd better start giving an after-sales service instead of taking the money and running. I'd better stop allowing indiscriminate matings between brothers and sisters, using inferior pedigrees, stop pretending crosses are pedigrees etc etc etc." Yeah - well dream on, The likelihood of that happening is on a par with the Taliban saying, "Sorry, chaps, you were right after all. We all surrender."


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2013)

When you look at the overall picture of dogdom, I don't see the problem lying with the show dogs. Nor the working dogs.

Sure you could make a case for the life of a show dog being cruel if you focused on some of the practices some show breeders.
You could also make a good case for the life of a working dog being cruel if you focused on again, some of the practices of some of the handlers.

But the vast majority of dogs are not in the show ring or in the field. They're pet bred, living in pet homes, with pet owners. Most owners have no clue what to feed their dog, how to train the dog, let alone how to purchase responsibly or how to support ethical breeding practices.

These dogs are living with kids who pull their tails and pinch their ears and get smacked with a rolled up newspaper if they dare object to such treatment. 
These dogs are living outside with inadequate shelter and exercise and stimulation because they had one too many accidents in the house as puppies. 
These dogs are suffering collapsed tracheas and laryngeal paralisis because they've spend a lifetime pulling on a leash without anyone teaching them not to. Or they're dead on the side of a road because they were let off the leash without first having been trained to come when called. 
And this is just the teeny tiny tip of the iceberg.

If we *really* want to make a difference in the lives of the most dogs, we need to be looking at the true big picture and *educate *the greater public on training, nutrition, ethical breeding practices AND ethical rescue practices. (Hint: dumping a feral dog on a complete novice owner without any training or management instructions or support would be an example of UNethical rescue practices.)

There is a lot of passion on this thread, imagine what could be acoomplished if knowledgeable folks worked together instead of fighting each other....


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ouesi said:


> When you look at the overall picture of dogdom, I don't see the problem lying with the show dogs. Nor the working dogs.
> 
> Sure you could make a case for the life of a show dog being cruel if you focused on some of the practices some show breeders.
> You could also make a good case for the life of a working dog being cruel if you focused on again, some of the practices of some of the handlers.
> ...


Excellent post - rep to you for this!


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

I think Crufts (or any dog show) is cruel because it is a shameless opportunity for dog food companies to market their foods making out as though every dog would benefit from their processing, preservative and additive goodness.

A better advert to plaster everywhere would be "Want to save your dog? Prey for it".


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

hutch6 said:


> I think Crufts (or any dog show) is cruel because it is a shameless opportunity for dog food companies to market their foods making out as though every dog would benefit from their processing, preservative and additive goodness.
> 
> A better advert to plaster everywhere would be "Want to save your dog? Prey for it".


So Vets are cruel too?


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Meezey said:


> So Vets are cruel too?


Huh? I know not what you mean.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

hutch6 said:


> Huh? I know not what you mean.


I think what Meezey is saying is that vets often sell brands of food in their waiting rooms, such as Science Plan or Royal Canin. It doesn't mean people have to buy it though


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

And following that argument, you would have to class TV as cruel because it advertises dog food.


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> And following that argument, you would have to class TV as cruel because it advertises dog food.


TV is already on the list along with all advertsing media. I've seen the conditions that pet shops keep their pet food in as well as it's not pretty. I once saw 20bags of 15Kg food having to share the same pallet. I was that disgusted I left.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

hutch6 said:


> Huh? I know not what you mean.


If you go to a Vet's they will recommend Hill's, RC etc.. They are not going to tell you that BARF or RAW is way forward or the best way to feed your dogs or cats for that matter ...


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

hutch6 said:


> I once saw 20bags of 15Kg food having to share the same pallet. I was that disgusted I left.


What? I don't understand what's wrong with that. If it's dry food, in a hygienically-packed bag, where's the issue?


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

Meezey said:


> If you go to a Vet's they will recommend Hill's, RC etc.. They are not going to tell you that BARF or RAW is way forward or the best way to feed your dogs or cats for that matter ...


I could recommend a few hills to that labrador. Just kidding. I'm not really.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Pezant said:


> What? I don't understand what's wrong with that. If it's dry food, in a hygienically-packed bag, where's the issue?


That left me genuinely baffled too.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Now quite how you get to that conclusion from that quote, when I mention neither genetic health tests nor their efficacy in working towards combatting extreme structural malformations, is beyond me.


I actually asked when health checks across all breeds was given as the focus of the Canine Alliance what was actually meant, health tests or vet checks. Both test for different things. Not that I had an answer of course. But then giving answers isn't a strong point is it.



> If we HAD been discussing that subject, I would have replied something along the lines of the results of genetic health tests being a necessary and very useful tool for breeders to aid their selection of suitable matings. Structural malformation is not the only thing you have to take into consideration when proposing to breed a healthy litter.


Agree and I think more information should be made to the public so they realize that parents of crossbreeds should also be tested. Also like the way you call it a tool which I feel a lot of people don't do. A lot make it sound like it's the solution to all the problems. You can have all the health tests under the sun however and doesn't mean a dog will be healthy, even skipping abnormalities and the fact you can never guarantee health. How will a genetic health test work for the second skull in the following image bearing in mind the first is the same breed a few decades earlier?








Then again genetic tests isn't the discussion point when it comes to crufts is it. It thing's like those images.



> That to one side, the key point under discussion here is actually whether or not Crufts is cruel. The fact remains that Crufts is not cruel.


Agreed. I've stated that.



> If you are asking whether or not Crufts can lead to cruelty, the anwer is still no. Less than 30% of pedigree dogs are KC regsitered, and of the 30% that are KC registered, around 2% are shown. Of those 2% that are shown, around 14 breeds have been shown to have a few dogs in those breeds with extreme structural malformations.


False. Number of dogs doesn't come into it at all. Only takes 1 person to cause suffering so they can win, and for them to be rewarded for doing so when it's so obvious to justify that opinion. Seems to be though you are arguing it's not cruel if a minority suffer 

Seriously look at the images of the two skulls. Are you saying the development shown doesn't cause health issues? Are you really saying it wasn't caused by people being rewarded for extremes?



> work is being done by dedicated breeders to correct these.


I know and acknowledge that fact as do most people. You cannot say though that everything is perfect now and progress is no longer needed. Yes you are being judged by the past. Guess what.. trust has to be earned. It will take time, honesty and continuing improvement to make up for what has gone on in the past even if it wasn't by people currently in the scene. You've had examples in this thread where the problems of show dog breeding causing health issues was raised, in 1962 and again in the 1980's. How about in 1939 when an E.L. Hagedoorn, a Dutch consulting geneticist to dog breed societies around the world wrote in a book



> In the production of economically useful animals, the show ring is more of a menace than an aid to breeding. Once fancy points are introduced into the standard of perfection, the breeders will give more attention to those easily judged qualities than to the more important qualities that do not happen to be of such a nature that we can evaluate them at shows. showing has nothing to do with utility at all, it is simply a competitive game.


Of course you say "you're" doing things...". The whole scene's reputation took a severe hit. It's been a good start looking at some of the dogs and listening to some of the breeders.. (Personal favourite the bulldog breeder from the KC healthy future video but then I like bullies) However for every positive action there seems to be a step back.



> Now, I know that you have this fond airy-fairy dream that all the puppy farmers in the land will suddenly say to themselves, "Oh look, all the best of breed winners at Crufts are healthy.


Here we go again.. diversion. I don't believe puppy farmers will be stopped unless it's by having an informed public.. Same goes for those crossbreed breeders who charge ridiculous prices and give stupid names. I have the desire to be able to use Crufts, the KC and things like the Assured Breeders Scheme as examples of how to do it right. In the long term, only by education of people buying puppies can we reduce the demand for puppy farms and such.

In 2011 a report was produced by an independent group, called the The Karlton Index. Given that maybe we could use as an example the Dachshund Breed Council (DBC) which have been recognized even in 2011 as:



> Establishing a balanced strategy for prioritising health issues
> Setting objectives and measures to help gauge progress
> Communicating this far and wide using a dedicated website, regular press releases and social media
> Organising regular health related events and campaigns
> ...


Compare this with The Bulldog Breed Council



> Overall, the combination of significant health and welfare issues associated with Bulldogs, together with their popularity means the current approach to health by the breed community is, to be diplomatic, disappointing, to be frank, woeful. If welfare is to improve for these dogs, considerably more needs to be done as a matter of urgency. Sadly, denial over the impact of exaggerated traits on the welfare of these dogs remains strong


A new version of the report is to be released at the end of March this year and I expect it will show improvements across the board. I certainly hope so.

However what use is trying to point people to such a small, unrecognized group of people concerned with a single breed as an example? Surely being able to point to what people consider the "dog group" would be of tremendous benefit.

You also have to be aware just what an impact the UK has on the show scene across the rest of the world. Is the ability to be able to use something like Crufts as an example of how to do it right really too much to ask?


----------



## BessieDog (May 16, 2012)

hutch6 said:


> TV is already on the list along with all advertsing media. I've seen the conditions that pet shops keep their pet food in as well as it's not pretty. I once saw 20bags of 15Kg food having to share the same pallet. I was that disgusted I left.


I presume this is an attempt at a rather lame joke? Overcrowding??


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2013)

Goblin said:


> You also have to be aware just what an impact the UK has on the show scene across the rest of the world. Is the ability to be able to use something like Crufts as an example of how to do it right really too much to ask?


Apparently it is too much to ask.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> I actually asked when health checks across all breeds was given as the focus of the Canine Alliance what was actually meant, health tests or vet checks. Both test for different things. Not that I had an answer of course. But then giving answers isn't a strong point is it.


The CA actually talk about health checks, not health tests, as you would know if you had a look on their website 



Goblin said:


> How will a genetic health test work for the second skull in the following image bearing in mind the first is the same breed a few decades earlier?


erm - didn't I already say that health tests were a tool to test for other things than physical abonormaity? 



Goblin said:


> False. Number of dogs doesn't come into it at all. Only takes 1 person to cause suffering so they can win, and for them to be rewarded for doing so when it's so obvious to justify that opinion. Seems to be though you are arguing it's not cruel if a minority suffer


Rubbish. I have said that nowhere.



Goblin said:


> Seriously look at the images of the two skulls. Are you saying the development shown doesn't cause health issues? Are you really saying it wasn't caused by people being rewarded for extremes?


Rubbish. I have said that nowhere.



Goblin said:


> I know and acknowledge that fact as do most people. You cannot say though that everything is perfect now and progress is no longer needed.


Rubbish. I have said that nowhere



Goblin said:


> Yes you are being judged by the past.


Only by the armchair critics. The people, committees, governmental groups etc who actually count are judging on present performace and current improvement. Guess which judgement is more valid and relevant? Clue: it's not that of the armchair critic.



Goblin said:


> Here we go again.. diversion. I don't believe puppy farmers will be stopped unless it's by having an informed public.. Same goes for those crossbreed breeders who charge ridiculous prices and give stupid names. I have the desire to be able to use Crufts, the KC and things like the Assured Breeders Scheme as examples of how to do it right. In the long term, only by education of people buying puppies can we reduce the demand for puppy farms and such.


No diversionary tactics at all. Just putting the problem into its proper perspective in the general scheme of things. According to the armchair critics, the show scene in general and Crufts in particular is the worst thing that has ever happened to pedigree dogs - but the reality is much different. Your refusal to see this reality speaks volumes

I agree that education of the public is paramount, and if you had ever visited Crufts instead of sitting back in that arm chair you would see just what sort of emphasis at the show is put on educating the public. It is huge. But it is one show that lasts four days. Its effect on the public is limited. By then end of next week, the generalpublic will be rading and reacting to the next big thing in the Daily Wail and Crufts will be a distant memory.

The KC website does have a number of educational items - such as how to choose the best puppy for you, what to look for in a breeder, where to find a breeder, the dangers to look out for etc etc, plus schemes such as the safe and sound scheme for educating parents and their children how to act around dogs. I personally think that the way forward with education is for the KC to be more pro-active on this front at venues other than Crufts and DD - hold TV or radio progrmas, for example, to get the message across to a wider audience.



Goblin said:


> You also have to be aware just what an impact the UK has on the show scene across the rest of the world. Is the ability to be able to use something like Crufts as an example of how to do it right really too much to ask?


Thank you for that because of course, no-one in the show world would have any idea of the impact of the british show scene on the rest of the world, and vice versa  (Ever heard of the phrase teaching your grandmother to suck eggs?) Crufts is held up all over the world as how to do it right. It is held as the pinnacle of the show scene. It is the one everyone wants to enter and win.

I still think you overestimate the effect of Crufts on the general public. The general public will have forgotten about it by the end of the week - hell, by the end of next week even the armchair critics on here will have crawled back into their holes until next March.

However, for those of us in the dog world, the work to improve health will be ongoing. Vet checks take place at all 26 general championship show throughout the year; they are not just something that happens at Crufts and that we can then forget about for another twelve months. For us, producing healthy dogs is a way of life, not just something we do for Crufts


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2013)

Going in circles this thread.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> The CA actually talk about health checks, not health tests, as you would know if you had a look on their website


Dodging the question as usual. More about these health checks later...



> erm - didn't I already say that health tests were a tool to test for other things than physical abonormaity?


Once again dodging the main complaint about Crufts. It's not the issues about pedigree breeds in general, that's another ball game.



> Rubbish. I have said that nowhere.


What else do your comments actually say?



> Only by the armchair critics. The people, committees, governmental groups etc who actually count are judging on present performace and current improvement. Guess which judgement is more valid and relevant? Clue: it's not that of the armchair critic.


Edited: for clarification as to source...
Oh yes... this shows the main fear and reasoning reasoning of the CA.. taken from their site..


> Since then the situation has altered. The world of pedigree dogs is being keenly scrutinized by powerful organizations from outside our sport. Should the Dog Advisory Council succeed in getting their Breeding Standards proposals passed into law our world will be turned upside down. The main focus of most of these organizations is perceived health issues. These are not going to go away!


Sorry.. why would Breeding standards turn the show world upside down if things were fine?
Perceived health issues.. how about actual health issues. Even you say you don't deny there are problems.



> However, for those of us in the dog world, the work to improve health will be ongoing. Vet checks take place at all 26 general championship show throughout the year; they are not just something that happens at Crufts and that we can then forget about for another twelve months. For us, producing healthy dogs is a way of life, not just something we do for Crufts


What does the Canine Alliance want... oh look...


> We are in favour of health checking but NOT in a discriminatory manner *or by vets at dog shows*.


So no independent checks by qualified people or penalizing publically those people who breed badly. Instead health "checks" by people acclimatised to the problems. The past has shown how well that works out. So we will get more of dogs getting BOB awarded with eyes like the attachment.

Well I know you will continue your way discounting anything I or others say if they dare to criticize. As some people are not prepared to actually have a meaningful discussion I'll keep pushing for the Dog Advisory Council to get their Breeding Standards proposals passed into law, partly by making sure people are aware of the problems.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Dodging the question as usual. More about these health checks later...


You asked if the CA advocated vet checks or health tests. I replied that they advocated health checks and referred you to their website so you could see what they meant by that. Answering your question fully and referring you to the website source can in no way be called dodging the issue - except, of course, by someone who has no cogent argument and so has to resort to ridiculousness.



Goblin said:


> Once again dodging the main complaint about Crufts. It's not the issues about pedigree breeds in general, that's another ball game.


Only in your one-stop mind. This thread is about the many issues people have - correctly or incorrectly - with Crufts. It is not just about the one you are fixated on.



Goblin said:


> What else do your comments actually say?
> 
> Oh yes... this..
> 
> _Since then the situation has altered. The world of pedigree dogs is being keenly scrutinized by powerful organizations from outside our sport. Should the Dog Advisory Council succeed in getting their Breeding Standards proposals passed into law our world will be turned upside down. The main focus of most of these organizations is perceived health issues. These are not going to go away_


Erm - sorry - these are not my words. This is a direct quote you have lifted from the CA website. I want to make it quite clear to anyone reading this (and this thread has attracted interest from at least one very influential group on facebook) that these are not my words and that I have not tried to pass them off as my words in any of my posts. That would be plagiarism and I am extremely annoyed that you are trying to pretend I have done this Goblin. I have no idea why you have attributed these words to me, other than it just shows how desperate you are to argue over nothing when you quote words from an organisation's website and try to pretend I said them. Do get a grip - and I feel that an acknowledgement of what you have done and an apology would be in order.



Goblin said:


> Well I know you will continue your way discounting anything I or others say [if they dare to criticize.


Utter nonsense. Those with something to say have been listened to. Those spouting hot air will always be ignored. And people who try to pretend someone has written something they have not, just so they can have a go, send their credibility rating way down past zero and do not deserve to be lsitened to at all.



Goblin said:


> As some people are not prepared to actually have a meaningful discussion


When you write something meaningful, I will. and do, discuss it with you. When you try to pretend I am dodging the question when I have answered your question fully and referred you to the source of the information, then it is entirely your fault that there is no basis for meaningful discussion. When you pretend I have written things I have not, then it is entirely your fault that there is no basis for meaningful discussion.


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

Why is this discussion still going on?

1)* Not all* show folk are abusive towards their dogs and force them to show. Infact it's a *minority*.

2) *Not all* show dogs are sickly and unable to be "dogs", infact quite alot of show dogs work, do agility, flyball, obedience are PAT dogs ect as well as being "dogs" who love to run and play in the park, garden ect. Infact quite *a small number of dogs *in the show ring are sickly. It's frowned upon in most breeds to show a dog with any known health conditions.

3) *Not all *show people are in denial, there are a few who do want changes made and are helping make those changes.

Showing pictures of exaggerated dogs doesn't speak for show dogs on a whole, breeds have changed their standard to breed out exaggerated features. For every 1 exaggerated dog you post a picture of I could post 3-4 not, there are only a few breeds that need their standards changing (which has been done) and exaggerated features bred out, the majority of breeds are not exaggerated.

There's no point in trying to argue this with people who have already very much made their mind up about show and show dogs, no matter how inaccurate they are.


----------



## Alfshuman (Apr 10, 2010)

I've just read through the whole thread from start to finish and I honestly could knock a few people's heads together ..... From all sides of the argument ....And then suggest that they work together to agree a consensus. Apart from the name calling there is actually a lot of common ground here - recognition that the show world is not wholly responsible for all the wrongs in dog breeding and care; that there has been an enormous amount of progress (in some breeds) towards breeding for health rather than purely some peculiar set of standards; and above all the passion on both sides. 

I went to Crufts this year and, just as any other event, I saw good and bad. I saw the primped and preened breeds looking nothing like dogs, I saw the dogs left shut in their crates for hours, I saw the nervous dogs dragged around the show ring on the end of leads held unnaturally high. But I also saw dogs loving all the attention, the intensity of the relationship between the dog and their owner, the Discover Dogs area where people spend hours/days explaining the good and bad about their chosen breed and attempting to educate a sometimes woefully ignorant public (I've done it myself at DD London and I know how physically and emotionally exhausting it is ... And depressing at times). 

Then there are the goodies who, perhaps inadvertently, do something bad... I saw judges I know who spend hours/days working towards raising awareness/improving the health of their breed .... Yet time and again they were awarding rosettes to dogs that had exaggerated features .... And to dogs I know have not had the appropriate DNA tests for a severe late onset inherited condition .... Yet the breeders continue to use them to breed and the would be showers clamour to have the pups because they want a dog from a proven champion.

I've read the Canine Alliance website and I've watched the videos of their meetings and sadly the impression you get is that much of what they promote actually in reality isn't about the health and welfare of the dog - it's about protecting the interest of the breeders. Im prepared to be proved wrong, but I find it bizarre that the vet chosen this year is categorically not independent. The CA had a bad press from the start and all this has done is add to that impression. To gain respect as an individuali or organisation that is really trying to make a difference, you have to be seen to be whiter than white, even if that is inconvenient to you. As a very minor personal example, if my dog comes back tested as clear for the condition I mentioned above, I'd have loved to have bred from him, but sadly he is already DNA tested as affected for a much less severe condition, but one that the breed has worked hard to reduce/eliminate, so I can't/won't. 

So, in the same way, whilst the showing world is not wholly responsible for all the bad practice, they can do an enormous amount to influence puppy buyers and back yard breeders......as can the 'armchair critics' as described on this thread, some of whom actually have an enormous amount of knowledge and are extemely articulate, can give due praise and do their bit to promote that work amongst less knowledeable would be dog owners/breeders on this forum and on the many horrible, unprincipled, unmoderated puppy selling Internet sites. 

I can genuinely understand why the showers are so defensive when TV programmes and other media, and some posters on here make exaggerated claims (though some who disagree with you have very valid points), but why not work together rather than against each other as someone suggested further up the thread? Why not put pressure on the Kennel Club to resist the temptation to licence Accredited Breeders who actually don't adhere to the stated principals? Why not campaign for a truly independent vet check at shows? Why not campaign more publicly against the more extreme features, such as the short noses, short legs, back problems - and refuse to show under judges that persist in awarding wins for them? Why not (dare I say this?) campaign that no dog should be allowed to show, much less be used as a stud, unless they can prove that they have had all the relevant health checks, including DNA testing where appropriate? 

Stands back and awaits the vitriol ......


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

shetlandlover said:


> Why is this discussion still going on?
> 
> 1)* Not all* show folk are abusive towards their dogs and force them to show. Infact it's a *minority*.
> 
> ...


You are right, as always, hun, especially about the bit in red. Ah well, in another few days they'll have forgotten all about Crufts - until it's time to roll out all the same old inaccurate arguements again next year.

Heh heh - just been watching Judge Judy and she came out with a phrase, "Dumb is forever dumb" - thought of some people on this thread straight away!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Alfshuman said:


> I've just read through the whole thread from start to finish and I honestly could knock a few people's heads together ..... From all sides of the argument ....And then suggest that they work together to agree a consensus. Apart from the name calling there is actually a lot of common ground here - recognition that the show world is not wholly responsible for all the wrongs in dog breeding and care; that there has been an enormous amount of progress (in some breeds) towards breeding for health rather than purely some peculiar set of standards; and above all the passion on both sides.
> 
> I went to Crufts this year and, just as any other event, I saw good and bad. I saw the primped and preened breeds looking nothing like dogs, I saw the dogs left shut in their crates for hours, I saw the nervous dogs dragged around the show ring on the end of leads held unnaturally high. But I also saw dogs loving all the attention, the intensity of the relationship between the dog and their owner, the Discover Dogs area where people spend hours/days explaining the good and bad about their chosen breed and attempting to educate a sometimes woefully ignorant public (I've done it myself at DD London and I know how physically and emotionally exhausting it is ... And depressing at times).
> 
> ...


So pleased there are people like you, working hard to improve the lot of pedigree dogs :thumbsup:


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

shetlandlover said:


> 1)* Not all* show folk are abusive towards their dogs and force them to show. Infact it's a *minority*.


Agree. Nobody has said different.



> 2) *Not all* show dogs are sickly and unable to be "dogs", infact quite alot of show dogs work, do agility, flyball, obedience are PAT dogs ect as well as being "dogs" who love to run and play in the park, garden ect. Infact quite *a small number of dogs *in the show ring are sickly.


Agreed..


> It's frowned upon in most breeds to show a dog with any known health conditions.


It's the "most" which people are complaining about.



> *Not all *show people are in denial, there are a few who do want changes made and are helping make those changes.


Prove it through actions not words. The so called health checks proposed by the CA appear a joke with the main thrust of "we can police ourselves". It may be you solve the problems in the short term. I've previously stated quite clearly the problems don't stem from a deliberate act. It's a slow acceptance of minor changes which only really become apparent when taken as a whole. Do you really expect "creep" not to appear again as time goes on?



> Showing pictures of exaggerated dogs doesn't speak for show dogs on a whole, breeds have changed their standard to breed out exaggerated features. For every 1 exaggerated dog you post a picture of I could post 3-4 not, there are only a few breeds that need their standards changing (which has been done)


Yes.. good example is that the standard for bulldogs changed ages ago with no real result. It's the interpretation of the standards which has the impact along with judging. It may be the minority of animals with problems but they are still being awarded prizes therefore cruelty is still being rewarded. Doesn't matter if it's 1 in 100, 1 in 1000000 it's still avoidable cruelty condoned by the system. Simple questions... Should cruelty be rewarded simply as it's slightly less common than before? How many cases of cruelty is the minimum that should be accepted and rewarded?


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

Goblin said:


> Yes.. good example is that the standard for bulldogs changed ages ago with no real change


Rome wasn't built in a day! It takes time for improvements to be seen

Many breed clubs are busting a gut to improve breeding practices and introducing new health testing schemes. We cannot however control the puppy farmers and hobby breeders who don't care enough to change and they are breeding the majority of the puppies out there

On looking through one BRS out of nearly 50 litters, only 4 were show breeders.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

pearltheplank said:


> Rome wasn't built in a day! It takes time for improvements to be seen
> 
> Many breed clubs are busting a gut to improve breeding practices and introducing new health testing schemes. We cannot however control the puppy farmers and hobby breeders who don't care enough to change and they are breeding the majority of the puppies out there
> 
> On looking through one BRS out of nearly 50 litters, only 4 were show breeders.


But there are now many many improved Bulldogs and the one that gets put up................Why?


----------



## Alice Childress (Nov 14, 2010)

rona said:


> But there are now many many improved Bulldogs and the one that gets put up................Why?


I've actually met breeder of the BOB bulldog's mother and their breeder. They live close to me. At one point I was considering getting a bulldog but only wanted to support people committed to improving the breed. I actually ruled out this breeder because she is against the changes to breed standard. Now, despite this and appearances her dogs run about and go for long walks every day without any trouble, so I can see her anger when people then say that they are sickly and need to change. Looks do not always tell us what is going on inside the dog and her dogs are certainly happy. Nevertheless, I find it uncomfortable looking at them. They are too heavy for my liking - even just on a vanity level, I prefer the less exaggerated looks.

However, looking at them and feeling uncomfortable doesn't actually mean that they are suffering. I do feel people make assumptions when looking at certain dogs.

The result did make me slightly annoyed though. The BOB bulldog last year was less exaggerated and in my opinion a much better example of the breed to be encouraging. I cannot help but feel that last year she was disqualified to make a point. After all they would have looked ridiculous if after bringing the the vet checks every dog had got through (yes, yes, I know a lot of you do not agree with this and think it's just an excuse).


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

pearltheplank said:


> Rome wasn't built in a day! It takes time for improvements to be seen


Time.. interesting concept isn't it... 1930's, 1960's 1980s.. how much time... 

Admitted pace of change and acceptance of the problem is far better now than it probably ever has been and I don't know anyone who is not prepared to accept that. In fact most, if not all, are keen to support, commend and encourage people, especially breeders trying to better the breeds and inform people what the problems are and how they are tackling them.

Complaints are made about what people see as steps backwards, lack of transparency/self protectionism and rewards still being given for unfit dogs.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Goblin:just to say : I cannot give you anothe r rep...but absolutely agree!
Those who judge are experts on dogs..else they should not do that job!!
so if they award prizes to exaggerated animals they realize what they ebncourage...
this particular sloppy backed GSD might be allright...or that heavy bulldog...but if straight backed GSD are generally healthier, with fewer back and hip problems then in my mind this is what should be encouraged?

Dogs after all are not art pieces, not collector items but living being and their wellbeing should be paramount??
Best dog is the one who is of sound body and mind...and that should be aimed at in all breeds!!!

That should be awarded...

and people who never had a dog but want one watch TV...or go to Crutfs..and buy what they see as best: the ones that look like BOB?

and just to say: very, very interesting thread...


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Alice Childress said:


> I cannot help but feel that last year she was disqualified to make a point. After all they would have looked ridiculous if after bringing the the vet checks every dog had got through (yes, yes, I know a lot of you do not agree with this and think it's just an excuse).


Yet, last year's vet checks were independent vets, not associated with the KC in a any way. This year it wasn't and all dogs got through.. What impression does that make? After all the complaints last year about the vet checks by the show community it was expected, with dismay, that the vet checks would be watered down to please the show crowd, despite being minimal to begin with. It could be said, that this proves once again how little people really care about the problem. An independent, expert viewpoint no longer exists. Is it a wonder trust is lost eroding possible gains in other areas. Crufts after all is the showcase.


----------



## Alice Childress (Nov 14, 2010)

Goblin said:


> *Yet, last year's vet checks were independent vets, not associated with the KC in a any way*. This year it wasn't and all dogs got through.. What impression does that make? After all the complaints last year about the vet checks by the show community it was expected, with dismay, that the vet checks would be watered down to please the show crowd, despite being minimal to begin with. It could be said, that this proves once again how little people really care about the problem. An independent, expert viewpoint no longer exists. Is it a wonder trust is lost?


This does not take away from the fact that (in my opinion) the Bulldog last year was unfairly treated. She was disqualified because of an old eye injury, nothing inherited. It was an excuse, any excuse in my opinion. The complaints made by the show community re the bulldog, were right! She was a great example of where the breed should be going. If I remember correctly you acknowledged that she was not overly exaggerated as well. I cannot comment on the other breeds as I do not know enough about them.

Independent or not last year, I feel the KC wanted/needed dogs to fail to demonstrate that they were taking it seriously. I would go as far as to that I suspect that the vets were encouraged to disqualify dogs.

I know we may not agree on this 

I would agree though that the fact that all dogs got through and the vets were not independent does not 'look good'. This doesn't mean that the dogs that got through were put through when really they were ill and sickly either, but yes, it will certainly make people question the bias of those involved no doubt. I think both years undermine the validity and faith in the vet checks personally. Last year, dogs being disqualified unfairly, this year, no dogs being disqualified.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Alice Childress said:


> If I remember correctly you acknowledged that she was not overly exaggerated as well.


I believe I did. I will support those who I can see taking action to improve.



> I cannot comment on the other breeds as I do not know enough about them.


One of my complaints is that details were not automatically made public. Comes back to necessary transparency.



> Independent or not last year, I feel the KC wanted/needed dogs to fail to demonstrate that they were taking it seriously. I would go as far as to that I suspect that the vets were encouraged to disqualify dogs.


Naturally I don't but again at the time I said I was amazed that there wasn't an appeals procedure. I think the key factor was the vet check procedure needed improvement, not watering down which, from the video's etc by the show community afterwards wasn't what they wanted (improvement) and watering down seems to have happened. Nothing so far I've seen would be as effective or public as independent vet checks at Crufts.


----------



## Dimwit (Nov 10, 2011)

Alice Childress said:


> Now, despite this and appearances her dogs run about and go for long walks every day without any trouble, so I can see her anger when people then say that they are sickly and need to change. Looks do not always tell us what is going on inside the dog and her dogs are certainly happy.


I am sure her dogs are very happy but the fact remains that, while judges continue to reward dogs with exaggerated characteristics, people will continue to breed them, and to breed more and more exaggerated features. Therefore the incidence of health problems associated with these characteristics will increase.
Just because one dog may be healthy despite having a very sloped back or being very brachycephalic, this does not mean that the breed AS A WHOLE will be healthy if they also have these physical characteristics...


----------



## Alice Childress (Nov 14, 2010)

Dimwit said:


> I am sure her dogs are very happy but the fact remains that, while judges continue to reward dogs with exaggerated characteristics, people will continue to breed them, and to breed more and more exaggerated features. Therefore the incidence of health problems associated with these characteristics will increase.


Which is why I've stated that I am angry that last years 'better' example (in my opinion) was disqualified. I think it would have done everyone good to see a less exaggerated Bulldog at Crufts.

(I will add though that her dogs are not only happy, but healthy in terms of able to breath and run).



Dimwit said:


> Just because one dog may be healthy despite having a very sloped back or being very brachycephalic, this does not mean that the breed AS A WHOLE will be healthy if they also have these physical characteristics...


Absolutely, and the same is equally true in reverse. Just because one dog may be unhealthy because they are very brachycephalic, does not mean the breed AS A WHOLE, will be unhealthy if they also have these characteristics.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Goblin said:


> Time.. interesting concept isn't it... 1930's, 1960's 1980s.. how much time...
> 
> Admitted pace of change and acceptance of the problem is far better now than it probably ever has been and people I don't know anyone who is not prepared to accept that. In fact most, if not all, are keen to support, commend and encourage people, especially breeders trying to better the breeds and inform people what the problems are and how they are tackling them.
> 
> Complaints are made about what people see as steps backwards, lack of transparency/self protectionism and rewards still being given for unfit dogs.


The fact is when the armchair anti's, and they have shown their true colours on a few occasions on these threads, keep chanting their same BS over and over again, and can't and won't see that changes are being made,a few have head nodded to changes, but always follow with a BUT, and some really haven't a clue about what's going on but feel the need to just spew BS, is there any wonder there is a lack of transparency/self protectionism??

The dogs considered "unfit" by armchair judges, still managed to get round the ring, and have all the health checks for their breeds carried out, and people JUDGE them on seeing them move for what 5 mins in the ring. The fact that we really saw none of the extremes in the HPB's of last year shows, it's slowly working... It's been a YEAR how many pup have been born from last have their Stud Book number, or have managed to qualify for Crufts, how many matings have taken place/planned to start correcting the mistakes, and it may take the pups a few years to be out and shown? It's not going to take one generation of breeding to change the mistakes people have made. It's always going to be a case of the breeders, Judges, KC etc will not be able to do right for doing wrong. It's just never going to be enough for some... hence why you will always have lack of transparency/self protectionism.

What I struggle with is the anti's don't realise or care that they are attacking someones much loved pet and people friends, and you can give all your rhetoric about show people and the show scene and Crufts being a public event, but it's still someones dog your attacking and also people friends, I'm sure you all wouldn't be so self righteous in your comments if someone was attacking your dog or friend.

Just my thoughts....


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Dimwit said:


> I am sure her dogs are very happy but the fact remains that, while judges continue to reward dogs with exaggerated characteristics, people will continue to breed them, and to breed more and more exaggerated features. Therefore the incidence of health problems associated with these characteristics will increase.
> Just because one dog may be healthy despite having a very sloped back or being very brachycephalic, this does not mean that the breed AS A WHOLE will be healthy if they also have these physical characteristics...


I agree with all you have said here.......
I would have thought anyone wanting to show their dog/dogs would want to show just how that breed should look, healthy ect................obviously not so can i ask why do people show i just dont get it.

So as you say judges are rewarding dogs with exaggerated characteristics, so thats how the show people want their dogs then surely............ shame.


----------



## Vicki (Jul 28, 2009)

Meezey said:


> can't and won't see that changes are being made,a few have head nodded to changes, but always follow with a BUT


Do you honestly think that just because there have been changes there's no but anymore? Do you really think that just because improvements have been made the work is done and there is nothing more to do?



Meezey said:


> The dogs considered "unfit" by armchair judges, still managed to get round the ring, and have all the health checks for their breeds carried out, and people JUDGE them on seeing them move for what 5 mins in the ring.


Just because a dog can manage to get round the ring for 5 minutes doesn't mean it's fit.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Vicki said:


> Do you honestly think that just because there have been changes there's no but anymore? Do you really think that just because improvements have been made the work is done and there is nothing more to do?


No I don't so please don't spin my words as you want them to sound, and use that out of context either, hence saying it will take generations, and that many of the breeding that have taken place their prodigy won't even be in the ring yet, or the planned matings won't even of taken place.



Vicki said:


> Just because a dog can manage to get round the ring for 5 minutes doesn't mean it's fit.


I am WELL aware of that. Again you chose to read what you want to read and take it out of context... *shrugs*



Meezey said:


> It's not going to take one generation of breeding to change the mistakes people have made. It's always going to be a case of the breeders, Judges, KC etc will not be able to do right for doing wrong. It's just never going to be enough for some... hence why you will always have lack of transparency/self protectionism.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> I agree with all you have said here.......
> I would have thought anyone wanting to show their dog/dogs would want to show just how that breed should look, healthy ect................obviously not so can i ask why do people show i just dont get it.
> 
> So as you say judges are rewarding dogs with exaggerated characteristics, so thats how the show people want their dogs then surely............ shame.


You see, it's this kind of blanket condemnation of showing and people who show that make us so angry. I for one am sick to the back teeth of pointing out that *the majority* of people *do* want to show their dogs as "exactly how the breed should look, healthy etc". Please do not label the majority with the actions of the few. It's as stupid as saying, "All teenagers are gun carrying hoodies."


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Meezey said:


> It's always going to be a case of the breeders, Judges, KC etc will not be able to do right for doing wrong. It's just never going to be enough for some... hence why you will always have lack of transparency/self protectionism.


So if people criticize, problems should be hidden from sight and dogs suffer as people shouldn't be held responsible for their actions?


----------



## Vicki (Jul 28, 2009)

Meezey said:


> No I don't so please don't spin my words as you want them to sound, and use that out of context either, hence saying it will take generations, and that many of the breeding that have taken place their prodigy won't even be in the ring yet, or the planned matings won't even of taken place.
> 
> I am WELL aware of that. Again you chose to read what you want to read and take it out of context... *shrugs*


Then why are you so opposed to there being a debate about Crufts'/dog shows? If there hadn't been a debate, no improvements to the breeds would have been made. If the debate stops, so will the improvements. That's why I never will stop discussing the issue.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Vicki said:


> Do you honestly think that just because there have been changes there's no but anymore? Do you really think that just because improvements have been made the work is done and there is nothing more to do?
> 
> Just because a dog can manage to get round the ring for 5 minutes doesn't mean it's fit.





Goblin said:


> So if people criticize, problems should be hidden from sight and dogs suffer as people shouldn't be held responsible for their actions?


No that's not what I'm saying, it's not just the criticism, what annoys the keek out of me, is people generally don't have a clue about what goes on, they sit in their arm chair being keyboard cowboys, pointing fingers and looking down their noses. Yet when you ask what they are doing to help seeing as they feel so strongly about something, they give vague random answers of I do "something" or ignore the question, if you feel so bloody passionate about it DO SOMETHING, other than being so self bloody righteous behind a keyboard . People who do complain, criticize and judge do nothing to help anyone, not a thing, they are the type of people who make things get hidden from sight. People ARE being held responsible for their actions, but those that chose google, dog press and news papers as their source of misinformation, hinder rather than help things............ Rather than tutting and shaking your head, put your money where your keyboard is and do something.

It can not be done in a day.... It is being done, it might not be done to most peoples satisfaction, and there are a lot of hurdles and barriers, and it's not going to be easy or fast.... as I said if you and others feel so strongly about it DO SOMETHING.. rather than watch Cruft and then just come on a forum and complain about the "state" of the pug, or the Lab, or the peke, or the bulldog, Neo, GSD etc.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Vicki said:


> Then why are you so opposed to there being a debate about Crufts'/dog shows? If there hadn't been a debate, no improvements to the breeds would have been made. If the debate stops, so will the improvements. That's why I never will stop discussing the issue.


No one has said there is any issue with it, again you are reading what you want to read ... Read above... There is debating and then pointing fingers and being self righeous ...


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> You see, it's this kind of blanket condemnation of showing and people who show that make us so angry. I for one am sick to the back teeth of pointing out that *the majority* of people *do* want to show their dogs as "exactly how the breed should look, healthy etc". Please do not label the majority with the actions of the few. It's as stupid as saying, "All teenagers are gun carrying hoodies."


what makes you think ime not talking about the minority. I didnt say EVERY show person. Ime aware like in most things in life there is the ones that want to do it "right".


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Meezey said:


> No that's not what I'm saying, it's not just the criticism, what annoys the keek out of me, is people generally don't have a clue about what goes on, they sit in their arm chair being keyboard cowboys, pointing fingers and looking down their noses. Yet when you ask what they are doing to help seeing as they feel so strongly about something, they give vague random answers of I do "something" or ignore the question, if you feel so bloody passionate about it DO SOMETHING, other than being so self bloody righteous behind a keyboard . People who do complain, criticize and judge do nothing to help anyone, not a thing, they are the type of people who make things get hidden from sight. People ARE being held responsible for their actions, but those that chose google, dog press and news papers as their source of misinformation, hinder rather than help things............ Rather than tutting and shaking your head, put your money where your keyboard is and do something.
> 
> It can not be done in a day.... It is being done, it might not be done to most peoples satisfaction, and there are a lot of hurdles and barriers, and it's not going to be easy or fast.... as I said if you and others feel so strongly about it DO SOMETHING.. rather than watch Cruft and then just come on a forum and complain about the "state" of the pug, or the Lab, or the peke, or the bulldog, Neo, GSD etc.


Excellent post. Who was it who said:

_"Those who can, do. Those who can't teach. But those who can do neither yet think they can are called critics." _

Can't remember for the life of me - but very true!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Meezey said:


> No one has said there is any issue with it, again you are reading what you want to read ... Read above... There is debating and then pointing fingers and being self righeous ...


There certainly is


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Christ you would think people who profess to being so in to dogs would get the basic concept of positive reinforcement:

"Positive training helps to establish and maintain a connection that increases trust and therefore creates a stronger bond"

"punitive methods to force dog ( change Dog to people in the show world) to behave, often resulting in a quick fix that never truly identifies the root cause of the misbehavior while promoting insecurity and negative behavior."

Trying using those method to get people on side :thumbsup:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Alice Childress said:


> Absolutely, and the same is equally true in reverse. Just because one dog may be unhealthy because they are very brachycephalic, does not mean the breed AS A WHOLE, will be unhealthy if they also have these characteristics.


But if it's even just a step in the wrong direction it could impact on a great many other dogs if that dog is rewarded at the biggest show in the UK


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

What about statistcis?..if any condition :say: hip problems is significantly more predominant in exaggerated dogs than healthy : maybe one in 50 to one in 1000?..so what that 49 are well?

If there are thousands of those dogs?

even average Joe Bloggs can notice now how many bulldogs , pekingese or pugs struggle on the walk?


I remember those dogs in seventies, when I started to visit dog shows...many breeds were very different then..and must say the change (except for the ears and tails!!!) was often not into "better" in terms of dogs health and ability to serve the purpose the breed was originally created for...



And I would not talk about specific people : but - if you exhibit your animals/cars/paintings then they will be talked about?
and their owners?


----------



## Dimwit (Nov 10, 2011)

Alice Childress said:


> Absolutely, and the same is equally true in reverse. Just because one dog may be unhealthy because they are very brachycephalic, does not mean the breed AS A WHOLE, will be unhealthy if they also have these characteristics.


True, but if you are breeding in traits which have severe implications for the health of the dog it becomes more likely that the the breed, as a whole will become unhealthy, and where do you draw the line? Is it justifiable to say that as only 30% of CKCS show clinical signs of SM that this means that the breed, as a whole is healthy...


----------



## Vicki (Jul 28, 2009)

Meezey said:


> No that's not what I'm saying, it's not just the criticism, what annoys the keek out of me, is people generally don't have a clue about what goes on, they sit in their arm chair being keyboard cowboys, pointing fingers and looking down their noses. Yet when you ask what they are doing to help seeing as they feel so strongly about something, they give vague random answers of I do "something" or ignore the question, if you feel so bloody passionate about it DO SOMETHING, other than being so self bloody righteous behind a keyboard . People who do complain, criticize and judge do nothing to help anyone, not a thing, they are the type of people who make things get hidden from sight. People ARE being held responsible for their actions, but those that chose google, dog press and news papers as their source of misinformation, hinder rather than help things............ Rather than tutting and shaking your head, put your money where your keyboard is and do something.
> 
> It can not be done in a day.... It is being done, it might not be done to most peoples satisfaction, and there are a lot of hurdles and barriers, and it's not going to be easy or fast.... as I said if you and others feel so strongly about it DO SOMETHING.. rather than watch Cruft and then just come on a forum and complain about the "state" of the pug, or the Lab, or the peke, or the bulldog, Neo, GSD etc.


What you don't seem to get is that you _can_ DO SOMETHING behind the keyboard. That's what I'm doing right now. I don't pretend that I can solve the problems of every breed by doing that, but I can make people think. Some (you, for example) don't agree with my opinions and that's fine. People have to see both sides and make their own opinions.

But maybe there's someone thinking about getting for example a pug reading here. Seeing this (and other) debates this person might think "maybe I shouldn't get a pug if they have so many health problems". And if people don't buy pugs the way they are today, the breeders don't sell any dogs. That in turn will cause them to rethink their priorities.

Or perhaps this person thinks "Oh, pugs have serious health problems, I'd better be careful and choose a good breeder who thinks that health is more important than winning dog shows." Then the breeders who breed healthy/healthier dogs get to sell their puppies, while those who breed unhealthy dogs doesn't and have change their priorities.

Of course this example is over-simplified, but in general this is how it works. If only people who are into dog shows were allowed to discuss dog shows no light would be shed on the problems. And frankly, I don't see what good it would do to the breeds to hide the problems.

I still don't know what you mean by "do something". What should I and other people who doesn't like dog shows and think that some breeds are very unhealthy do to help? I understand that there is more than one way to help, but please give at least one example.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Vicki said:


> But maybe there's someone thinking about getting for example a pug reading here. Seeing this (and other) debates this person might think "maybe I shouldn't get a pug if they have so many health problems". And if people don't buy pugs the way they are today, the breeders don't sell any dogs. That in turn will cause them to rethink their priorities.
> 
> Or perhaps this person thinks "Oh, pugs have serious health problems, I'd better be careful and choose a good breeder who thinks that health is more important than winning dog shows." Then the breeders who breed healthy/healthier dogs get to sell their puppies, while those who breed unhealthy dogs doesn't and have change their priorities.


Most people in the normal dog world don't even watch d Crufts, so people thinking of getting a dog certainly won't watch in droves and if they are responsible, then they will be going to Crufts for the discover dogs.

Strangely I am struggling to understand how people think Show people are hiding stuff again:
The Pug dog club seems to be working with the KC, oh the powers of google 

"In 2005, a health subcommittee was formed to look into all health issues in the breed."

"Guidelines for Members

Pugs should be kept in clean, comfortable conditions and their welfare should always be of paramount importance.
The aim of breeders should always be to improve the quality and soundness of their stock and to produce healthy, typical pugs, which conform as closely as possible to the Breed Standard.
The commercial breeding of pugs is unacceptable.
Dogs and bitches used for breeding should be of good type and quality should be sound and healthy with reliable, steady and even temperament, which is an important feature of the breed.
Dogs and bitches suffering from or known to be carrying any hereditary defect (such as slipping patella, cleft palate, entropion, hip dysplasia, hemivertebra) ought not to be used for breeding. Breeders should co-operate with other breeders, especially, but also with clubs and veterinary bodies, in an effort to eradicate hereditary defects.
A bitch to be used for breeding should be at least 18 months of age, or on her third season, before mating for the first time. In addition, the decision to breed should depend on the maturity, both physical and mental, of the bitch to support a litter. She should not be mated once she has reached the age of 6 years.
A bitch should not normally be bred from on two consecutive seasons. Four litters is sufficient in a bitch's breeding life, and every effort should be made to ensure her a comfortable and happy lifetime thereafter.
Stud dog owners have a great responsibility towards the breed and should assure themselves that:
(a) The dog to be used is as good an example of the breed as possible and suitable for breeding under guidelines 4 and 5 above.
(b) The bitch to be mated is of suitable age and condition under guide- lines 4,5, 6 and 7 above.
It is recommended that the pedigrees and registration papers of both dog and bitch be studied for both accuracy and suitability.
Breeders should be responsible for placing their pugs in suitable homes and should maintain a lifelong interest in, and responsibility for their stock. To this end, pugs should never be sold to dealers or pet shops, or exported to the Middle and Far East, or other areas where animal welfare is a very low priority.
The Pug Dog Club welcomes new members, and hopes that new owners and fellow members will be given support and assistance.
Any offence committed under any UK legislation or subsidiary legislation passed for the protection of dogs in particular or animals in general shall be considered to be a breach of these guidelines and the Kennel Club's Code of Ethics."

"345 checks; 330 passes; 96% positive results

At the end of the first year of vet health examinations for Best Of Breed winners from the 14 high profile breeds, the figures show that of the 345 examinations that took place this year (up to and including LKA), 330 dogs were passed fit to gain the BOB award and appear in their group, with only 15 examinations resulting in the dog being failed on the day. This represents a 96% pass rate and is an indication of the overall standard of health presented from the dogs involved.

Since the introduction of the checks, exhibitors have consistently come forward, with only six potential candidates choosing not to present their dogs for the health check and therefore not claiming their BOB.

Four breeds have a 100% pass rate; a further six recording only 1 failure across the breed during 2012.

The health checks, which have caused some controversy since they were introduced, are intended to ensure that representatives from those breeds with known visible health issues, that are judged fit to receive BOB, are free from the specific identified problems or issues and are fit for function.

Kennel Club Chairman, Steve Dean said: "We are very aware of how difficult the introduction has been for many of the breeds, where breeders and exhibitors have seen it as a spotlight being shone unfairly on a small number of breeds. However, I think that these statistics show without doubt that the results have been overwhelmingly positive. We are all aware of the media scrutiny that pedigree dogs and their breeders are under today and it is incumbent on all of us involved to do whatever we can to ensure good health in the dogs that go on public display in the show ring, and even more importantly, that this reflects the health of those that breeders place in companion homes.

"Over this initial period the co-operation from the high profile breeds, alongside the evolving consistency of the checks and the continuing programme of educational events, has all contributed to a regime in which all parties can have confidence. It is clear to see that we can be very proud of our pedigree dogs and of the breeders who put so much into ensuring the long term health and welfare of their chosen breeds.

"The active involvement of the HPB health co-ordinators and the exhibitors has been vital to the success so far. We know that it has taken great courage for exhibitors to put themselves and their dogs on the line, some of them on many occasions. The results prove again and again that their dogs are fit for function.

"For me another important element has been to see the vets involved becoming aware of how healthy the dogs are that are coming through for the examinations and how this is challenging some views of the general health and wellbeing of 'show dogs' as opposed to the 'pets' they usually meet.

"The programme will not stand still; it should and will continue to evolve and develop to meet the needs of pedigree dogs. The Dog Health Group is closely monitoring the scheme to see how best to take it forward and there will be changes as time goes on. As part of that monitoring process we have welcomed all feedback from those in the high profile breeds and from other breeds as well, and this is all currently being assessed by the Vet Check Review Group."

The Kennel Club also underlines that the high profile breeds list is not static. Summer 2012 saw one breed removed from the list and the Dog Health Group will continue to monitor breeds across all the groups to ensure that the list remains a relevant and useful tool in working on long term breed health.

The Kennel Club held two Healthy Eye Conformation Seminars in July and a further one in October, at which Professor Sheila Crispin MA VetMB DVOpthal and Professor Dean presented to veterinary surgeons, high profile breed exhibitors, breed club representatives, breed health coordinators and judges.

Vicky Collins-Natrass, breeder of Kezia Bulldogs, who attended the seminar, said: "The talk was much more relevant to the breeder than previous sessions, with detail given in a way that was easy to understand and to apply to your own breed. Professor Crispin was excellent and Steve Dean's presentation made it all tie in with the high profile breeds examinations.

"It was good to hear Steve Dean himself say that despite the publicity of how unhealthy show dogs were, of the small number of failures, most of these were on eye-related issues, and not as might have been expected in our breed, in breathing and movement - I think this is a definite achievement."

John Goodyear, who attended the seminar in October and will be conducting the veterinary checks at Manchester in January, said: "The general tone of the seminar was very constructive and helped to clarify some misunderstandings over some issues surrounding the checks for those attending.

"When I carried out the checks at Birmingham last May, the process was still very new and there was definitely a degree of negative feedback from exhibitors who weren't clear as to what to expect. I look forward to fulfilling this same role at Manchester and feel that this will be a good indicator as to whether the Kennel Club has been successful in getting its message out to exhibitors."

Judges of the fourteen high profile breeds and veterinary surgeons have been invited to a High Profile Breeds Education Day on Thursday 7th February 2013, which will showcase the health work that has been undertaken by breeders and the progress that has been made.

Representatives for each breed will have a dedicated breed booth, where they will be able to highlight the health initiatives that have been undertaken, and an area will be provided so that breed representatives can provide commentary on the movement in their breeds. Each breed representative will bring along dogs that have good characteristics and that have moved away from exaggerations, and those that show conformation or movement problems that are still faced within the breed."

Well done to the Dog Pug Club, and it's on going, but there are those who will still say nothing its being done  Who's hiding what here? They admitted they are problems, they are all submitting to Vet checks at shows ( not just Crufts) they are working to do something about it, just what's being hidden..


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Meezey said:


> Most people in the normal dog world don't even watch d Crufts, so people thinking of getting a dog certainly won't watch in droves and if they are responsible, then they will be going to Crufts for the discover dogs.
> 
> Strangely I am struggling to understand how people think Show people are hiding stuff again:
> The Pug dog club seems to be working with the KC, oh the powers of google
> ...


glad just glad...things are getting better...wish it was going faster..

there should be that difference between buying from a puppy farm and from a KC register breeder: KC are good, healthy pups..the other lot ..may not be!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> glad just glad...things are getting better...wish it was going faster..
> 
> Ithere should be that difference between buying from a puppy farm and from a KC regiester breeder: KC are good, healthy pups..the other lot ..may not be!


I think we all wish it was going faster  I for one, am just glad that things are being done, I hope all the breed clubs will get on board and push for it for every breed, it's going to take time and a lot of blood, sweat and tears, but I do firmly believe that there should be credit where credit is due, rather than just slating the KC, Breeder, Breed Clubs etc...:thumbsup:

No doubt the post will be ripped apart anyway as not being enough, and the standard of the pug that got BOB blah blah blah blah...... A whole lot has to change and it can't be done over night, or even in a year, but people consider that to be too slow...


----------



## Doodler (May 20, 2012)

Crufts............I just bit my tongue!

eddie


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2013)

It's not good for the dog to breed for exaggerated traits, no. And let's not forget that physical traits are not the only traits that have been over exaggerated by short sighted breeders just looking for accolades. 

There is a lot of exaggeration of temperament traits on the working side of things. This needs to be addressed just as much as the exaggeration of physical traits does. IMHO


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> what makes you think ime not talking about the minority. I didnt say EVERY show person.


Oh, I think it was the way you talked about "show people" - a blanket term that covers everyone, instead of "a minority of show people" or "some show people" - specific terms which don't.



haeveymolly said:


> Ime aware like in most things in life there is the ones that want to do it "right".


Good - glad we've cleared that up


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

cheekyscrip said:


> Ithere should be that difference between buying from a puppy farm and from a KC regiester breeder: KC are good, healthy pups..the other lot ..may not be!


There is no such thing as a KC registered breeder. Dogs are registered with the KC, not breeders. The KC runs a scheme called the Assured Breeder scheme, but the vast majority of dogs registered with the KC do not come from KC Assured Breeders, nor are they dogs that are shown. Only 30% of pedigree dogs are registered with the KC, and of those 30% around 2% are shown.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Vicki said:


> I still don't know what you mean by "do something". What should I and other people who doesn't like dog shows and think that some breeds are very unhealthy do to help?


A lot of people could always start a governmental petition asking for the Dog Advisory Council Breeding Standards legislation to be implemented I suppose. That would be something. Possibly massive facebook campaign with loads of the worst pictures people can dig up. No need to make anything up either which is always an advantage. I suppose this is the sort of thing preferable to actually providing responses to when people ask questions and allowing people to discuss it.



> Strangely I am struggling to understand how people think Show people are hiding stuff again:
> The Pug dog club seems to be working with the KC, oh the powers of google
> 
> "In 2005, a health subcommittee was formed to look into all health issues in the breed."


Words are cheap. Action is more difficult.

Let's look at the health information from a pug's web site... Pugs Health | Pug Dog Club Says a lot about health doesn't it?

The Karlton Index is an independent group, including vets whose rate breed clubs/societies in terms of where they stand on health issues and progress made. So far only one report is out for 2011, 5/6 years after the pug health subcommittee was formed.. Lot's of progress should be possible with 6 years wouldn't you say. What does the report say about pugs...



> The Pug was included in my initial analysis back in March 2011 and sorry to have to report but nothing on health has changed these past six months. Though the club names the health co-ordinator it fails to give any obvious contact details. The list of health issues such as it is remains
> unchanged and there is no mention of the Pug being included on the high profile breed list. The KC information on pug health is extremely limited given the long list of health problems that are regularly reported but they do say that the breed council requires hemivertebrae checking. Nothing on this scheme can be found on the club website and no web presence comes up for the Pug Breed Council.
> 
> I had heard that they were conducting a health survey but if so there is no information on this in the public domain as far as I have searched. There is no leadership on health emerging within Pugs and no visible strategy to address the many considerable health issues they suffer. With only 30 pugs hip scored in total and no data on eye testing it is very difficult to conclude anything other than commitment to pug health is low.


Well done to the Dog Pug Club... I think not. It will be interesting to see how much progress is judged to have been made when the next report comes out at the end of this month? What do you think? To me the website is a prime example of health issues being trivialized and hidden when it should be the first point of call for people investigating pugs. Let them know the problems, the way the right breeders are trying to solve them and why it's therefore important to go to a proper breeder when compared to a BYB or puppy farm. From that health page.. where's the incentive?

We know... criticism must be biased against pedigrees so lets look at dachshunds in the report with a score of 40 instead of the pug's 2. Will not quote all of it because already quoted some before...


> Their approach is by far the most advanced in the UK, and rightly, the Kennel Club now links the Dachshund information pages on its website to that of the DBC, thus giving prospective dachshund owners direct access to this invaluable source of information. They can do this in confidence knowing that the information is credible, current and comprehensive. The work done by the DBC team is nothing short of outstanding.


The index also includes at least a couple of other breeds, not recognized by the Kennel Club. American Bulldog scores 10, Labradoodle 9, etc which aren't good either.



> At the end of the first year of vet health examinations for Best Of Breed winners from the 14 high profile breeds, the figures show that of the 345 examinations that took place this year (up to and including LKA), 330 dogs were passed fit to gain the BOB award and appear in their group, with only 15 examinations resulting in the dog being failed on the day. This represents a 96% pass rate and is an indication of the overall standard of health presented from the dogs involved.


Well done.. remind me again, why is the canine alliance pushing to get rid of vet checks... But independent vet checks. (i.e those not used to seeing the problems) would be even better. It's not a proper vet check either.. isn't the whole point to limit the vet to what a judge can actually do instead of checking the dog is really healthy? Seem to remember this is the the reason why no stethoscopes, torches or anything are to be used?


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> There is no such thing as a KC registered breeder. Dogs are registered with the KC, not breeders. The KC runs a scheme called the Assured Breeder scheme, but the vast majority of dogs registered with the KC do not come from KC Assured Breeders, nor are they dogs that are shown. Only 30% of pedigree dogs are registered with the KC, and of those 30% around 2% are shown.


by KC register breeder I assumed those who breed from KC registered dogs ..mental shortcut..sorry..
actually I wil linclude all formally registered dogs..from abroad too , to be exact...as in opposition to puppy farms etc.. random dogs...
Well to put smile on your face SW: I know the story from continent when a man bought a caucasian from Russians...which grew and grew...

into a polar bear!!!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

now in the Zoo...


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Goblin said:


> A lot of people could always start a governmental petition asking for the Dog Advisory Council Breeding Standards legislation to be implemented I suppose. That would be something. Possibly massive facebook campaign with loads of the worst pictures people can dig up. No need to make anything up either which is always an advantage. I suppose this is the sort of thing preferable to actually providing responses to when people ask questions and allowing people to discuss it.
> 
> Words are cheap. Action is more difficult.
> 
> ...


"Scores in 2011
Available to download here is the full report for 2011. This is available as reference only as it is acknowledged that the scores will now be out of date and many of the web links obsolete."

So it's an out of date report, yes it will be interesting to see those results 31/03/2013, here hoping two years will have made a difference 
The Health Sub-Committee of The Pug Breed Council have agreed to the following basic recommendations to manage hemivertebrae in the breed:

Before screening, all dogs have to be microchipped.
The minimum age for X-rays should be six months.
X-rays should be taken either with sedation or general anaesthetic, depending on the preference of the Veterinary Surgeon.
The X-rays should clearly show the whole length of the spine in lateral recumbency and ideally also in dorso-ventral view. The plate must clearly show the microchip number and the date.
It should be stated which (if any) vertebrae are affected, and to what degree (mild, moderate or badly).
It has to be accepted that with today's scientific knowledge the term 'clear of HV (hemivertebrae)' has to be used with extreme caution, as even dogs with radiologically clear spines could still be carriers and pass on the condition.
On the other hand experience has shown that many Pugs with mild radiological signs of HV are completely asymptomatic and stay healthy for the rest of their lives.
The current aim has to be to breed from stock which is as clear as possible. The knowledge of the radiological status of the parents and pedigree analysis of as many ancestors as possible, along with their HV status, are at the moment the only tools available to avoid breeding from affected stock.
Once these recommendations have been in place for a while the number of affected dogs should be dramatically reduced. Obviously it should be the intention to collect as many X-rays as possible, to educate both vets and owners/breeders about this condition.

The Pug Clubs and The Breed Council have also liaised closely with The Kennel Club to update the breed standard to make its requirements very clear. For example: 'the nose should be fairly large with wide open nostrils; eyes or nose never adversely affected or obscured by over-nose wrinkle; eyes relatively large, never protruding, exaggerated or showing white when looking straight ahead, and free from obvious eye problems.' Breeders should be avoiding excess in all areas.

Hemivertebrae: The Pug Breed Council's Health Subcommittee is currently in discussion with Dr Cathryn Mellersh, Head of Canine Genetics at the Animal Health Trust, Cambridge, to work out a programme for DNA testing for hemivertebrae in pugs.

To this end the Health Sub-Committee have agreed that The Pug Clubs encourage all breeders, to take X-rays of dams and sires' spines to test for hemivertebrae. The current aim has to be to breed from stock which is as clear as possible. The knowledge of the radiological status of the parents and pedigree analysis of as many ancestors as possible, along with their HV status, are at the moment the only tools available to avoid breeding from affected stock.

Responsible breeding:

The five Pug Clubs are strong supporters of The Kennel Club's Assured Breeder Scheme and have added a clause to their Code of Ethics to which new members have to agree to abide, which states that if breeding pugs, they should adopt as a minimum standard the principles, requirements and recommendations as embodied in the scheme. It is also strongly recommended that members who breed should be part of this scheme. For more information, go to www.thekennelclub.org.uk/assuredbreederscheme


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Meezey said:


> So it's an out of date report, yes it will be interesting to see those results 31/03/2013, here hoping two years will have made a difference


One which was produced at least *4 years after the pug health committee was set up*. which shows only lip service to health which did not equate to action.

I know you don't answer simple questions so maybe you'll simply consider these..

Do you expect massive changes in the last year when not in the previous years?
Do you think the website contains an accurate/truthful state of the pug breed's health?
If you don't think the website is accurate you can then appreciate why people feel health issues are hidden.

Edit: As you edited your post while I was originally writing the above, I thought I'd reply with my own edit to keep them together

This is the health section of the website:



> The Pugs health is important to the Pug Dog Club. Along with the Breed Council, and dedicated pug breeders, we are committed to ensuring the health of our breed, which includes monitoring the breeds health, putting in place health programmes, supporting research and in providing education for breeders, owners and others involved with the breed.
> 
> While of general good health, the pug has been identified as susceptible to certain health issues involving respiration, eye shape and general soundness.
> 
> ...


You can then go in the submenu at the side to learn about tests etc for Hemivertebrae which you also quote.. Okay I know what Hemivertebrae is.. do others? Where's some additional information about health which you can quote... why it's in the news and not even on the first page. That makes sense, everyone will go through the news looking for health information. I'll be generous, this could simply be as websites can be difficult to maintain and add changes... we have



> While of general good health, the pug has been identified as susceptible to certain health issues involving respiration, eye shape and general soundness. The breed is working hard to ensure that wherever possible issues are recognised and addressed.


along with the changes to breed standards, another good bit of progress. However what about Pug Dog Encephalitis (PDE) also known as necrotising meningoencephalitis (NME). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20403140 Isn't that a fairly common pug related problem which there's a test for? Then there's Atopy (problem with pollen), Patellar luxation (kneecap), Epilepsy, Legg-Calve-Perthes disease and Intervertebral disc disease. These are just a few more where tests are not available. Could I find others.. probably. I cannot be bothered to go through all the news items to find out if mention is given to them .. can you?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

It's only been 2 years since those recommendations were created, one generation of dogs. You can't expect them to all suddenly have grown muzzles and be hemi-vertebrae free in one generation. It's a step forward at least.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Goblin said:


> One which was produced at least *4 years after the pug health committee was set up*. which shows only lip service to health which did not equate to action.
> 
> I know you don't answer simple questions so maybe you'll simply consider these..
> 
> ...


Maybe not in all breeds, and it may not show in the ring or in even KC Reg'd Pets for a few years, or in reports as yet, it's taken people years to mess up the breeds, as I've said a million times over, breeds have been fecked up by people, and Pedigree Dogs Exposed gave some breed clubs the boot up the arse they needed.

I do believe they are committed to working with the KC and Vets.

My god even the Pedigree dogs Exposed admits there have been improvements, while I've said all along it not were we need to be, I do believe it will get there......but it will take time......


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Words are cheap. Action is more difficult.


Ain't that the truth!



Goblin said:


> Well done.. remind me again, why is the canine alliance pushing to get rid of vet checks...


You seem to have provided a lot of the reasons why vet checks are not working yourself:



Goblin said:


> But independent vet checks. (i.e those not used to seeing the problems) would be even better. It's not a proper vet check either. isn't the whole point to limit the vet to what a judge can actually do instead of checking the dog is really healthy? Seem to remember this is the the reason why no stethoscopes, torches or anything are to be used?


Bear in mind what you have written above, In addition, think about the fact that since vet checks have been introduced, 330 dogs out of 345 tested have passed - ie *96% of dogs that have been health checked have passed the health check*.

Now, wouldn't you expect that with a 96% pass rate, the problems previously seen would have been almost eradicated? With a 96% pass rate, wouldn't you expect to be now seeing hardly any exaggerations and unhealthy dogs?

*Do* you feel that you are seeing hardly any exaggerations and unhealthy dogs? If so, the vet checks are working and should stay.

If you *don't* feel that you are seeing hardly any exaggerations and unhealthy dogs, then surely the vet checks as they are now are simply not working and a different scheme should be put in place?


----------



## Alfshuman (Apr 10, 2010)

I'm puzzled. The bickering and arguments over who said what and who offended whom continues. Why not bury the hatchet and agree a consensus and actually come together for the good of the dogs we all profess to love.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Alfshuman said:


> I'm puzzled. The bickering and arguments over who said what and who offended whom continues. Why not bury the hatchet and agree a consensus and actually come together for the good of the dogs we all profess to love.


I'm not bickering and arguing.. Surely have if you have read the thread this is a debate.. :thumbsup: :lol:

Trust me I'm not as polite when I argue


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

One of the most sensible views I've seen on it was a peke breeder on the champion stakes. There was a peke in it and they were proud this dog had passed the health checks 16 times at this point. But she was saying that just because one dog had passed repeatedly didn't mean the breed wasn't still a trainwreck. I'm not sure if this was the same dog in the group though.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Alfshuman said:


> I'm puzzled. The bickering and arguments over who said what and who offended whom continues. Why not bury the hatchet and agree a consensus and actually come together for the good of the dogs we all profess to love.


In an ideal world that would be fantastic. But in Petforum world, the bickering will last for another week or so and then the armchair critics will forget about it all until Crufts comes round again


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> One of the most sensible views I've seen on it was a peke breeder on the champion stakes. There was a peke in it and they were proud this dog had passed the health checks 16 times at this point. But she was saying that just because one dog had passed repeatedly didn't mean the breed wasn't still a trainwreck. I'm not sure if this was the same dog in the group though.


I agree. In breeds where there are multi-winning champions, this will be happening all the time. If the same few dogs keep winning, the same few dogs will be health checked - and all the others won't.

This is probably one of the reasons why the success rate of 96% of dogs having passed the health check does not reflect the truth of what is really happening. Plus, it's yet another reason why vet checks are not working. In reality, they are merely an appeasement to the general public and are doing nothing to improve the health of dogs.


----------



## Alfshuman (Apr 10, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> In an ideal world that would be fantastic. But in Petforum world, the bickering will last for another week or so and then the armchair critics will forget about it all until Crufts comes round again


That reads with a smack of complacency with a slight smattering of smugness. I thought the whole thread of the argument went along the lines of accusing the armchair critics of doing nothing .... Isn't this exactly what you are suggesting? Don't bother to take action whilst the topic is hot, leave it alone and it will go away ..... until the next year.

I can see you are passionate about your breed and frustrated by the critics but is that any reason to say that?


----------



## Alfshuman (Apr 10, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> I agree. In breeds where there are multi-winning champions, this will be happening all the time. If the same few dogs keep winning, the same few dogs will be health checked - and all the others won't.
> 
> This is probably one of the reasons why the success rate of 96% of dogs having passed the health check does not reflect the truth of what is really happening. Plus, it's yet another reason why vet checks are not working. In reality, they are merely an appeasement to the general public and are doing nothing to improve the health of dogs.


Make health checks (including appropriate DNA testing) a compulsory requirement for entry for EVERY DOG.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Alfshuman said:


> Make health checks (including appropriate DNA testing) a compulsory requirement for entry for EVERY DOG.


The issue with that being things like hip scores can't be done until a year so no puppies in those breeds could compete. What if someone just wants something fun to do with a pet why should they have to do all the expensive health tests if they have no wish to breed?  I agree on the health checks being extended to all dogs and mandatory health tests before breeding but not just to go in the show ring.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Alfshuman said:


> Now that really does smack of complacency with a slight smattering of smugness. I thought the whole thread of the argument went along the lines of accusing the armchair critics of doing nothing .... Isn't this exactly what you are suggesting? Don't bother to take action whilst the topic is hot, leave it alone and it will go away ..... until the next year.


No I think the meaning in this comment was the armchair critics will not care in a while, until Crufts comes round again, while those involved in showing will keeping working away all year round as always taking the baby steps to make changes!


----------



## Alfshuman (Apr 10, 2010)

Nicky10 said:


> The issue with that being things like hip scores can't be done until a year so no puppies in those breeds could compete. What if someone just wants something fun to do with a pet why should they have to do all the expensive health tests if they have no wish to breed?  I agree on the health checks being extended to all dogs and mandatory health tests before breeding but not just to go in the show ring.


Good point about the appropriate age - but then the requirements could be different according to the age. And boy wouldn't it raise awareness and focus the mind of anyone wanting to show. Surely a winning dog should not only look and feel right as is the emphasis at the moment in the UK show ring but actually, genuinely, be as healthy as possible too, just as they are in some shows elsewhere in the world. I know that having a healthy set of DNA tests are not the be all and end all but they should be part of the picture. Breed Councils and the KC could agree exactly which were required, where a carrier or even affected status could be acceptable for showing.

Yes it's complicated, but that's no reason to bury heads in sand. It's a bit like the upper echelons of the football fraternity resisting goalmouth technology for so long when everybody else could see it made so much sense!

And in answer to the showing for fun question - changing the emphasis and including a requirement to understand more about health cannot be a bad thing, surely? I've been gobsmacked by, bluntly, just how ignorant of this aspect some showers are, but if this is a requirement to get involved, what a great opportunity to learn and ultimately raise breeding standards as many of those same 'just for fun' showers are likely to have a go at breeding too.

Unfortunately I've seen scenarios where people with an enormous vested interest in burying a possible health condition under the carpet (that happens to be in their line) have been able to do so because of their success in the show ring and therefore influence with their many hangers on. it takes a brave person who wants to show to stand up to them and therefore potentially get a virtual black mark against them for challenging the status quo (I've seen the glares, pointing fingers and gaggles of gossips at events which do not make a comfortable atmosphere for the person who dares to question). There are some strong personalities in the show ring, as evidenced by this thread. How wonderful if that strength was harnessed to take real, radical action.


----------



## Alfshuman (Apr 10, 2010)

Ps .... I'm not laying all the blame for the woes of the dog world at the feet of the show people - there are massive, massive problems with back street breeders, uninformed would be and actual owners .... But that's no reason not to aspire to encourage the show community to take a lead (no pun intended!).


----------



## Vicki (Jul 28, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> In an ideal world that would be fantastic. But in Petforum world, the bickering will last for another week or so and then the armchair critics will forget about it all until Crufts comes round again


In my opinion, this is not about Cruft's. At least not just about Cruft's. It's dog shows in general that is the biggest problem. After all, Cruft's is only once a year and the dogs qualify for Cruft's at other dog shows during the year. And I wont forget and I will still debate and argue that dog shows are no good if the subject comes up (as I have done in the past, on here and on other forums).


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

before i had actually experienced going to a show i wasnt sure what to expect, but ive now been to crufts twice and if people think that crufts is cruel they should go to a rabbit show, now what you will see there is cruel.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Alfshuman said:


> That reads with a smack of complacency with a slight smattering of smugness. I thought the whole thread of the argument went along the lines of accusing the armchair critics of doing nothing .... Isn't this exactly what you are suggesting? Don't bother to take action whilst the topic is hot, leave it alone and it will go away ..... until the next year.
> 
> I can see you are passionate about your breed and frustrated by the critics but is that any reason to say that?


Actually I am not saying that at all. I am stating how frustrating it is that for two weeks of the year the armchair critics are so het up about the health and welfare of pedigree dogs, and then they forget about it until the following year when Crufts is on again. (What does that say about how much they really care?) Meanwhile those of us whom they are attacking, those of us who are working to improve the health and welfare of dogs throughout the year, carry on doing our job for the rest of the year. Crufts is not the only dog show!

No complacancy, no smugness - just anger and frustration that for two weeks of the year they care ...... then nothing for the rest of the year.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> stating how frustrating it is that for two weeks of the year the armchair critics are so het up about the health and welfare of pedigree dogs, and then they forget about it until the following year when Crufts is on again.


Actually whenever the issues pop up people discuss it. Do you suggest the "armchair critics" start 351 threads about the same topic, one per day? After all the the minority of show people who actually reply will simply come up with the same "leave us alone" arguments. Raising awareness in other locations however, even if among friends and people they know is ongoing.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Actually whenever the issues pop up people discuss it. Do you suggest the "armchair critics" start 351 threads about the same topic, one per day? After all the the minority of show people who actually reply will simply come up with the same "leave us alone" arguments. Raising awareness in other locations however, even if among friends and people they know is ongoing.


Pity the issue doesn't pop up more than once a year then!

I notice you haven't had much to say about my post about the "success rate" of the vet checks. *Do* you think that the 96% success rate of the vet checks is truly indicative of the improvement - ie do you think the exaggerations have improved by 96% in the last year? I don't - which is why I think that vet checks are not doing the job they are meant to be doing and that a different system is therefore needed.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Pity the issue doesn't pop up more than once a year then!


You obviously miss them then.. no wait.. no you don't. Just a couple of quick ones mentioning the show scene from this year.

How about 13-02-2013, 06:05 PM 


Goblin said:


> I'm a supporter of Pedigree Dogs Exposed (PDE) believing show mentality hasn't helped the health of some breeds, but the comment "contestants were dying young" with the impression it's simply due to crufts seems like cobblers to me.


Or then 30-01-2013, 12:51 PM 


Goblin said:


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


You'll notice they are in response to other people's questions rather than starting topics. However I will take your comment on board.



Spellweaver said:


> I notice you haven't had much to say about my post about the "success rate" of the vet checks. *Do* you think that the 96% success rate of the vet checks is truly indicative of the improvement - ie do you think the exaggerations have improved by 96% in the last year? I don't - which is why I think that vet checks are not doing the job they are meant to be doing and that a different system is therefore needed.


Really want me to start on that  What are the "vet checks"? A quick once over without any of the basic tools of the vet's trade. It's really a judges check rather than a vet check to determine the health of the animal. Then again vet checks are being carried out by judges doing what they do anyway.. Wait the same check twice? Despite this 4% fail. I think that's actually a damning condemnation rather than a success.

Of course you push the Canine Alliance policy where vet checks are disposed of anyway rather than actually strengthening what they actually do.

I do agree that dogs are getting better, I even said that last year. Lets face it, the arm chair critics made damn sure that the status-quo had to change. We'll keep pushing to make sure progress continues.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> You'll notice they are in response to other people's questions rather than starting topics.


Exactly - in the other 50 weeks in the year no-one ever starts a post about the exaggerations of dogs at Boston or Leeds or WKC or LKA etc etc etc. Yet how many posts in this last week or so have been started about exaggerations at Crufts? Why only Crufts? It's the same dogs at all the shows.



Goblin said:


> Really want me to start on that  What are the "vet checks"? A quick once over without any of the basic tools of the vet's trade. It's really a judges check rather than a vet check to determine the health of the animal. Then again vet checks are being carried out by judges doing what they do anyway.. Wait the same check twice? Despite this 4% fail. I think that's actually a damning condemnation rather than a success.


So you agree that they are not working in their present form then?



Goblin said:


> Of course you push the Canine Alliance policy where vet checks are disposed of anyway rather than actually strengthening what they actually do.;


Actually, if you check back you will find that I didn't say they should be disposed of - nor have I pushed the CA's policy either.  What I actually said is that they are not working in their present form and should be replaced by a better scheme.

I think that a combination of the CA's grading scheme _in addition _to a requirement that all show dogs should have a yearly health check with their own vet (certified by a letter from the vet to the KC) would probably be the best way forward. I like the idea of the CA's grading scheme, but feel that without the extra vet check it could be open to accusations that it is merely an extension of a judge's subjective opinion. And then in addition to those two things, I think there should be random vet checks of ALL breeds at ALL shows. These three things together would be a far better scheme than the one that is in place now.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> Exactly - in the other 50 weeks in the year no-one ever starts a post about the exaggerations of dogs at Boston or Leeds or WKC or LKA etc etc etc.


They do, just not on petforums. 

Crufts is on the tv. so it's bound to be discussed on petforums. Just as other tv shows with dogs in are discussed in dog chat on petforums.

I expect puppy farms are discussed more often on puppyfarm forums than they are on Petforums too.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> They do, just not on petforums.
> 
> Crufts is on the tv. so it's bound to be discussed on petforums. Just as other tv shows with dogs in are discussed in dog chat on petforums.
> 
> I expect puppy farms are discussed more often on puppyfarm forums than they are on Petforums too.


I know that shows are discussed on other forums - but I would hazard a guess that the anti-crufts mob on Petforums are not the same people who are speaking about other shows on other forums - unless of course, you have proof that they are! 

And I take your point about the TV coverage of Crufts - but if someone were really interested in the welfare of pedigree dogs it would not take a great effort to find out that other shows are streamed on the internet - the Horse and Hound site has championship dogs shows streamed on there (as well as being shown on their digital TV channel). Shows are often streamed on the Dog World site. And the eukanuba site live streams the World Challenge, World Dog Show and the Euro Dog Show and every year. The Westminster Dog Show is streamed live on several sites. Yet you never get posts from the anti-Crufts people taling about these. I wonder why?

ETA - actually I think I can remember someone starting a thread about a rough collie winner at Westminster the year before last - from memory he was from a merle to merle mating. But that was one thread in how many years?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Exactly - in the other 50 weeks in the year no-one ever starts a post about the exaggerations of dogs at Boston or Leeds or WKC or LKA etc etc etc. Yet how many posts in this last week or so have been started about exaggerations at Crufts? Why only Crufts? It's the same dogs at all the shows.


How many people question the show world on a regular basis so we can provide a balanced viewpoint? As I said, I will ensure the topic is more frequently raised.



> So you agree that they are not working in their present form then?


Pressure from the show world people meant they couldn't be. An effective system isn't in their best interest. Simple answer would be, let independent vets actually do what they are trained to do with the tools of their trade, release details, have an appeals procedure. Problem would be solved. May not always be possible to get independent vets at local shows so simply disallow any vet with connection to the breeds requiring checks. Vets at Crufts however, as the flagship event should be independent. Random selection of other "healthy" breed winners should also occur.



> Actually, if you check back you will find that I didn't say they should be disposed of - nor have I pushed the CA's policy either.


You certainly gave the impression you support them.

Didn't you write


> You dictated that the show people should get their own house in order. I replied that the CA were doing just that


Or when asked where the massive support for vet checks or similar you replied..


> Have you seen how many members the CA has? All show people


When asking about health checks you say:


> The CA actually talk about health checks, not health tests, as you would know if you had a look on their website





> I think that a combination of the CA's grading scheme _in addition _to a requirement that all show dogs should have a yearly health check with their own vet (certified by a letter from the vet to the KC) would probably be the best way forward. I like the idea of the CA's grading scheme, but feel that without the extra vet check it could be open to accusations that it is merely an extension of a judge's subjective opinion. And then in addition to those two things, I think there should be random vet checks of ALL breeds at ALL shows. These three things together would be a far better scheme than the one that is in place now.


All three of which mean vets who are likely to accept problems having seen them again and again and become used to accepting them continue to do so. No change then. Show world can continue on it's merry way. That's not including those vets who have developed very close ties with breeders so "bend" the system a bit, even through ignorance.

Let's not forget, the canine alliance made up of all these show people state..


> We are in favour of health checking but NOT in a discriminatory manner *or by vets at dog shows.*


in other words..


----------



## oscar1658 (Oct 5, 2012)

i agree people take it too far as someone has mentioned, i have had my dog for 13 years now...love walking him etc...sack brushing him exessively so no hair is out of place and making him stand 'pretty' my dog is a dog, rolls in the mud, lies on the rug after his walk and just wants to stay with us, hes a dog thats what he loves to do!  
there was this cavalier king charles that won last year i think it was and as some of you will know they develop this illness eventually were their brains dont have enough room in their skull and its painful and i think they have siezures, long story cut short this dog had won and everyone wanted their own dogs to breed with him and have the winning dogs puppies to show off and make money off the puppies as they are 'winning puppies' ...but the winning dog had developed the illness, the owner knew of the dogs issues and still let him reproduce because hes a winner in krufts and shes getting a lot of money, its too money driven...they deserve better for mans best friend!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Pressure from the show world people meant they couldn't be. An effective system isn't in their best interest.


Why do you say this? Are you saying that people who show don't want healthy dogs? :hand: All show people would that be? :hand: And then you wonder why the show people on here get annoyed at the things you write.  People who show want healthy dogs, ergo an effective system is in their best interest. Just because they don't agree with you what the best system is does not mean they do not want one.



Goblin said:


> Simple answer would be, let independent vets actually do what they are trained to do with the tools of their trade, release details, have an appeals procedure. Problem would be solved.


It would be a start, but it would certainly not solve the problem. How would this overcome the problem that it is always the same dogs being tested? In border collies, for example, there are around 500 dogs being shown. If you only test the BOB, even if a different dog won at every championship show (which never happens) then that would only be 26 dogs tested. In some years, when you have an outstanding champion such as Tonkory Palmerston at Fayken, you might only end up testing half a dozen dogs. Do you think that that is enough to ensure the breed is healthy? It might be enough to convince the armchair critics, but it wouldn't be enough to convince me or, I suspect, most people in the dog world.

Then again, perhaps your aim is merely to appease the armchair critics rather than ensure the health of dogs? (shrugs)



Goblin said:


> All three of which mean vets who are likely to accept problems having seen them again and again and become used to accepting them continue to do so.


That is already happening now though. Except for the teamleader (who is a pug breeder as well as a vet) the vet team at Crufts were the same as last year. They had been to judges seminars, learned about the various breeds etc - no familiarity there then? Still think the present system is ok?



Goblin said:


> No change then. Show world can continue on it's merry way.


See, there you go again, dissing the show world and, by implication, all the people from the show world on here :hand: Thought you insisted you didn't do that?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I agree with Spellweaver and Goblin. The present system isn't working and is hardly worth bothering with. Back to the drawing board. 

Spellweaver has a very valid point imo. Goblin. How would you deal with it if the same pug kept winning and was the only pug ever tested and the vets testing him kept on passing him?

Then what?

Do you want vet tests that fail all pugs unless they're as fit as my collie?

Difficult one I think.

Maybe you'd like to see an average for dogs test, which most pugs and pekes for example, would currently fail, but most collies and labs would currently pass?

I admit it, I wouldn't mind. I'd also like to see the Neo breed (and some others) phased out altogether, or at least changed so much they wouldn't be recognisable, but it's a ridiculous thing to want and I quite understand an extreme view that isn't remotely viable, or even reasonable. If someone said it to me I would call them an idiot. 

So should there be stringent vet checks aimed at the lowest acceptable denominator? And who would determine that one?

<sigh> I didn't think any of it was viable at the start as it was planned and I still don't. I don't think enough thought was put into it.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Why do you say this? Are you saying that people who show don't want healthy dogs?


How many people joined the CA on the idea of a particular breed not being able to pass vet checks? Then again where do I say ALL, you simply assume to be included.



> People who show want healthy dogs, ergo an effective system is in their best interest. Just because they don't agree with you what the best system is does not mean they do not want one.


History shows words don't equate to action in competition. A robust, transparent system is needed. The suggestions heard all are open to easy abuse.



> It would be a start, but it would certainly not solve the problem. How would this overcome the problem that it is always the same dogs being tested?


A good point for once. Surely the whole point of shows and the title "Best of Breed" is to set the standard. If the standard is a healthy dog and when only healthy dogs win, other breeders will follow the trend if they also want to win. How did the problems related directly to showing come into being? Very small changes which were compounded as the changes were rewarded. The idea of vet checks is to reverse that trend. It's not simply as a public relations exercise for this problem.

To check all animals, while an ideal solution surely wouldn't be practical at shows. Difficulty is, the wider you spread checks, the wider the possibility for errors or even people trying to trick/abuse the system. How many people from other countries show at Crufts? How many vets can you guarantee provide accurate information?

The only issue I have with show animals is when bred to extremes. Why penalize all the show world for the general health of all pedigree dogs? Target the problem shows have been responsible for.

Other issues have to be addressed by the breed clubs as part of their health policies. Love to see the KC have the real ability to act as a policing body in the process and to actually do so. One obvious (although will not happen as it would effect KC finance) is no registration of dogs which aren't health checked by the breed clubs recommended tests recognizing that some of these need to be tightened. As you yourself have mentioned show dogs are only a minority of dogs. Have a policy to improve health across the breed, hitting the BYB's along the way. Actually make the KC registration mean more than a simple piece of paper.



> See, there you go again, dissing the show world and, by implication, all the people from the show world on here :hand: Thought you insisted you didn't do that?


I hear "all englishmen are gay". Knowing I'm not I can exclude myself from that statement. I don't have to argue the point, get on my high horse, even despite the fact the word all is included 



Elles said:


> Do you want vet tests that fail all pugs unless they're as fit as my collie?


If dogs are not healthy as "best of breed" why should people be rewarded the same as those with a healthy breed? I do think if a breed cannot pass an additional award should be made available for "health progress in breed", although what it would be called I'd leave to others. Reward those who show they are making progress, don't just penalize them but also don't say things are fine.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

. . . but ALL Englishmen ARE gay!:001_tongue:

CC


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I don't show or even own a pedigree dog so I can hardly be biased. Like I said above there was an around the dog world focusing on the champion stakes. One of the entries was a peke that wasn't terrible for the breed and had passed the checks at shows 16 times. Does that mean that all pekes can now walk and breathe at the same time without a struggle? Of course not it means this one dog can and that he was consistently winning the breed at champ shows.

There are plenty of breeds where one dog is constantly winning look at Jilly or even Theo with 34 ccs. In the high profile breeds this could mean that one or two greatly improved dogs are winning and giving a false impression that the breed has improved overall.

Health checks should be extended to all bobs at show look at the staffy who was lame in the group and apparently in the breed judging too yet was still awarded bob :huh:. There hasn't been as much uproar over that as say Theo taking the group a dog who in his spare time does agility.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

There has been an uproar over Maibee Theo?










CC


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

A lot of people don't like the extreme face which tbf is bad but he's a sweetheart and breathes just fine. He would of course be better with a longer face.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> In my opinion, this is not about Cruft's. At least not just about Cruft's. It's dog shows in general that is the biggest problem. After all, Cruft's is only once a year and the dogs qualify for Cruft's at other dog shows during the year. And I wont forget and I will still debate and argue that dog shows are no good if the subject comes up (as I have done in the past, on here and on other forums).


I am a breeder of a numerically small breed. I live in a very rural area and the nearest breeder of the same breed lives almost 4 hours away by car.

Tell me how to assess what I am producing against others without dog shows ? - where I will see potential stud dogs and different lines from all over the country and abroad ? - where else I will see what they have produced, what their temperaments are like, how they move and the way they are constructed ?.

.....I cannot breed in isolation staying only within my own lines and I cannot know that what I am breeding is of good breed type and quality without it being directly assessed against others of the same breed, sex and age ..

At Crufts in one single day and in one single place I saw examples of my breed from every corner of the Uk as well as France, Italy, Belgium, Holland and the USA.. I was able to talk to their breeders and get a much broader picture of the way my breed is heading ..I saw dogs in the flesh who looked nothing like the photos their owners had posted on the internet, some who looked wonderful when standing but moved badly and other dogs who impressed me unexpectedly.

If we are to continue to have healthy, well constructed ,and typy pedigree dogs all breeders must continue to look outwards and be self critical - or do you think that I should simply stay within my own lines and just assume that I'm breeding the best dogs ?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

oscar1658 said:


> i agree people take it too far as someone has mentioned, i have had my dog for 13 years now...love walking him etc...sack brushing him exessively so no hair is out of place and making him stand 'pretty' my dog is a dog, rolls in the mud, lies on the rug after his walk and just wants to stay with us, hes a dog thats what he loves to do!
> there was this cavalier king charles that won last year i think it was and as some of you will know they develop this illness eventually were their brains dont have enough room in their skull and its painful and i think they have siezures, long story cut short this dog had won and everyone wanted their own dogs to breed with him and have the winning dogs puppies to show off and make money off the puppies as they are 'winning puppies' ...but the winning dog had developed the illness, the owner knew of the dogs issues and still let him reproduce because hes a winner in krufts and shes getting a lot of money, its too money driven...they deserve better for mans best friend!


& most dogs that are shown are adored by their owners & get to do what they love to do. Speaking for my own breed the Siberian Husky, many of the sibes you see in the ring are also worked in harness so are fit & in hard condition.

You get good & bad in owners in all walks of life, but speaking from my own experience the vast majority who show adore their dogs & are passionate about their breed.

.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

there is some misunderstanding as to the purpose of the vet checks at Crufts - they are to ensure that judges do not send dogs forward to the group that have obvious health problems - judges have around 2 minutes per dog and can use only their eyes and hands and the vet checks are supposed to replicate those conditions i.e no instruments etc - the whole point and purpose is to educate judges.

It is of course a complete nonsense aimed as a sop to our critics -health checking the same dog over and over again has no relevance as an indicator of the overall health of any breed and is frankly just a public relations tool.

Far better to have a health grading system for all dogs along the lines of the FCI grading for breed type ( i.e excellent, very good, good and insufficient ) - this could be done once a dog reaches maturity and the results recorded on the KC database - a dogs grading should be indicated on any competition entry forms ( and I'm including working dogs here as well ! ) - only dogs with either an Excellent or Very good should win top honours no matter how well they peform - only dogs with excellent or very good should be bred from.

This would have an impact on the majority of dogs and breeds and would include things that currently cannot be assessed by the current vet checks ( such as heart problems ) - it would of course mean an even more reduced gene pool in many breeds but that may well be the price we have to pay....we cannot have it all.

Some breeds are already recording the health status of their dogs on a breed database - it works - in my own breed we have used this information to radically reduce the incidences of inherited Epilepsy and thanks to the funding of our members and in collaboration with the AHT we are now able to test for this horrible condition.

The show world is NOT trying to avoid the issue by calling for the health checks in their present form to be abolished but are exposing it for the farce it really is .


----------



## Alfshuman (Apr 10, 2010)

Bijou, great to hear about the system you have in your own breed - how refreshing to hear that action is being taken to address health issues publicly. i love the idea of the grading system, provided health standards do address the real health issues - as there is alwayd the danger that damaging conformations become accepted as the norm. The next obvious step is to have that grading as a requirement for entering the show - and the award of prizes should genuinely take it into account. Good on your breed and i hooe you get recognition in the Karlton Index awards which might encourage other less forward thinking breeds to take radical action instead of paying lip service.... Or taking such slow steps forwards they can easily be accused as doing nothing by outsiders. 

Having real KC backing for such a scheme, with proper regulation and monitoring of the Assured Breeder status should be a vital part of it, but financial motivations means that wont happen unless there is enormous concerted pressure from the Breed Councils and other organised bodies .... Even the Canine Alliance ;-) .

This is a fascinating string and has certainly helped me see a broader perspective, and, reading through the whole string from start to finish it is good that that might be the case for the main protagonists too. I still don't like to see the picking out of isolated sentences in a wider coherent post as a way of personal point scoring. 

Whether it s right or wrong ( or even true) that it is only Crufts that has spurred this sort of debate doesn't matter - what does matter is that it is actually being talked about and hopefully that might give some incentive and ideas to move things on for the good of the dogs - and that is the main thing everyone should care about, surely?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Bijou said:


> there is some misunderstanding as to the purpose of the vet checks at Crufts - they are to ensure that judges do not send dogs forward to the group that have obvious health problems - judges have around 2 minutes per dog and can use only their eyes and hands and the vet checks are supposed to replicate those conditions i.e no instruments etc - the whole point and purpose is to educate judges.
> 
> It is of course a complete nonsense aimed as a sop to our critics -health checking the same dog over and over again has no relevance as an indicator of the overall health of any breed and is frankly just a public relations tool.
> 
> ...


Bijou, as I said in your rep, you put the case so much more eloquently than I do. I agree 100% with what you have said here.


----------



## Alfshuman (Apr 10, 2010)

Spellweaver, out of curiosity, can you share what is happening in your own breed along the same lines as Bijou? Might we see your Breed Council recognised in th Karlton Index awards?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> How many people joined the CA on the idea of a particular breed not being able to pass vet checks?


That is merely your opinion of why people joined the CA. From speaking to people I know who are members, the main reason for their jioining was that they felt the system was unfair *and they wanted a better system*.



Goblin said:


> Then again where do I say ALL, you simply assume to be included.


Do you really want an argument about semantics? You used the words "show people" - ie a blanket term that includes all. If you had meant "some" show people, you should have written "some" show people.



Goblin said:


> A robust, transparent system is needed. The suggestions heard all are open to easy abuse.


I agree that a robust transparent system is needed. But it needs to be a system that works to improve the health of all dogs, not just a few. It needs to be a system that works properly and is not just there to appease the armchair critics. The present system is not robust and is open to abuse, and so is everything you have come up with so far.



Goblin said:


> A good point for once. Surely the whole point of shows and the title "Best of Breed" is to set the standard. If the standard is a healthy dog and when only healthy dogs win, other breeders will follow the trend if they also want to win.


In most breeds that is already happening. The problem is, how do you ensure this continues and exaggerations don't creep in? How do you ensure that the breeds with exaggerations do continue to improve? The prsent system is not doing that.



Goblin said:


> How did the problems related directly to showing come into being? Very small changes which were compounded as the changes were rewarded. The idea of vet checks is to reverse that trend. It's not simply as a public relations exercise for this problem.


I disagree that the idea of vet checks will achieve this. It was a knee-jerk reaction by the KC in order to appease the critics - in much the same way as the government's knee-jerk reaction to "dangerous" dogs was to introduce the DDA. And the system of vet checks is about as useful and accurate in the show world as the DDA is in preventing pepople being bitten by dogs. A system is needed - but this isn't it.



Goblin said:


> To check all animals, while an ideal solution surely wouldn't be practical at shows. Difficulty is, the wider you spread checks, the wider the possibility for errors or even people trying to trick/abuse the system. How many people from other countries show at Crufts? How many vets can you guarantee provide accurate information?


I agree - which is why I suggested that in addition to a grading system by the judge, and random vet checks on any dog in any breed at all shows, a yearly health inspection by the dog's own vet, with a letter written to the KC by the vet with his findings, would be the way to go.



Goblin said:


> The only issue I have with show animals is when bred to extremes. Why penalize all the show world for the general health of all pedigree dogs? Target the problem shows have been responsible for.


But if you do that, you are only focussing on a few breeds. How will that ensure exaggerations don't start to creep in in other breeds? Surely any system put into place should be robust enough to do that?



Goblin said:


> Other issues have to be addressed by the breed clubs as part of their health policies. Love to see the KC have the real ability to act as a policing body in the process and to actually do so.


I agree with you here.



Goblin said:


> One obvious (although will not happen as it would effect KC finance) is no registration of dogs which aren't health checked by the breed clubs recommended tests recognizing that some of these need to be tightened. As you yourself have mentioned show dogs are only a minority of dogs. Have a policy to improve health across the breed, hitting the BYB's along the way. Actually make the KC registration mean more than a simple piece of paper.


I understand where you are coming from here but I don't see how this would work in practice. To begin with, it would mean that litters could not be registered until they were around 18 months old because some tests (such as hip and elbow scores, for example) cannot be done until then. It wouldn't affect the show world much - I'm sure with a few words they could easily add a stipulation to puppy and junior classes so that unregistered dogs could be shown in those. (I don't actually see how that is an improvement though!) But for the wider world it has some horrendous implications.

It would mean that the average puppy buyer takes even more risk than they do now - they would be buying a puppy on trust that the breeder would register it 18 months later. That is open to so much abuse the mind boggles.

In addition , over 70% of pedigree dogs are not registered with the KC now - make the registration criteria harder and all you will do is increase this figure and tip the market even further in favour of the puppy-farmer, increasing the risk that puppy buyers will end up at puppy farms. It's hard enough to educate puppy buyers now - why make it harder?

And finally, KC registration is a database that in its present form clearly shows the lineage of litters and whether or not approproate health tests have been done on dogs and bitches in that lineage. As such, it is an extremely useful tool that can be accessed by any puppy buyer. If dogs cannot be registered until they are 18 months old, puppy buyers will have lost that tool.



Goblin said:


> I hear "all englishmen are gay". Knowing I'm not I can exclude myself from that statement. I don't have to argue the point, get on my high horse, even despite the fact the word all is included


I hear "show people don't want change". Knowing I want change I can exclude myself from that statement. However, because I care about the sport and disllike the slur cast upon it by an untrue statement, I challenge that statement and state the truth.



Goblin said:


> If dogs are not healthy as "best of breed" why should people be rewarded the same as those with a healthy breed? I do think if a breed cannot pass an additional award should be made available for "health progress in breed", although what it would be called I'd leave to others.


An additional reward for health progress in breed? You mean like a grading system that rewards health? Now who have I seen advocating that? Ah yes, the CA! 



Goblin said:


> Reward those who show they are making progress, don't just penalize them but also don't say things are fine.


If you can find anyone in any post on this thread saying that things are fine, wold you quote it please? I have certainly not seen it.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Alfshuman...most breeds have databases here's one of the Border Collie ones

Border Collie Database

enter a dogs registered name to find out it's details ( including health status )

an interesting aside is that it is overwhelmingly the show community that compile and add to such records of information ( and are members of breed councils or health co-ordinators ) which means in breeds like the Border Collie the overwhelming majority of dogs do not have their status recorded.

The Karlton Index is a good resource and I do agree that some breed clubs need to be clearer on their commitment to health and perhaps more proactive in letting others know what they are doing - my own breed club website is woefully lacking in information and badly needs updating to reflect the progress we have made and that's where the Index falls down you have to remember that committees are made up of volunteers who already give up a great deal of their time for the good of their breed - and updating the website is one of those things that gets pushed to the end of a very long list of things to do !.


----------



## kateh8888 (Aug 9, 2011)

Interesting discussion.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Alfshuman said:


> Spellweaver, out of curiosity, can you share what is happening in your own breed along the same lines as Bijou? Might we see your Breed Council recognised in th Karlton Index awards?


I have two breeds, the border collie and the bergamasco.

The main club for border collies is the Border Collie Club of Great Britain, and there are several smaller regional clubs, all with good, informative websites about health tests, what owning a border collie means, and links to various other pertinent sites. (I recommended the Southern Border Collie Club website to someone on here who was looking for a puppy only the other day).

We also have a very detailed and up to date database (different to the one that Bijou linked to) that members can log into that shows five generation pedigrees, health tests done, genetic information, any awards in showing, obedience, agility, field trials etc etc, It has a tool that enables you to look at prospective studs and work out the inbreeding co-efficients and the percentage risk of any likelihood of genetic disease from that suggested mating.

http://www.anadune.com/abcd/news.php?session=ac9e6f273d4ee66556f202e11c6d962c

With regards to breeding, the Kennel Club also allows outcrossing to working sheepdogs on the ISDS database.

For some reason the Karlton index chose not to mention all this in their assessment of the border collie - hmmmm! Perhaps this index is not all it's cracked up to be?

The situation with the bergamasco could not be more different. The official club is weak to the point of being ineffective. No website, and now not even willing to have a stand at Discover Dogs at Crufts. I served as a committee member for several years in this club, and then along with several others fed up in beating our heads against a brick wall in tyring to get the club to promote the breed, left to form an alternative club. We are in the process of setting up a website and beginning a database, and have a breeding program planned which includes bringing in dogs from abroad to increase the gene pool.


----------



## Alfshuman (Apr 10, 2010)

thank you, that's really great to hear. It is good to have your perspective and I appreciate your time in answering.

Re the Karlton Index, bear in mind that the majority of research is done by just one person, so it's completely understandable that something might get missed .... but that in itself might suggest that there needs to be some work on making it more visable in search engines? You can always drop them an email .....

I've found the various contributions on this thread enlightening, encouraging, exasperating and irritating in pretty equal parts. As I said before, the common feature is passion on all sides, but what the thread does is give an opportunity for everyone to air their own views. 

i'd love it if there was a sticky thread where people could share their views in an open forum .... throughout the year.


----------

