# Crufts Dog Show 2012



## ChaosIsAWeim

Crufts is coming up this week, 8-11th. Figured I'd start a thread for it to discuss the winners once the results are up after each day. 

Also you can watch footage from Crufts each day on their youtube channel. 

Here is the line up

Day 1: Toy and Utility groups
Day 2: Gundogs
Day 3: Working and Pastoral groups
Day 4: Terrier and Hound groups

all the info about Crufts can be found here: http://www.crufts.org.uk/


----------



## Spirit_of_Cotons

Besides the Westminster, I like watching the Crufts because it has so many dog breeds in it. I'll have to see when it's on as usually we don't get it here. Thanks for bringing it up!


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

After each day they are going to edit the footage, and put it up on their youtube channel for US viewers, although you may be able to find live footage on their too at certain times but not sure about that. One of the comments on one of their promotional vids, just said that they will edit the footage and put it up for US viewers.


----------



## Avie

I remember following it last year, but only bits and pieces of it on youtube. Can't get it on tv here, so youtube will have to do


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Crufts Day One is well under way. Not all breeds are done yet but some results can be found here

http://crufts.fossedata.co.uk/default.asp


----------



## melundie

I'm glad you posted this! They're streaming live via YouTube right now


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Yep I watched some earlier, my headphones need to be recharged though. Its only the arena footage though. But groups will be in there, so worth watching later.


----------



## Shaina

I heard that neither Pekingese nor Bulldogs will compete in their respective Groups due to failing the 3rd party vet checks?


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Shaina said:


> I heard that neither Pekingese nor Bulldogs will compete in their respective Groups due to failing the 3rd party vet checks?


Apparently since I didn't see the bulldog in the group. I will have to go back and see who the CC winners were in bulldogs.

Ok I don't recognize either of the CC bulldog winners.


----------



## Avie

Last ten were the Lhasa Apso, Dalmatian, American Akita, Toy Poodle, Standard Poodle, Shar pei, Keeshond, French Bulldog, Shiba, and Chow Chow. 

Winners utility group: 
1: lhasa Apso, 2: Keeshond, 3: American Akita, 4: Toy Poodle. 

Personally didn't like the finalists all that much. The Canaan dog however... wow, loved the look of that dog


----------



## Xeph

Do not like tailed Yorkies x.x And I thought the Min Pin was a Manchester Terrier...


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Utility Group winners

Best in Group) Lhasa Apso: Ch. Zentarr Elizabeth










had to use a picture from last years crufts cause the pictures are not up yet

Reserve Best in Group) Keeshond: CH/AM. CH KEMONTS SKYLINE'S GAME BOY (Imp USA)










3rd in Group) Akita: CH. Redwitch Leather and Lace










4th in Group) Poodles (Toy): CH VANITONIA YOU'LL SEE


----------



## Pawzk9

Xeph said:


> Do not like tailed Yorkies x.x And I thought the Min Pin was a Manchester Terrier...


I can't get used to tail-less breeds with tails. I'm looking forward to the Freestyle competition


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Xeph said:


> Do not like tailed Yorkies x.x And I thought the Min Pin was a Manchester Terrier...


Neither do I. I did like that Griffon though, and of course Joe.


----------



## Avie

I liked the Italian Greyhound, but to my surprise I liked the Havanese and Chinese Crested too, though both are not my type of dog at all. The Cavalier and Papillon were cute. I actually got goosebumps when I saw the Löwchen... no, not pretty. 

I don't mind the Yorkshire with tail at all... 

Yay, the Papillon and Chinese Crested are through to the finalists!


----------



## Avie

Toy group winners: 

First: Pomeranian
Second: Pug
Third: Bichon Frisé
Fourth: Papillon


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Toy Group Winners

Best in Group) Pomeranian: BELLIVER UNEXPECTED DREAM [ATC AP00118IRE] (announcers said the dog is from Sweden but the site says Ireland, guess the dog is originally from Ireland) 










Reserve Best in Group) Pug: CH PUGALICIOUS PROVOCATEUR JW










3rd in Group) Bichon Frise: CH PAMPLONA BRING ME SUNSHINE










(again picture from last years crufts)

4th in Group) Papillon: Ch/Am GCH. Lafford Fly Me Too Farleysbane JW










IDK, wasn't really a fan of the pug


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Watching the British Open Agility Jumping now

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lthjLU53ePA


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Ooh facebook is in an uproar about the bulldog failing the visual vet exams. Apparently there is no way the dog should have failed that test. And looking at pictures of the dog, I have to agree with them, the dog is very moderate.

I want to know why the vet failed that dog, other than politics. That bulldog is gorgeous. Such an honor to win at Crufts, and to have the award taken away just sucks.


----------



## brandiw

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> Ooh facebook is in an uproar about the bulldog failing the visual vet exams. Apparently there is no way the dog should have failed that test. And looking at pictures of the dog, I have to agree with them, the dog is very moderate.
> 
> I want to know why the vet failed that dog, other than politics. That bulldog is gorgeous. Such an honor to win at Crufts, and to have the award taken away just sucks.


I wonder if there will be a statement on why the bulldog and the peke failed the vet exam. All I have seen so far says simply that they failed.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

For the bulldog they say it was an eye injury (which could have easily happened by getting dirt in the eye) so Im guessing it was a scratch and not something genetic, as it was undetectable before the vet exam. The vet used a light, which was clearly not suppose to be used per their guidelines/rules. It was all suppose to be visual. 

The dog has its health clearances, eyes were cleared, trachea was cleared, etc etc prior to Crufts. 

I don't know about the peke, but I bet the same politics ensued. 

She was wrongfully stripped of her breed win.

Also the dog passed all other exams except the one the vet cheated on. Movement: the dog was asked to go down and back over 12 times not once did she pant or show any signs of distress. Breathing: Nothing wrong was found here, trachea was found to be "perfect". Temperament: She showed no signs of ill temperament, not sure what all went into this test. Skin/Coat: Upon visual exam nothing was found wrong with this dogs skin or coat. 

The exams were suppose to be visual, only things detectable to the human eye, and no instruments were allowed to be used. Yet this vet took it upon himself to break that rule and shine a light in both these dogs eyes and somehow finds the same eye injury (which was a small spec). And that doesn't sound fishy to a lot of people. 

Those two breeds were made examples of, plain and simple, all to make the KC look good in the eyes of the public. Yet the public doesn't get to hear about anything other than she didn't pass the vet exams. Unless they do a little digging. 

So yet once again a perfectly healthy dog pays the price. 

It will be really interesting to see what happens with the rest of the breeds.


----------



## cshellenberger

Hmmm, I'm smelling a little PDE pressure at Crufts, and perhaps some outrage at the Peke winning at Westminster when there were clearly better dogs in the ring.


----------



## Shaina

So...it's all a conspiracy and there's nothing unhealthful about either the English Bulldog or the Pekingese?


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Shaina said:


> So...it's all a conspiracy and there's nothing unhealthful about either the English Bulldog or the Pekingese?


I believe in this sort of scenario the old saying should be used..

There's three sides to every story.


----------



## Shaina

AussieNerdQueen said:


> I believe in this sort of scenario the old saying should be used..
> 
> There's three sides to every story.


I was thinking more "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt" but undoubted you are correct as well.


----------



## begemot

No offense, but without any kind of statement being made, conspiracy claims sound kind of baseless. It sounds like you don't really know why they were failed at this point.

In the absence of knowledge, I would take a third-party vet's medical opinion over that of an obviously biased owner.

Thanks for posting the crufts youtube channel! It's a blast to watch.


----------



## Laurelin

That's a really pretty papillon. <3


----------



## cshellenberger

Shaina said:


> So...it's all a conspiracy and there's nothing unhealthful about either the English Bulldog or the Pekingese?


I didn't say that, of course there are, but if a dog has health clearances WHY go a step further than they are SUPPOSED to (the exam was to be done with no instruments, problems to the naked eye only) and do this, Seems the vet went too far to me.


----------



## brandiw

Shaina said:


> I was thinking more "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt" but undoubted you are correct as well.


Me too.

Pekes, for instance, used to have a bit of muzzle so they could breathe and cool themselves more easily. I've even seen old pictures of pekes that could actually run. It is truly sad that the peke breeders have turned this breed into such a mess. It seems some of these dogs can barely leave their cooling mats to trot (halfway) around a ring. 

I hope it will be a wake-up call to breeders, but I suspect they are more likely to just dig in their heels.


----------



## pugmom

So I was reading the FAQ's page for the Breed Veterinary Checks ...and it states that the results of the vet checks and reason for DQ will not be made public ....unless the Exhibitor decided to make a statement...so there will be no official Crufts explanation as to why there was a DQ 

Also interesting is that in the Vet part of the FAQ's there is a break down of what they are looking for in each individual breed


----------



## Laurelin

The clumber spaniel also failed its vet check.

Personally, I hope this is a small step in the right direction.


----------



## pugmom

I don't really know enough about the current program to make a informed decision ether way ....but I do think that it can't hurt to vet check everyone : ) ..and there is much room for improvement in the show world 

I will be curious to see if the list of breeds is expanded with time ...or even if one day they vet check all breeds


----------



## Shaina

Laurelin said:


> Personally, I hope this is a small step in the right direction.


Same here.


----------



## Pawzk9

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> Ooh facebook is in an uproar about the bulldog failing the visual vet exams. Apparently there is no way the dog should have failed that test. And looking at pictures of the dog, I have to agree with them, the dog is very moderate.
> 
> I want to know why the vet failed that dog, other than politics. That bulldog is gorgeous. Such an honor to win at Crufts, and to have the award taken away just sucks.


Apparently the clumber failed too. I think it would be good to know exactly what criteria they are having the vet check for. I'm thinking it will make breeders think about what dogs they show, and possibly judges think about what dogs they put up. So, on Cavs are they going to test ringside for SM? Put cardiac harnesses on the Dobes and Boxers? Or is it just a vet pretending to be a judge and eliminating dogs that "look" too extreme to him? I certainly hope this kind of witchhunt doesn't make it to the states. But I'm not optimistic that even here common sense will prevail over animal "rights" agenda


----------



## pugmom

here is a list of what they are looking for ....they are currently only checking 15 different
"high profile breeds" 

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/12613/Veterinary-Inspections-15-High-Profile-Breeds.pdf


----------



## spotted nikes

Eliminating extremes will make the dogs healthier. Personally, I am thrilled to see it.


----------



## Pawzk9

begemot said:


> No offense, but without any kind of statement being made, conspiracy claims sound kind of baseless. It sounds like you don't really know why they were failed at this point.
> 
> In the absence of knowledge, I would take a third-party vet's medical opinion over that of an obviously biased owner.
> 
> Thanks for posting the crufts youtube channel! It's a blast to watch.


The only person mentioning "conspiracy" was trying to build a strawman. It seems to me logical to have a list of requisite health clearances for each breed, and make sure those have been submitted, if the goal is to have "healthy" dogs. Putting a vet in to examine specific dogs, when we don't know that vet's political leanings (concerning dogs) just gives you a second (unqualified) judge, re-judging the dog. Seems like a pretty poor system to me, and one that's not working very well. No doubt it will make Jemmy happy, but it isn't a very fair system.


----------



## Avie

I particularly liked the English Cocker, Irish red&white, Kooikerhondje, Münsterlander, and Chesapeake. Ooh, the Flatcoat is pretty too... and the Toller, wow! I wonder whether any of them will get selected  

The male commentator can barely pronounce the word Kooikerhondje :laugh:


----------



## Avie

Gun dog group winners: 

1: Irish water spaniel
2: Labrador retriever 
3: English springer spaniel 
4: English pointer


----------



## JohnnyBandit

begemot said:


> No offense, but without any kind of statement being made, conspiracy claims sound kind of baseless. It sounds like you don't really know why they were failed at this point.
> 
> In the absence of knowledge, I would take a third-party vet's medical opinion over that of an obviously biased owner.
> 
> Thanks for posting the crufts youtube channel! It's a blast to watch.


I don't know how you call it baseless. 

The vet used a flashlight that was clearly outside the parameters and scope of the examination. Witnesses have already attested to that fact. 

So the question begs why the vet went beyond those parameters to find something. 

And what he found was scar tissue. Could have come from anywhere. Dog could have run into a branch, the coffee table, etc. Dogs bang themselves up all the time. I have never seen anything in any standard that disqualifies a dog because of evidence of a past injury. In my breed, a LOT of dogs both show and work (or play) and they are shown and win with war wounds. 

I agree with Chaos.... They were looking for something to pin on a couple of dogs. 

This whole thing is nothing more than an attempt to passify the AR crowd. Visual inspections will do nothing to recocnize breathing issues and other issues they are looking for. 

Want to do something to correct the problems in these breeds? Health Certs and thorough evaluations prior to entry. 

We are witnessing the death of Crufts.....


----------



## begemot

pugmom said:


> So I was reading the FAQ's page for the Breed Veterinary Checks ...and it states that the results of the vet checks and reason for DQ will not be made public ....unless the Exhibitor decided to make a statement...so there will be no official Crufts explanation as to why there was a DQ


That is probably to protect the exhibitors themselves.



Laurelin said:


> Personally, I hope this is a small step in the right direction.


+2



Pawzk9 said:


> Putting a vet in to examine specific dogs ... just gives you a second (unqualified) judge, re-judging the dog.


Presumably having gone to veterinary school and being licensed veterinarians is a qualification, at least to most people.

JohnnyBandit (et al), you can't make inflammatory claims about vets being corrupt without corroborating evidence and expect people to just take your word for it. That's what I meant when I said baseless.


----------



## begemot

From the kennel club link posted by pugmom on the last page, here are the things the vet checks were looking for:

*Bulldog*: The breed is prone to respiratory distress. Obesity may also be
noted and may contribute to signs of respiratory fitness. N.B hyperthermia
appears to be relatively common in this breed.
o Ectropion or entropion are considered to be conformational defects
that are disqualifying signs
o Damage (scarring or ulceration) to the cornea caused by (e.g. facial
folds, distichiasis, ectopic cilia, poor eyelid anatomy)
o Respiratory difficulty due to soft palate or small (pinched) nostrils
o Dermatitis associated with facial wrinkles or at the rail root due to a
tightly ‘screwed’ tail.
o Hair loss or scarring from previous dermatitis
o Lameness

*Clumber Spaniel*: Conditions of eye and ear are a major focus for the breed
and obesity can effect health and welfare.
o Ectropion and entropion, are considered to be conformational defects
that are disqualifying signs
o Ear inflammation
o Lameness
o Clear evidence of eyelid surgery including taking to be disqualifying
conformational defect

*Pekingese*: A breed associated with breathing difficulties and hyperthermia
considered to be caused by lack of muzzle and pinched nostrils. Corneal
pathology is also relatively common, considered to be due to, mechanical
damage from the facial folds distichiasis, or medial lower eyelid entropion.
Blinking may not be adequate because of prominence of eye and this can
result in exposure keratopathy and inadequate distribution of tear film.
o Respiratory difficulty or noise at rest or with light exercise
o Corneal pathology or ocular pain
o Nasal folds causing mechanical damage to eye
o Inability to move effectively as a result of excessive coat or general
lack of muscle tone or fitness
o Lameness

Anyway, I'm going to try not to go any further down this depressing path here since people seem to just get further entrenched in their positions.


----------



## Shaina

Pawzk9 said:


> The only person mentioning "conspiracy" was trying to build a strawman.


Actually I was just being sarcastic.


----------



## Shaina

Avie said:


> The male commentator can barely pronounce the word Kooikerhondje :laugh:


Hey that's not a word I would want to try pronounce live on national television either lol


----------



## juliemule

Im glad to see they have a breed list they are checking for exaggerated featured that can cause health issues.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Apparently the peke was removed for having a cornea scratch due to protruding eyes and the bulldog was DQed due to breathing difficulties.

No idea if either of these are true but if the bulldog one is true the smokescreen of the eye exam is fairly poor form. I don't believe the vet was biased, I believe they would have gone out of there way to pick an unbiased vet. This is a step though, not a leap.

I don't rule out political motivation entirely (I believe the vets could have been instructed to be TOO thorough..Aka the eye exam) but I find it hard to believe a vet would destroy their career just to prove a point.


----------



## Shaina

The Clumber was supposedly DQ'd as a result of finding bilateral ectropion.


----------



## Avie

Shaina said:


> Hey that's not a word I would want to try pronounce live on national television either lol


Well I suppose I can't blame you, or anyone else that's a non-Dutch speaker  It's a difficult language, especially for English speakers the pronunciation is hard. But it doesn't stop me from laughing every time I hear an Englishman say 'kooikerhondje'. The first time I heard it on Dogs101 I almost died, hahaha  

Can you imagine that the Kooiker isn't even the Dutch breed that is hardest to pronounce? Try saying Wetterhoun, Markiesje, Friese Stabij, or Drentsche Patrijshond correctly. I'll applaud anyone that's not a native Dutch speaker if they can pronounce those without difficulty. 

Strange story: I've actually met Americans once, an older couple, who didn't speak a word Dutch. But they did speak Frysian, a rare language only spoken in one province in the northern part of the Netherlands. It was so weird. 

Back to topic; the Irish water spaniel was nice, but I couldn't help but feel like... the judge was influenced by the audience or something. It's just the vibe I got. Could be a totally wrong vibe though.


----------



## spanielorbust

Shaina said:


> Hey that's not a word I would want to try pronounce live on national television either lol


I love those words. My FIL was from Friesland. The first time he asked me to pass the jiskebakje I couldn't help but giggle. (It is an ashtray). 

Hey Avie, just saw your post. My FIL spoke Frisian - I think the proper name for the language is Frysk. His nuclear family and three others that they knew from that area came to Edmonton, Alberta in post WWII and dispersed from there. I can't touch Dutch, but know a few words from my FIL and his family, and a bit of Cree as well.

SOB


----------



## Willowy

So how DO you say kooikerhondje? I have a guess based on living in an area with a fairly high Dutch population (well, over the border in Iowa anyway) but I would still probably mangle it pretty badly.


----------



## Shaina

Avie said:


> Well I suppose I can't blame you, or anyone else that's a non-Dutch speaker  It's a difficult language, especially for English speakers the pronunciation is hard. But it doesn't stop me from laughing every time I hear an Englishman say 'kooikerhondje'. The first time I heard it on Dogs101 I almost died, hahaha
> 
> Can you imagine that the Kooiker isn't even the Dutch breed that is hardest to pronounce? Try saying Wetterhoun, Markiesje, Friese Stabij, or Drentsche Patrijshond correctly. I'll applaud anyone that's not a native Dutch speaker if they can pronounce those without difficulty.


You need to make the world a better place by making and posting a "how to say...." video on YouTube to help all us poor English-centric clods lol



spanielorbust said:


> I love those words. My FIL was from Friesland. The first time he asked me to pass the jiskebakje I couldn't help but giggle. (It is an ashtray).
> 
> SOB


lol


----------



## cshellenberger

pugmom said:


> here is a list of what they are looking for ....they are currently only checking 15 different
> "high profile breeds"
> 
> http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/12613/Veterinary-Inspections-15-High-Profile-Breeds.pdf


They should be checking EVERY breed if htey're going to do this, not JUST health, but temperment as well, NO MORE spooky GSD's or bad tempered Mastiffs taking titles!


----------



## Avie

spanielorbust said:


> I love those words. My FIL was from Friesland. The first time he asked me to pass the jiskebakje I couldn't help but giggle. (It is an ashtray).
> 
> Hey Avie, just saw your post. My FIL spoke Frisian. His nuclear family and three others that they knew from that area came to Edmonton, Alberta in post WWII and dispersed from there. I can't touch Dutch, but know a few words from my FIL and his family, and a bit of Cree as well.
> 
> SOB


That is so awesome. I live in Friesland too. Dutch is actually pretty similar to Fries, but when I tell that to my classmates that aren't from Friesland, they look at me like I'm insane. Dutch was partially derived from Frisian, so lots of words are somewhat similar. Still, 'normal' Dutch people can't understand a word of it; on national TV they show it with subtitles lol  



Shaina said:


> You need to make the world a better place by making and posting a "how to say...." video on YouTube to help all us poor English-centric clods lol


Hahahaha sounds interesting but no thanks xD There's a reason why no country has mandatory Dutch classes, while we over here have mandatory English, French and German classes. Dutch is a pretty sucky language, we can't rely on our own language in international relationships because no foreigner can understand a word of it, hence we always learn other languages in order to communicate. Please stick to English, English is the #1 international language and that's for a reason  



Willowy said:


> So how DO you say kooikerhondje? I have a guess based on living in an area with a fairly high Dutch population (well, over the border in Iowa anyway) but I would still probably mangle it pretty badly.


'Kooi' generally goes well. 'ker' is more difficult; the 'e' is pronounced like the first 'e' in the word 'generally', and the 'r' is a harsh, rolling r. Like how you'd say the r in Spanish. 'hond': the 'o' is pronounced like the 'o' in the word 'morning', it's a very short sound, and the 'd' is pronounced as a 't'. (it's very different from the German 'hund') The last part of the word, 'je', is pronounced as 'j-u'. So not 'djuh' or 'djah' or 'uh' or something like that... 'je' is actually hardest to explain, sorry I'm not doing well on it. 

So in short: Kooi-kèrrrrr-hònT-ju. 
If that makes sense.

...well, I tried


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Today's gundog group winners

1) Irish Water Spaniel: SH CH/AM CH WHISTLESTOP'S ELEMENTS OF MAGIC CD RN










2) Labrador Retriever:SH CH/AM/CAN CH SALTY DOG OF TAMPA BAY [ATC AM00554USA]










3)English Springer Spaniel: 
SH CH/NORD U CH BARECHO HOLD YOUR HORSES AT PEASBLOSSOM (IMP SWE)










4)Pointer: SH CH/NZ CH ROBWYN DREAMS ARE FREE AT RIDANFLIGHT (IMP NZ)


----------



## sassafras

The surface of the eye generally speaking shouldn't visibly scar from a superficial scratch. You have to see through your eye, so the cornea is designed to heal quickly with no lasting effects on vision. Visible scarring IME is usually due to chronic irritation, severe injuries, or scratches that either became infected or penetrated to the deeper layers of the cornea. Something like distichiasis (basically small eyelashes growing on the inner margine of the lid) could cause scarring and so could be a genetic problem, it is often very subtle and difficult to visualize as well.

Also there is a condition called exposure keratitis that can cause patches of brown discoloration on the cornea, sort of like a callus would be elsewhere on the body. Again, it's due to chronic irritation to the eye and can happen in any breed but IME especially brachy breeds. And I can tell you from experience, against a brown-eyed dog's brown eyes it is sometimes surprisingly difficult to see if it is present without an extra light source - the first thing I thought of when the light was mentioned. Just a possible explanation.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

She had a passing eye certification in December 2011. The clumber had a passing eye certification. 

Both done before crufts, done by approved vets. Look at pictures of that clumber, she does have some haw showing but she doesn't have ectropian, her breeder stated they said it was a suspected conjunctivitis. The clumber is a multi ch, and is also 5 years old. Ectropian would have been found on her eye certs. She is fit for function, having passed her hunting exam. This years crufts BIS judge, gave that dog a cc and a BIS. 

The bulldog is a stunning girl, with amazing gait. She was bulldog of the year last year, bulldog of the year in the UK is the most prestigious award a bulldog can get. She also won BOB at their equivalent of our Nationals. She has a certified trachea, certified that its the right size and in no way is it restricting her airway. She has wide open nostrils. She is not exaggerated in any way. And witnesses have testified that she was not in any distress, and was breathing normally while showing and during her exam. Her breeder said it was a spec on her eye, not a scratch, I said scratch as a guess before learning it was a spec. 

And the vets doing the exams at crufts are not suppose to use any instruments that a judge in the ring wouldn't use, last time I checked judges don't use flashlights. 

There are plenty of witnesses coming forth who have talked to the breeders/owners about it, or they witnessed the vet exams them self.

I am not against them doing vet exams, but they are going about it the wrong way, and are tarnishing these dogs who are healthy. This should not be done after the dog has gotten the award so that they can strip it away. And they should not be singling out 15 breeds, every BOB breed winner of every breed should be subjected to these exams.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> The dog has its health clearances, eyes were cleared, trachea was cleared, etc etc prior to Crufts.


I'd be willing to take these health clearances at face value, but what is an "approved vet"? Who approves them?


----------



## hast

Dog world says the Clumber had ektropion


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> She has a certified trachea, certified that its the right size and in no way is it restricting her airway.


I'd be very surprised if her trachea was restricting her airway, because the trachea IS the airway. 




ChaosIsAWeim said:


> She is not exaggerated in any way.


Exaggeration is built into the breed standard. She is exaggerated because she has wider shoulders, a shorter muzzle, etc. than the average dog. I think it's probably fair to say that "she is not exaggerated for a bulldog", though some may disagree with even that assertion.


----------



## Pawzk9

begemot said:


> Presumably having gone to veterinary school and being licensed veterinarians is a qualification, at least to most people.
> 
> .


It's a qualification to treat disease in animals. Not to judge a dog show. I wonder if the vet who DXed an eye problem in two dogs was a vet opthalmologist?


----------



## Cracker

http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2012/03/clumber-also-fails-vet-check.html?m=1

It's also important to recognize that conjunctivitis is a symptom of ectropion, so saying it was "just " conjunctivitis (inflammation of the conjunctiva) does not wash.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

begemot said:


> That is probably to protect the exhibitors themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> +2
> 
> 
> 
> Presumably having gone to veterinary school and being licensed veterinarians is a qualification, at least to most people.
> 
> JohnnyBandit (et al), you can't make inflammatory claims about vets being corrupt without corroborating evidence and expect people to just take your word for it. That's what I meant when I said baseless.


On the same token you cannot just accept that the vet was unbiased without knowing the situation....

And what do we know???? We KNOW FOR A FACT that the vet violated the parameters of the examination. He used a tool that was not supposed to be at his disposal and disqualified the dog for what was very likely evidence of a past injuries. The scar tissue in no way affects the health of the dog and it is not a genetic issue. 

As far as being entrenched in a position, you seem to be entrenched in yours even know the vets actions were unethical. 

In any case..... This is all a publicity stunt to pander to the AR crowd. It is not going to change anything. And while I am in agreement that some breeds are very screwed up and need a serious change in direction, this is not going to accomplish anything. There are ways to accomplish this.... And ways to pressure breeders into the right direction. But this ain't it....


I will tell you all that is going to happen with all this. That vet is going to sued. Crufts is going to be sued, and the Kennel Club in Great Britain is going to be sued. They have opened a Pandora's box torld. 
hey did not want to open. 

As I said.... We are all watching the Death of Crufts...... The largest dog show in the World


----------



## sassafras

LOL using a light = unethical.


----------



## Shaina

JohnnyBandit said:


> And while I am in agreement that some breeds are very screwed up and need a serious change in direction, this is not going to accomplish anything. There are ways to accomplish this.... And ways to pressure breeders into the right direction. But this ain't it....


Out of curiosity, what are the correct ways to fix issues and drive change, in your opinion?


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

sassafras said:


> LOL using a light = unethical.


My thoughts exactly. 

And why does it always come back to AR? Anyone who is concerned by animal welfare issues associated with showing dogs is automatically labeled as an AR advocate.


----------



## Xeph

> LOL using a light = unethical.


If the light wasn't supposed to be used during the exam, I have to agree, there is an issue there.


----------



## juliemule

Maybe if it starts at the top, the dogs that are showing that do have genetic issues are disqualified, then the next to breed will try to steer clear of those issues.
It happened in the horse show world. The most exaggerated western pleasure horses were winning. Came to a point of complete peanut pushers, and finally a few realized the horses could do nothing except lope in a circle with their noses dragging the ground. A few stopped placing them, it caught on, and the issue was improved. Though there are still halter horses who don't ride well. 

It has to start somewhere.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

I think what's important to note is the KC is making a step away from 'the judge is always right.' Where this step leads us, I don't know. I DO know this is a crucial movement for the papered dog community's future and obviously the idea is you've been given long enough to police yourselves, you haven't; now we'll do it for you. I think the question should be more long sighted: How do we prove that the people who breed extremes for looks are the minority, and we will make change in a way that isn't detrimental to our world? I think we need to look at why the KC decided to use 'shock tactics' on the exhibitors.

There is a problem, and denying that won't help our community. I don't believe the vet was biased. If ONE dog out of the DQed was DQed incorrectly hopefully they will be reinstated. How can the argument be that 'the dog had a cleared XZY' but this vet is biased? I don't know about the other dogs, but that Clumber Spaniel clearly deserved to be DQed. The fact that the dog got this far in show world and may have been bred from is extremely disconcerting. How that dog PASSED an eye exam raises my eyebrows. Anyone with two eyes and a head can see that dog doesn't look right.

I hope the next step after forcing judges not to reward extremes is stopping dogs with poor temperament from being bred from. My concern is that if we dog our heels in instead of just admitting there is a problem, then we will end up with rules and laws that stop the people who SHOULD be judging dog shows from making these decisions.


----------



## sassafras

Xeph said:


> If the light wasn't supposed to be used during the exam, I have to agree, there is an issue there.


A light is a source of illumination to help someone see, it's not a piece of medical equipment. Hopefully the vet didn't put their glasses on, either, or people will be calling for their license. :/


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

sassafras said:


> A light is a source of illumination to help someone see, it's not a piece of medical equipment. Hopefully the vet didn't put their glasses on, either, or people will be calling for their license. :/


I agree. I honestly think these sort of arguments take away from the point, and to the public it sounds petty when you look at the fact some of these dogs did deserve their DQ. How is denying that there is a problem in the show world going to help us now? I don't want to end up being policed by vets, but if things continue this way we WILL be. 

Looks like we may have an answer to the dally/deaf question and double merle issue raised in another thread...I am uneasy if we don't open our eyes we will have basically handed over the dog fancy on a silver platter.


----------



## RaeganW

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> Both done before crufts, done by approved vets. Look at pictures of that clumber, she does have some haw showing but she doesn't have ectropian, her breeder stated they said it was a suspected conjunctivitis. The clumber is a multi ch, and is also 5 years old. Ectropian would have been found on her eye certs. She is fit for function, having passed her hunting exam. This years crufts BIS judge, gave that dog a cc and a BIS.


I don't feel a dog with exposed haw is fit for function as a gun dog. American Water Spaniel, Brittany, Curly Coated Retriever, English Setter, Field Spaniel, Flat Coated Retriever, Golden Retriever, Gordon Setter, Irish Red and White Setter, Irish Water Spaniel, Spinone Italiano, Vizsla, Welsh Springer Spaniel, and Wire Haired Pointing Griffon, 14 out of 28 Sporting breeds, all call for "tight lids" or "no haw showing." Only 4 breeds allow haw, and all but the Clumber have limiting language involved (Sussex Spaniel: do not show the haw overmuch; English Cocker Spaniel: lids tight. Haws are inconspicuous; English Springer Spaniel: Lids are tight with little or no haw showing). The remaining 10 breeds do not mention tight lids or haw at all, however most do mention that the eyes should neither protrude or be deeply set.

Obviously loose eyelids are a functional fault in the field, the Brittany standard tells most plainly why:



AKC Brittany Standard said:


> *Eyes--*Well set in head. Well protected from briars by a heavy, expressive eyebrow. A prominent full or popeye should be penalized. It is a serious fault in a dog that must face briars. Skull well chiseled under the eyes, so that the lower lid is not pulled back to form a pocket or haw that would catch seeds, dirt and weed dust.


So the fact that the dog has hunting qualifications is essentially moot (although I appreciate the gesture). This kind of fault is exactly the point of evaluating conformation in working animals: to eliminate glaring faults that clearly impede the dog's ability to function at it's job.



ChaosIsAWeim said:


> I am not against them doing vet exams, but they are going about it the wrong way, and are tarnishing these dogs who are healthy. This should not be done after the dog has gotten the award so that they can strip it away. And they should not be singling out 15 breeds, every BOB breed winner of every breed should be subjected to these exams.


This I do agree with. Do one, do 'em all. I do think it should be limited to BOB though, to vet check every entered dog is time and expense prohibitive, to showing organizations and exhibitors alike.



sassafras said:


> LOL using a light = unethical.


This one I'll give them. If the rules say no instrument, then no instrument should be used. A flashlight counts.



JohnnyBandit said:


> And what do we know???? We KNOW FOR A FACT that the vet violated the parameters of the examination. He used a tool that was not supposed to be at his disposal and disqualified the dog for what was very likely evidence of a past injuries. The scar tissue in no way affects the health of the dog and it is not a genetic issue.


I am more skeptical that this "speck in the eye" has any relation to the truth. Does anyone have a SOURCE? Forgive me if I am suspicious of the owner's word, they clearly have a stake in saying the reason for disqualification is arbitrary and irrelevant. I would like to see something on the order of the leaked picture of the Clumber's report.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

I heard the bulldog was DQed for breathing issues, not eye. Either way, I don't trust the owners to be 100% honest, we'll have to wait and see what unfolds.


----------



## Pai

GottaLuvMutts said:


> And why does it always come back to AR? Anyone who is concerned by animal welfare issues associated with showing dogs is automatically labeled as an AR advocate.


It's either that, or else they get accused of just having 'sour grapes' because their dogs don't win in the ring. It's very childish and doesn't address people's actual concerns about various breeds, which to be honest are not new or invented recently because of PDE. 

People have been lamenting the trend of over-exaggeration in Bulldogs, for example, for nearly 100 years now. I have books with commentary by *other show breeders* from the 1900s worried about fads for noses that are too short, etc. You can read one of them online here. Bulldogs are addressed in the first chapter, with several breeders saying judges need to be held more accountable for putting up cripples and extreme dogs. And this was in 1904!

It's not so simple a case as 'the only people complaining are ARs and purebred dog-haters'.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

I'm not American, but if I were I'd be VERY concerned. America is quite lucky you don't have the animal rights nuts as bad as we do. Well..Maybe you do. But they don't have power the way they do here. You can dock and crop, that was taken away years ago in many parts of Europe and Oz.

I would be questioning what this move indicates given that America is probably the country _least_ affected by animal rights whackos.

EDIT: A vet on an Aus forum posted this, crossposting because I think it's useful, if it's not applicable to America I apologise.



> The BVA canine eye scheme (presumably what previous posters mean by an "eye certificate") does NOT assess lid issues when deciding when to issue an eye cert. If a dog has entropion or ectropion, this may be noted on the certificate, but the dog can still get an eye cert.
> 
> It is therefore perfectly possible for these dogs to have an eye cert, but still have ectropion.
> 
> http://www.bva.co.uk...eye_scheme.aspx


----------



## juliemule

Pai said:


> It's either that, or else they get accused of just having 'sour grapes' because their dogs don't win in the ring. It's very childish and doesn't address people's actual concerns about various breeds, which to be honest are not new or invented recently because of PDE.
> 
> People have been lamenting the trend of over-exaggeration in Bulldogs, for example, for nearly 100 years now. I have books with commentary by *other show breeders* from the 1900s worried about fads for noses that are too short, etc. You can read one of them online here. Bulldogs are addressed in the first chapter, with several breeders saying judges need to be held more accountable for putting up cripples and extreme dogs. And this was in 1904!
> 
> It's not so simple a case as 'the only people complaining are ARs and purebred dog-haters'.


In over 100 years, has the bulldog became more exaggerated? Maybe they had valid reason to be concerned.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Pai said:


> It's either that, or else they get accused of just having 'sour grapes' because their dogs don't win in the ring. It's very childish and doesn't address people's actual concerns about various breeds, which to be honest are not new or invented recently because of PDE.
> 
> People have been lamenting the trend of over-exaggeration in Bulldogs, for example, for nearly 100 years now. I have books with commentary by *other show breeders* from the 1900s worried about fads for noses that are too short, etc. You can read one of them online here. Bulldogs are addressed in the first chapter, with several breeders saying judges need to be held more accountable for putting up cripples and extreme dogs. And this was in 1904!
> 
> It's not so simple a case as 'the only people complaining are ARs and purebred dog-haters'.


Childish? Who provided the funds and manpower to push the Kennel Club to this? Who has the money? Animal Rights or Animal Welfare?

Anyone that competes in any fashion with dogs face attacks and challenges from AR every day.....This is just another example. 

Crufts, the largest dog show in the World is dead...

Are international judges going to be open to judging there, just to see a dog they awarded honors to stripped of those honors? 
Are exhibitors from outside Great Britain going to spend the amount of money to get their dog there with this sort of thing going on?


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

JohnnyBandit said:


> Childish? Who provided the funds and manpower to push the Kennel Club to this? Who has the money? Animal Rights or Animal Welfare?
> 
> Anyone that competes in any fashion with dogs face attacks and challenges from AR every day.....This is just another example.
> 
> Crufts, the largest dog show in the World is dead...
> 
> Are international judges going to be open to judging there, just to see a dog they awarded honors to stripped of those honors?
> Are exhibitors from outside Great Britain going to spend the amount of money to get their dog there with this sort of thing going on?


It appears they knew beforehand there would be testing. if you flew in an entropian dog to show KNOWING it would be tested, whose fault is that?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> It appears they knew beforehand there would be testing. if you flew in an entropian dog to show KNOWING it would be tested, whose fault is that?


The jury is still out on whether that is or is not the case.....

You cannot accomplish anything doing this......

These breeds did not get this way overnight..... They are not going to change overnight.

Specifically in the case of the bulldog.... Crufts just penalized a VERY moderate bitch... If you look at the big picture of what is out there in bulldogs.......And where the breed might need to go, a bitch that could have been a big player, and may still be, in getting there, just got knocked off the mantle.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

Pai said:


> It's either that, or else they get accused of just having 'sour grapes' because their dogs don't win in the ring. It's very childish and doesn't address people's actual concerns about various breeds, which to be honest are not new or invented recently because of PDE.


Agreed. The vast majority of people who are concerned with the current state of things are NOT affiliated with AR and do NOT show dogs themselves (at least in conformation). Labeling us as AR associates and soar losers completely misses the point: we aren't worried about the rights of dogs, but rather the disturbing trend of breeding toward extremes that leave dogs debilitated. As another poster noted, anyone with a pair of eyes and a brain can see the problem for themselves. I think this is why the movement is gaining momentum, and why the KC feels the need to staunch the bleeding of their PR nightmare.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

JohnnyBandit said:


> Anyone that competes in any fashion with dogs face attacks and challenges from AR every day.....This is just another example.


Really? I compete in a couple of sports, and am involved with a third. I've never encountered any AR advocates or associates, and I definitely don't feel attacked or challenged by them. I don't think they're as powerful as you make them out to be.

Do you have any proof that AR pushed the KC to do vet checks?


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

JohnnyBandit said:


> The jury is still out on whether that is or is not the case.....
> 
> You cannot accomplish anything doing this......
> 
> These breeds did not get this way overnight..... They are not going to change overnight.
> 
> Specifically in the case of the bulldog.... Crufts just penalized a VERY moderate bitch... If you look at the big picture of what is out there in bulldogs.......And where the breed might need to go, a bitch that could have been a big player, and may still be, in getting there, just got knocked off the mantle.


My reference was to the spaniel. Like I said anyone can see that dog had eye issues. I simply don't buy they would risk the lawsuits of DQing all and only great examples of the breed.

As I mentioned before, if you can't admit there is a problem, you are probably part of it. I'm not saying ALL breeders do these things but clearly enough do that it's an issue. If the dog fancy refuses to self regulate, someone is going to step in and do it for them. I don't want that, but breeders were given a chance in the eighties with the changes of breed standards and classes being offered to judges to stop the direction we are now in. Clearly they chose to ignore it so my question is how does the dog fancy prove we are against breeding for extremes when that spaniel got through so many shows?

The issue is so much bigger than whether a bulldog was examined with or without a torch. We need to look further into the future of the purebreed community than what stands in front of us. Where does digging our heels in get us at this point when there IS a problem? Even if you don't agree that these dogs deserve to be DQed for their appearance, what about the dogs that win who have pathetic temperaments? I'd be more concerned about that, because it's much easier to ruin a breed standard through temperament than extremes. I don't want vet deciding what dogs have a 'good' temperament..That's so much more debatable than extremes. And that will be next.


----------



## spanielorbust

JohnnyBandit said:


> The jury is still out on whether that is or is not the case.....
> 
> You cannot accomplish anything doing this......
> 
> These breeds did not get this way overnight..... They are not going to change overnight.
> 
> Specifically in the case of the bulldog.... Crufts just penalized a VERY moderate bitch... If you look at the big picture of what is out there in bulldogs.......And where the breed might need to go, a bitch that could have been a big player, and may still be, in getting there, just got knocked off the mantle.


Johnny I am not a competitive person, and don't understand that so I need to ask a question as I hear what you are saying about this girl, and I agree that turning around some of the exaggerations in these breeds is going to take many generations.

Why would her DQ as best of breed 'knock her off the mantle' so to speak (I believe she is already well titled)? If she beat all the Bulldog's that day then they are no better and would have been DQ'd as well and so the mark is against the breed and the judge more than her, is it not?

Is this DQ for her going to mean her progeny will get something like a 'black mark' from the rest of the fancy in regards to being of use? Is that the prediction?

SOB


----------



## Pai

JohnnyBandit said:


> Childish? Who provided the funds and manpower to push the Kennel Club to this? Who has the money? Animal Rights or Animal Welfare?


I'm not talking about just this isolated event, I'm talking about whenever someone criticizes any aspect of the show system at all. If they're outsiders they get called ARs, and if they're insiders they get called sore losers. Damn straight it's childish, and annoying as hell. 

You want to know who pushed the KC to do this? The show breeders and judges who seem incapable of policing themselves. I agree it sucks and is not ideal to have outside authorities forcing people to change how they breed, but really many groups in the fancy seem determined to give the ARs and Nanny-staters free ammunition. 

As someone whose 'heart breeds' are _hairless mutants_, you think I _don't_ fear the potential for well-meaning ignoramuses to pass some law that makes it illegal to breed them (because OMG THEY'RE FREAKS)? If the show world can't display that it's able to put dog health at the core of the show system (which is supposed to be about showcasing IDEAL BREEDING STOCK), the ARs WILL be able to convince legislators and bleeding-heart voters to put laws in place that will destroy all purebred dogs. Limit laws, BSL, bans on selling more than x number of pups, etc. are already steps in that direction.

Seeing as how the KC is about _as far from AR as it's possible to be_, it's clear this is a survival tactic on their part. They understand the danger they're in. This is the club that INVENTED THE DOG FANCY ITSELF. They know damn well what's at stake here. These issues with certain breeds did not leap into being from out of nowhere; they've been known about for decades if not longer.


----------



## spotted nikes

JohnnyBandit said:


> The jury is still out on whether that is or is not the case.....
> 
> You cannot accomplish anything doing this......
> 
> These breeds did not get this way overnight..... They are not going to change overnight.
> 
> Specifically in the case of the bulldog.... Crufts just penalized a VERY moderate bitch... If you look at the big picture of what is out there in bulldogs.......And where the breed might need to go, a bitch that could have been a big player, and may still be, in getting there, just got knocked off the mantle.


there was a discussion a while back about judges rewarding extremes, so people breed to get those extremes. Maybe if those extreme dogs are no longer winning, the people that have a moderate dog that previously wasn't placing because it wasn't "in fashion", will start showing their dogs, and you will get more dogs that actually are not extreme.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

spotted nikes said:


> there was a discussion a while back about judges rewarding extremes, so people breed to get those extremes. Maybe if those extreme dogs are no longer winning, the people that have a moderate dog that previously wasn't placing because it wasn't "in fashion", will start showing their dogs, and you will get more dogs that actually are not extreme.


And here lies the reason why they waited until AFTER the win to DQ the dogs.


----------



## cshellenberger

sassafras said:


> LOL using a light = unethical.


It was AGAINST THE RULES of the exam!!!! Breaking rules is UNETHICAL!


----------



## cshellenberger

spanielorbust said:


> Johnny I am not a competitive person, and don't understand that so I need to ask a question as I hear what you are saying about this girl, and I agree that turning around some of the exaggerations in these breeds is going to take many generations.
> 
> Why would her DQ as best of breed 'knock her off the mantle' so to speak (I believe she is already well titled)? If she beat all the Bulldog's that day then they are no better and would have been DQ'd as well and so the mark is against the breed and the judge more than her, is it not?
> 
> Is this DQ for her going to mean her progeny will get something like a 'black mark' from the rest of the fancy in regards to being of use? Is that the prediction?
> 
> SOB


Because winning at Crufts would have put her name out ther even more than it is, it also would have opened the door to show that more MODERATE EB's (and dogs in general) can win the big titles at the BIG world renowned shows. Now she'll not go to group and it will at the LEAST delay her chances of proving that if not eliminate them all together.


----------



## begemot

cshellenberger said:


> It was AGAINST THE RULES of the exam!!!! Breaking rules is UNETHICAL!


I'm not sure where the full info is (do you have a source?), but in the film  about the inspections the secretary of the kennel club, Caroline Kisko, says, "We're not expecting the vet to be able to do anything the judge wouldn't be able to do. We want to make sure that what the judge is judging is a healthy dog. So when the dog then goes on to see the vet, the vet will not be using a stethoscope or be using an oroscope [fluoroscope?], will not be doing anything internal that the judge would not have been able to do. So he's really going to be looking at the dog from the external point of view. Its eyes, its teeth, its overall conformation, the way it's put together in exactly the same way the judge would be able to do to make sure the judge has definitely judged the health, and to make sure they're not putting forward an unhealthy dog."

As far as I can tell, a flashlight seems fine because it's just used to see better. Visual inspection of the dog being part of the job. Maybe it says somewhere else that they can't use a flashlight, but I don't think anyone has linked that yet.


----------



## spanielorbust

cshellenberger said:


> Because winning at Crufts would have put her name out ther even more than it is, it also would have opened the door to show that more MODERATE EB's (and dogs in general) can win the big titles at the BIG world renowned shows. Now she'll not go to group and it will at the LEAST delay her chances of proving that if not eliminate them all together.


Do you believe that with this dog being DQd the more extreme dogs will be favored in the breed in the future to win at the world renowned shows? I would think that if she couldn't pass a health exam (especially if it was because of labored breathing as has been suggested in a few places on the net) then the judges and breeders would start to look for even less extreme with the realization they might have to take a few DQs to get there . . . but that's just me.

Just reading on a UK forum that the Mastiff has not passed either.

SOB


----------



## Xeph

I really wish people would stop and take a moment to really think about why so many people are against this, and be more understanding in some ways.

Yes, things need some changing, but Jesus, some of these people have been breeding for 40, 50, 60 years! They're being told that certain things they know, love, and understand about their breed is crap, and that their hard work has been for naught. Some people can see the need for change, but when a breeding program that spans FIVE DECADES is being threatened, I don't see how people could avoid being in an uproar about it.

There are going to be a lot of sour people because of the above, and I can't blame them for their upset. Some of this upsets me, to a degree, but not nearly as much as it does those who have been doing it for the majority of their lives.

I want to see change, but I feel for these breeders. Especially for those with the dogs who were DQ'd after they won such a prestigious award.

God how that must have hurt. I probably would have been hysterical with tears if it had happened to me, and there's no way I'd be able to acknowledge what was being done was for the better. At least, not for a long time.


----------



## spanielorbust

Xeph, I've actually put a lot of thought into that as I've had many conversations with emotionally involved breeders regarding changing Cavaliers through the past.

What I hear you saying is that emotionally this is hard on the breeders. It is. I believe leaving things as they are though is physically and emotionally hard on many - breeders, pet owners, and dogs.

There has been attempts now for 30 years that I can remember to 'softly' instigate change. If those had been taken up on then we'd not be seeing what we are seeing now. For those thirty years it has not been just that judges/breeders didn't hear. There was push back with attitude about the whole idea of changing. I know many that have suffered - emotionally - because these changes weren't made.

Does that make it easier to know these judges/breeders are being devastated - not really. Seeing things continue as they were, however, was devastating to watch already.

SOB


----------



## sassafras

RaeganW said:


> This one I'll give them. If the rules say no instrument, then no instrument should be used. A flashlight counts.





cshellenberger said:


> It was AGAINST THE RULES of the exam!!!! Breaking rules is UNETHICAL!


A flashlight is not a medical instrument! Clearly the rules as quoted above excluded the use of an actual medical instrument like an ophthalmoscope, but a flashlight is a light source! Never in a million years will anyone convince me that using a _light source_ to see better is using a _medical instrument_ or in any way unethical.



AussieNerdQueen said:


> As I mentioned before, if you can't admit there is a problem, you are probably part of it. I'm not saying ALL breeders do these things but clearly enough do that it's an issue. If the dog fancy refuses to self regulate, someone is going to step in and do it for them. I don't want that, but breeders were given a chance in the eighties with the changes of breed standards and classes being offered to judges to stop the direction we are now in. Clearly they chose to ignore it so my question is how does the dog fancy prove we are against breeding for extremes when that spaniel got through so many shows?



Exactly. Like it or not, the dog show world is coming under a microscope from the general public, and I think it's safe to say the general public doesn't like what it sees. It's time to seriously consider how behavior that is commonplace or accepted in the inner world looks to the outside world -- and if fanciers' reaction to this is to protest the use of a flashlight and argue about whether a veterinarian was right or wrong to use it as part of an external exam (which quite frankly sounds ridiculous and petty and feels like a deflection) and say things like "but... but... she was so _moderate_!!" then no one has to worry about AR, because dog fanciers are going to do their job for them.


----------



## brandiw

I hear that the English Mastiff failed vet check as well.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ubTCBN_l1E&feature=share

Oh and the vet is a cardiologist and ultrasound specialist, not an ophthalmologist. He specializes in cats.


----------



## Willowy

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> Oh and the vet is a cardiologist and ultrasound specialist, not an ophthalmologist. He specializes in cats.


I guess they wanted to be sure he was impartial? LOL. I imagine any licensed vet could identify any of the listed health problems in any animals, though.


----------



## Pawzk9

AussieNerdQueen said:


> My reference was to the spaniel. Like I said anyone can see that dog had eye issues. I simply don't buy they would risk the lawsuits of DQing all and only great examples of the breed.
> 
> As I mentioned before, if you can't admit there is a problem, you are probably part of it. I'm not saying ALL breeders do these things but clearly enough do that it's an issue. If the dog fancy refuses to self regulate, someone is going to step in and do it for them. I don't want that, but breeders were given a chance in the eighties with the changes of breed standards and classes being offered to judges to stop the direction we are now in. Clearly they chose to ignore it so my question is how does the dog fancy prove we are against breeding for extremes when that spaniel got through so many shows?
> 
> The issue is so much bigger than whether a bulldog was examined with or without a torch. We need to look further into the future of the purebreed community than what stands in front of us. Where does digging our heels in get us at this point when there IS a problem? Even if you don't agree that these dogs deserve to be DQed for their appearance, what about the dogs that win who have pathetic temperaments? I'd be more concerned about that, because it's much easier to ruin a breed standard through temperament than extremes. I don't want vet deciding what dogs have a 'good' temperament..That's so much more debatable than extremes. And that will be next.


wouldn't it make MORE sense to make sure the dogs had requisite health testing, and even have a pre-show vet screening than to disqualify the winners AFTER the judge has chosen them. I'm sure what they are doing is gaining more attention and is a lovely salute to Pedigreed Dogs Exposed. But to me it seems to be a smoke and mirrors show, and if anything a bandaid (I'm not sure it even qualifies as that). Most of the serious problems a breed carries aren't visable to the naked eye - even of a vet pretending to be a dog show judge.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

And the GSD: CH Elmo Vom Huhnegrab VA1 SchH3 kkl1 Lbz passes the vet exam


----------



## Pawzk9

Pai said:


> It's not so simple a case as 'the only people complaining are ARs and purebred dog-haters'.


I don't think anybody said it was.


----------



## Pawzk9

spanielorbust said:


> Johnny I am not a competitive person, and don't understand that so I need to ask a question as I hear what you are saying about this girl, and I agree that turning around some of the exaggerations in these breeds is going to take many generations.
> 
> Why would her DQ as best of breed 'knock her off the mantle' so to speak (I believe she is already well titled)? If she beat all the Bulldog's that day then they are no better and would have been DQ'd as well and so the mark is against the breed and the judge more than her, is it not?
> 
> Is this DQ for her going to mean her progeny will get something like a 'black mark' from the rest of the fancy in regards to being of use? Is that the prediction?
> 
> SOB


A dog who is disqualified cannot be shown in conformation. I have a bitch with a legitimate DQ (undershot bite - though it has shifted back to level, I see no reason to get her reinstated as she is 10 years old and spayed.)


----------



## Pawzk9

begemot said:


> I'm not sure where the full info is (do you have a source?), but in the film  about the inspections the secretary of the kennel club, Caroline Kisko, says, "We're not expecting the vet to be able to do anything the judge wouldn't be able to do. We want to make sure that what the judge is judging is a healthy dog. So when the dog then goes on to see the vet, the vet will not be using a stethoscope or be using an oroscope [fluoroscope?], will not be doing anything internal that the judge would not have been able to do. So he's really going to be looking at the dog from the external point of view. Its eyes, its teeth, its overall conformation, the way it's put together in exactly the same way the judge would be able to do to make sure the judge has definitely judged the health, and to make sure they're not putting forward an unhealthy dog."
> As far as I can tell, a flashlight seems fine because it's just used to see better. Visual inspection of the dog being part of the job. Maybe it says somewhere else that they can't use a flashlight, but I don't think anyone has linked that yet.



If the vet isn't supposed to do anything the judge wouldn't do in the ring - how many judges have YOU seen shining flashlights in dogs eyes? Was the examining vet in some dark closet or something?


----------



## Pawzk9

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ubTCBN_l1E&feature=share
> 
> Oh and the vet is a cardiologist and ultrasound specialist, not an ophthalmologist. He specializes in cats.


A cat vet. How speshul that would trump a judge with many years experience.


----------



## Pawzk9

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Really? I compete in a couple of sports, and am involved with a third. I've never encountered any AR advocates or associates, and I definitely don't feel attacked or challenged by them. I don't think they're as powerful as you make them out to be.
> 
> Do you have any proof that AR pushed the KC to do vet checks?


If you think AR isn't watching EVERYTHING we do with our dogs, you are living in a fool's paradise. Conformation is just one of the first (and easiest) targets.


----------



## RaeganW

Pawzk9 said:


> A dog who is disqualified cannot be shown in conformation. I have a bitch with a legitimate DQ (undershot bite - though it has shifted back to level, I see no reason to get her reinstated as she is 10 years old and spayed.)


Wait, are we sure it's that kind of disqualification? Disqualified for all shows ever in the future from now until the end of time? Or disqualified from competing in the group at this singular Crufts show in 2012? Because I was under the impression it was the latter.


----------



## Pawzk9

RaeganW said:


> Wait, are we sure it's that kind of disqualification? Disqualified for all shows ever in the future from now until the end of time? Or disqualified from competing in the group at this singular Crufts show in 2012? Because I was under the impression it was the latter.


I only know one kind of disqualification. And the dog must be reinstated. Of course, I'm not British (and following this fiasco, that makes me say "thank Gods")


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Working Group is in the ring. Looks like the same boxer that won last year is back again.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

RaeganW said:


> Wait, are we sure it's that kind of disqualification? Disqualified for all shows ever in the future from now until the end of time? Or disqualified from competing in the group at this singular Crufts show in 2012? Because I was under the impression it was the latter.


The only thing I have heard is the latter. The owner of the Clumber said she will never be back to the UK, not to mean the dog is dq from further shows there.


----------



## begemot

I'm tuning in again now, and I can't find a complete list of the past events with video. In the "completed" tab, a ton of videos are missing. Does anyone know where I could find everything? There were some things I wanted to see.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Working Group winners: will add pictures in a minute

1) Newfoundland: MULTI/INT/SK/POL/CRO/HUN/DK/CZ/AU CH KING OF HELLULAND FEEL THE WIN [ATC AM00991SVK]












2) Siberian Husky: SIBERIASKYE BRITE BOREALIS OF PELENRISE JW SHCM










3) Boxer: CH/IR CH WINUWUK LUST AT FIRST SIGHT

(picture from 2009)











4) Tibetan Mastiff: SIERRA'S YOGANANDA


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Pastoral Group Winners

1) OES: CH BOTTOMSHAKER MY SECRET [ATC AJ01214HUN]









2) Bearded Collie: CH SENGALAS INDIANA JONES 










3) GSD: Ch Elmo vom Huhnegrab










4) Border Collie: SH CH/AUST CH DANARI DE BEERS










One more day of Judging. Tomorrow is Terrier and Hound day.


----------



## sassafras

Pawzk9 said:


> If the vet isn't supposed to do anything the judge wouldn't do in the ring - how many judges have YOU seen shining flashlights in dogs eyes? Was the examining vet in some dark closet or something?


Would you have been as outraged if the vet shone a flashlight on, say, a foot? If it was too dark to see, it was too dark to see. 

It can be very hard to properly examine even the surface of the eye in a dark-eyed dog without additional light in a typically lit room, IME. But I guess a judge's experience probably trumps that, too. :/


----------



## grab

I do think that if we're going to be examining dogs and nitpicking things like scars on the eye (assuming it wasn't a scar from something like entropion, which should be pretty obvious), that there should be exams before sporting events as well. Dogs needing frequent chiropractic adjustments in order to compete in agility comfortably is equally as damning as a dog having a skin fold. 
I don't now, nor have I ever, competed in conformation. But I do find the 'conformation is evil!" mentality pretty silly.


----------



## cshellenberger

Pawzk9 said:


> If the vet isn't supposed to do anything the judge wouldn't do in the ring - how many judges have YOU seen shining flashlights in dogs eyes? Was the examining vet in some dark closet or something?


This is EXACTLY what I mean, furthermore, most eye injuries are not visible even with a flashlight, you need to stain the eye and use a UV light to see cornial scratches (I know this as I've had a EB foster that needed it done due to cherry eye to check for permanent damage).


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Willowy said:


> I guess they wanted to be sure he was impartial? LOL. I imagine any licensed vet could identify any of the listed health problems in any animals, though.


Wrong!!! No offense to any vets here.... But.... 

Would you go to a podiatrist for an eye problem? A gastro intestina. l specialist for a knee problem? A Ear Nose and Throat Doctor for a pregnancy? 

I have a list of vets, I use. Even for just Checkups. Merlin went to four different vets for all his health testing. I use a different vet for my dogs than my cats, a different vet for my parrot. When I had reptiles, I had a different vet for those. When I had horses I had three different vets. Cattle, two different vets. 

Different vets have different strengths......


----------



## Avie

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> And the GSD: CH Elmo Vom Huhnegrab VA1 SchH3 kkl1 Lbz passes the vet exam


You're saying it like it came as a surprise to you. Is that correct, or am I not understanding well?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sassafras said:


> Would you have been as outraged if the vet shone a flashlight on, say, a foot? If it was too dark to see, it was too dark to see.
> 
> It can be very hard to properly examine even the surface of the eye in a dark-eyed dog without additional light in a typically lit room, IME. But I guess a judge's experience probably trumps that, too. :/


What you are missing.... Is this... The Vets was to have no tools, instruments, etc available to him that the Judge did not have....The VET BROKE THE RULES..... End of story on this one.....


----------



## JohnnyBandit

This is how they chose the vets..
*Others checked today by one of the 'independent' volunteer vets chosen by KC chairman Prof Steve Dean and British Veterinary Association past president Harvey Locke were the Chinese Crested, the Chow Chow, the French Bulldog and the Shar Pei.*

That sound like a way to select an unbiased panel of vets to anyone?


----------



## sassafras

I'm not missing anything. I disagree that a flashlight is an instrument that a judge would not have available to them if they said something along the lines of "excuse me, it's a bit too dark in here for me to see xyz, can someone get me a flashlight?" 

Frankly the only reason anyone's objecting to the use of the flashlight is because the vet found something. If they hadn't, no one would care for an instant about the rules. It's a ridiculous diversion and gives the appearance is that there's something to hide. But like all politics, talking points and technicalities seem to be more important than the substance of whether or not the dog actually had a problem or not.


----------



## sassafras

JohnnyBandit said:


> This is how they chose the vets..
> *Others checked today by one of the 'independent' volunteer vets chosen by KC chairman Prof Steve Dean and British Veterinary Association past president Harvey Locke were the Chinese Crested, the Chow Chow, the French Bulldog and the Shar Pei.*
> 
> That sound like a way to select an unbiased panel of vets to anyone?


The KC chairman and a past VMA president chose from a pool of volunteers, and...? I'm missing your point.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> It appears they knew beforehand there would be testing. if you flew in an entropian dog to show KNOWING it would be tested, whose fault is that?


Agreed.... But if the dog did not have an issue, and the evaluation was fair, the owner would have no reason to worry about the evaluation. That is the reason for the outrage.

It probably does not matter at this point. The dog could now be evaluated by a team of the top Vet Opthamologists in the World and there are those that are going to blindly believe the world of a single volunteer vet....


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sassafras said:


> I'm not missing anything. I disagree that a flashlight is an instrument that a judge would not have available to them if they said something along the lines of "excuse me, it's a bit too dark in here for me to see xyz, can someone get me a flashlight?"
> 
> Frankly the only reason anyone's objecting to the use of the flashlight is because the vet found something. If they hadn't, no one would care for an instant about the rules. It's a ridiculous diversion and gives the appearance is that there's something to hide. But like all politics, talking points and technicalities seem to be more important than the substance of whether or not the dog actually had a problem or not.


The vet found a scar.... So the vet found nothing.....


----------



## sassafras

... just like there are those who are going to blindly reject the word of a single volunteer vet. And the world turns.


----------



## RaeganW

JohnnyBandit said:


> Agreed.... But if the dog did not have an issue, and the evaluation was fair, the owner would have no reason to worry about the evaluation. That is the reason for the outrage.
> 
> It probably does not matter at this point. The dog could now be evaluated by a team of the top Vet Opthamologists in the World and there are those that are going to blindly believe the world of a single volunteer vet....


And you're taking for gospel the word of the dog's owner, who has an obvious motive to down play the failed exam.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

In more positve news. My dog Merlin continued his winning ways and took Best of Breed today in West Palm Beach.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

RaeganW said:


> And you're taking for gospel the word of the dog's owner, who has an obvious motive to down play the failed exam.


No I am not... 

I am saying this entire system they set up is.... Not fair, Not unbiased, Will not cause the changes folks desire, Will be the downfall of Crufts and possibly the Kennel Club of Great Britain.....


I said very early on.... I agree there are changes that need to be made in some breeds. But this is not the way to do it.


----------



## sassafras

JohnnyBandit said:


> The vet found a scar.... So the vet found nothing.....


Unless there's been some official statement I've missed, gossipy word on the street is that the vet found a scar. Which may or may not be what was actually found. And anyway, as per my previous post, eyes shouldn't really scar without chronic irritation or severe injury, which I don't consider "nothing".


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sassafras said:


> Unless there's been some official statement I've missed, gossipy word on the street is that the vet found a scar. Which may or may not be what was actually found. And anyway, as per my previous post, eyes shouldn't really scar without chronic irritation or severe injury, which I don't consider "nothing".




I know a dog that was blinded in one eye by an injury while working and went on to win its Championship. A dog with an ear torn off, a dog with a broken tail. As it should be.... Quality dogs that should contribute should not be penalized for evidence of a past injury.....

Tell you what..... I already have a copy signed by the vet of the Clumber's exam. I hope to have the Bulldog's before the night is over. 

So we should be able to see exactly what was said soon.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

I correct myself.... It is not signed. Well the signature page is not there.... But the source is reliable. I have zero doubt it is the document.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

I agree with Sassafras. Who needs PETA when we're just going to shoot ourselves in the foot?

How hysterical does it look to the outside world (who are the ones who get to decide the dog fancy future now by the way) to be insisting the vet had an agenda, was biased, they used a torch!! Evil, evil stuff. Yeah, I trust the word of a volunteer vet over judges that rewarded that spaniel over and over. 

But rip the vet apart. Find out the credentials, claim conspiracy theories, bias. That makes us look like we take these issues seriously and won't allow it to continue.


----------



## sassafras

JohnnyBandit said:


> I know a dog that was blinded in one eye by an injury while working and went on to win its Championship. A dog with an ear torn off, a dog with a broken tail. As it should be.... Quality dogs that should contribute should not be penalized for evidence of a past injury.....



Did this dog have a past injury? Otherwise, I can't help but speculate that the dog really does have a real health problem causing chronic irritation to the eye. But hopefully the report will clear that up. Hopefully it really is the document, although frankly it's hard for me to trust anything other than something released by the dog's owner vs. an anonymous "source".


----------



## sassafras

AussieNerdQueen said:


> I agree with Sassafras. Who needs PETA when we're just going to shoot ourselves in the foot?
> 
> How hysterical does it look to the outside world (who are the ones who get to decide the dog fancy future now by the way) to be insisting the vet had an agenda, was biased, they used a torch!! Evil, evil stuff. Yeah, I trust the word of a volunteer vet over judges that rewarded that spaniel over and over.
> 
> But rip the vet apart. Find out the credentials, claim conspiracy theories, bias. That makes us look like we take these issues seriously and won't allow it to continue.


Yes, this is my point exactly. I'm either not making it well, or either hasn't been taken or is being ignored. 

The vet finds something on an exam. There are two ways to react - one is to assume that it was because there was something to find, and the other is to assume that there is a conspiracy. Until proven otherwise, I'm going to assume the former, especially since it wasn't the breeder's actual vet who did the exam (I've seen veterinarians do and say too many things to protect the interests of their breeder clients to assume any of them are unbiased).

ETA: Whoops, lost my train of thought. Anyway, the public is going to react to the reaction of breeders and showers - and if the knee jerk is a witch hunt and attempt to discredit the vet... well, then, I think people aren't going to react well to that. Honestly, I'm not, and I don't really have a stake in the thing either way other than wanting something constructive to come out of it all.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

JohnnyBandit said:


> In more positve news. My dog Merlin continued his winning ways and took Best of Breed today in West Palm Beach.



My friend's ACD got 2nd in Open Bitch at Crufts today, so that makes me happy.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

sassafras said:


> Yes, this is my point exactly. I'm either not making it well, or either hasn't been taken or is being ignored.
> 
> The vet finds something on an exam. There are two ways to react - one is to assume that it was because there was something to find, and the other is to assume that there is a conspiracy. Until proven otherwise, I'm going to assume the former, especially since it wasn't the breeder's actual vet who did the exam (I've seen veterinarians do and say too many things to protect the interests of their breeder clients to assume any of them are unbiased).


Well I'm much closer to the show scene than Joe Blow, but my mother is pretty dog clueless. I've been updating her on Crufts and the reactions to DQs. To offer an 'average' perspective, she asked why people were questioning the bias of the vet who DQed these dogs and not the bias of the judges who either were blind to serious flaws or just didn't care. She asked quite innocently but I had no answer for her.

This is how the 'average' dog person sees this situation. That the dog fancy just doesn't care.


----------



## Miss Bugs

lol glad you guys said it! I dont understand this vet bashing at all myself..so he specializes in other things...so? that just mean he has futher education beyond general practioner, nothing more, nothing less. my dad is going to school for massage therapy, he plans to specialize in sports message, which will require further education beyond what he already has..the further education is not going to rendure him incapable of doing a regular message lol. if the defendors of these breeds seriously need to grasp so desperatly at straws, then something is obviously wrong!


----------



## sassafras

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Well I'm much closer to the show scene than Joe Blow, but my mother is pretty dog clueless. I've been updating her on Crufts and the reactions to DQs. To offer an 'average' perspective, she asked why people were questioning the bias of the vet who DQed these dogs and not the bias of the judges who either were blind to serious flaws or just didn't care. She asked quite innocently but I had no answer for her.
> 
> This is how the 'average' dog person sees this situation. That the dog fancy just doesn't care.


Yup, that's my impression from people I know who are dog owner and lovers, but don't know anything about dog showing. Heck, everything I know about dog showing could comfortably fit into my pinkie fingernail so I count myself in with the general public. 

Although, I will say that I honestly don't think the judges are blind or don't care, I just think it's a case of "bad becoming normal" - just the status quo that comes along with being part of the inner world. Which is one reason I think that input from outside the system is desperately needed -- but it will be interesting to see if, over time, the outside vets become just as acclimated to the status quo as they become insiders themselves.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

On the point of the vet specializing in different areas.

When you need a check up do you go to a GP or a specialist?


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

sassafras said:


> Yup, that's my impression from people I know who are dog owner and lovers, but don't know anything about dog showing. Heck, everything I know about dog showing could comfortably fit into my pinkie fingernail so I count myself in with the general public.
> 
> Although, I will say that I honestly don't think the judges are blind or don't care, I just think it's a case of "bad becoming normal" - just the status quo that comes along with being part of the inner world. Which is one reason I think that input from outside the system is desperately needed -- but it will be interesting to see if, over time, the outside vets become just as acclimated to the status quo as they become insiders themselves.


I guess I would consider being a judge for decades and rewarding these practices as ignoring it, but you're right. There's an old saying..If something is passed down through enough generations nothing is wrong..It's just 'the way it is.' 

Okay, what about the spaniel? Stop focusing on the bulldog because we don't know why she was eliminated. The only dog we know for sure about is the spaniel. If I were a Clumber breeder/showie, I'd be pretty furious at that judge. Where's the anger at him? Are we just pretending that dog was a once off? I don't get it.


----------



## Willowy

I'm pretty sure that no matter what the qualifications of the vet, his findings would be bashed. If he were a trained opthalmologist and the Bulldog was actually DQed for breathing problems, someone would jump on that. If he were a dog reproduction specialist, someone would say that he works with a lot of breeders so of course he's biased. Unless anyone is saying that the only way to have a fair vet exam is to have a team of specialists standing by. Which is ridiculous.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Willowy said:


> I'm pretty sure that no matter what the qualifications of the vet, his findings would be bashed. If he were a trained opthalmologist and the Bulldog was actually DQed for breathing problems, someone would jump on that. If he were a dog reproduction specialist, someone would say that he works with a lot of breeders so of course he's biased. Unless anyone is saying that the only way to have a fair vet exam is to have a team of specialists standing by. Which is ridiculous.



If the vet were a qualified ophthalmologist he'd be accused of bias against brachy breeds.

I agree, it's supposed to be similar to what a judge does. Maybe if judges had a team of specialists behind them for the last thirty years of pleading for these ridiculous practices to stop, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.


----------



## sassafras

Sad but true, I suspect.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Just saw on an Aus forum that the Neo was axed along with the Mastiff.


----------



## brandiw

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Just saw on an Aus forum that the Neo was axed along with the Mastiff.


That couldn't have surprised anyone.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

brandiw said:


> That couldn't have surprised anyone.


Not at all, I hope this a turning step for poor Neos. Such stunning dogs.


----------



## hast

sassafras said:


> I<snip> But like all politics, talking points and technicalities seem to be more important than the substance of whether or not the dog actually had a problem or not.


And I suspect this is why the general public is having a problem with dog shows. 



AussieNerdQueen said:


> <snip>
> When you need a check up do you go to a GP or a specialist?


I'd go to a GP if I needed breathing/eyes/and general health checked. Especially if it's a general check that doesn't require any 'medical instruments'. Many here seems to think that a Judge knows it all, why not someone who has 8 years of schooling?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sassafras said:


> Did this dog have a past injury? Otherwise, I can't help but speculate that the dog really does have a real health problem causing chronic irritation to the eye. But hopefully the report will clear that up. Hopefully it really is the document, although frankly it's hard for me to trust anything other than something released by the dog's owner vs. an anonymous "source".


I said in my post that the dog was blinded by an injury while working. The dog was running down a bull calf along a fence line. Some brush was growing along the fence. A branch poked it in the eye.


----------



## RaeganW

The dog Sassafras was referring to was the Bulldog.

And none of this matters, because there is absolutely no evidence that the bulldog has an eye injury anyway! The ONLY *fact* is the Clumber Spaniel was dismissed from competing in groups (NOT disqualified from every show ever) because of ectropion, and we KNOW that because the paperwork was leaked. NOT given out, leaked. 

If you are going to have an emotional meltdown, at least check your facts. Statements made up by other emotionally meltdowny people on a "we was robbed" facebook page ARE NOT FACTS.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

JohnnyBandit said:


> I said in my post that the dog was blinded by an injury while working. The dog was running down a bull calf along a fence line. Some brush was growing along the fence. A branch poked it in the eye.


If it were a similar case, surely they could provide vet documentation?


----------



## Miss Bugs

and how about a "real" similer case..when I had my Toller CERF'd the Ophthalmologist found several scratches on her cornea..he did NOT dismiss it as "all's good just an injury" he made me bring her back in 6 months to compare before he would give her a pass. 

that said, as RaeganW said above.. the "injury" is only rumour, NOT fact.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> (who are the ones who get to decide the dog fancy future now by the way).


I am not sure how you qualify that statement. 



I don't think we are every going to agree on the flashlight thing.... But let me say that there is absolutely no reason for a judge to use a flashlight. 
The parameters stated that the vet was to examine the dogs as a judge would. 

My issue with this.... 
They created the rules for this mickey mouse court. Then they violated them. How are the breeders going to hit a target that moves at the whim of someone making the rules. 


Everyone seems to get lost in pieces of what I have said. 

I am about to post the copy of the Clumber report. If it is true, then the dog has a problem. 
I have left the Clumber out of my discussions because of this. I have not mentioned the Peke at all...

But here is something to chew on.....
I have targeted my discussions around the bulldog.... And here is why.

The people surrounding this Bulldog are well respected in not just the bulldog world but the dog world in general.
Everyone keeps saying that they don't take the word of this owner. Some basically have called her a liar.

But the bulldog owner at this point has no reason to be less than truthful and great incentive to be very truthful and upfront about this entire matter. 
The owner has a lifetime spent building a reputation. Are they going to wreck that over one dog? 

The one's that are acting suspect in the entire matter is the Cruft staff. And here is why...
Why did the Clumber's vet report come out so quickly and yet the Bulldog's report still a mystery? 
If the Clumber's report is correct, they acted properly. 
But the Bulldog's report remains a mystery....

Anyway.... 

Here is the report... It is no big secret. It has been on Dog World UK 's site since yesterday....


----------



## JohnnyBandit

RaeganW said:


> The dog Sassafras was referring to was the Bulldog.
> 
> And none of this matters, because there is absolutely no evidence that the bulldog has an eye injury anyway! The ONLY *fact* is the Clumber Spaniel was dismissed from competing in groups (NOT disqualified from every show ever) because of ectropion, and we KNOW that because the paperwork was leaked. NOT given out, leaked.
> 
> If you are going to have an emotional meltdown, at least check your facts. Statements made up by other emotionally meltdowny people on a "we was robbed" facebook page ARE NOT FACTS.


Are you getting your information on facebook? Because I am not.....

And you must be talking about someone else with the emotional meltdown.... Because it ain't me...... 
This is entertainment for me..... I am sitting in my hotel room with nothing good on tv talking to people that are never going to see my point of view on the subject. Why would I expect any responses other than the ones I am getting? I knew that going in....


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> If it were a similar case, surely they could provide vet documentation?




I don't know that it is a similar case. Anyway.... There is no appeal process with this. The DQ's are final according to the KC. That was a bonehead move if there ever was one...... They left the owners of these dog's no choice but to go to the courts should they choose to challenge. The bulldog owner states there will be a challenge.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

I 'get that' the public will decide the future of the dog fancy because they already are. 

I think it's extremely rude to tell me 'we'll never agree..But I'm right.' The torch is a matter of opinion.

Your tunnel vision is concerning. You completely dismiss the fact the ONE dog we actually know the truth about was _rewarded by a judge_. The dog is not the one with a problem 'if that's the case.' The breeder is. The judge is. 

It doesn't matter why the bulldog's vet hasn't come out. Privacy of the client is my guess, and if the client told the vet to shut up I'm sure you'd still have your reasons as to 'why' they wanted privacy only in some aspects.

The fact is the average person is sick of the dog fancy and now they're doing something about it. As I said we've had thirty years to do something with the carrot approach. Now the public is using a stick. What matters to me is where we go from here to stop having vets at every show.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

JohnnyBandit said:


> Are you getting your information on facebook? Because I am not.....
> 
> And you must be talking about someone else with the emotional meltdown.... Because it ain't me......
> This is entertainment for me..... I am sitting in my hotel room with nothing good on tv talking to people that are never going to see my point of view on the subject. Why would I expect any responses other than the ones I am getting? I knew that going in....


What's with the superiority complex? You don't have any more information than I or anyone else here. You may see us a brick wall, but the people who disagree are a diverse group of people from me who always planned to show in the future, to Sass who 'could fit what she knows about showing under her pinky nail.' We're not just Animal Rights nuts. It's the average person who is sick of the dog fancy. Pretending we're all nuts does't help show breeders right now. That's my concern.


----------



## Xeph

All I'm saying is that the feelings of these breeders should be taken into account during this change. Lord knows I am freaking sick and tired of ignorant people calling my breed mutants when they don't have a clue what they should be looking at, or for (and I'm not talking about show structure here).

I will admit that out of all the breeds in the world, I believe the Cavalier is closest to ruination, and something must be done. But it isn't going to happen overnight, and I certainly am not enjoying the accusations flying that breeders do not care about their dogs (this is in general and not specific to this forum).


----------



## RaeganW

JohnnyBandit said:


> But here is something to chew on.....
> I have targeted my discussions around the bulldog.... And here is why.
> 
> The people surrounding this Bulldog are well respected in not just the bulldog world but the dog world in general.
> Everyone keeps saying that they don't take the word of this owner. Some basically have called her a liar.


Like you've basically called the vet a liar. And attributed motives out of thin air. And basically concocted an entire conspiracy to explain why the Bulldog was robbed of the win. Don't make conclusions that require additional assumptions when there is a simpler explanation.

Have you seen the video of the owner of the Clumber's reaction? She is asked point blank "Does the dog have ectropion?" and answers "No." Yet that is clearly written on the vet's report as the reason of dismissal. Is the Clumber's owner less respected in Clumbers than the Bulldog's owner is in Bulldogs? The Clumber Spaniel is a champion in some 30 countries. The owners of the dogs have clear motive to downplay and dismiss the results of the vet's exam.



> But the bulldog owner at this point has no reason to be less than truthful and great incentive to be very truthful and upfront about this entire matter.
> The owner has a lifetime spent building a reputation. Are they going to wreck that over one dog?


If the vet report is true, and the Bulldog owner agrees, what does the owner gain? Not a lot from where I'm sitting. They basically admit that they are intentionally producing defective dogs.
If the vet report is true, and the Bulldog owner does not agree, what does the owner gain? Quite a lot of sympathy and righteous outrage, judging by the internet reaction.
If the vet report is false, and the Bulldog owner contends that their dog is perfectly fine, what does the owner gain? Eventually moral satisfaction. But not a lot of reinforcement for the decision in the here and now.
If the vet report is false, and the Bulldog owner says their dog should have failed, what does the owner gain? Not a lot I can think of, possibly the moral upper hand, but it also means copping to intentionally breeding defective dogs. The history of breeders in general says this is not a likely response. Breeders have mostly failed at policing their own, which is what got them into this mess in the first place.

The only owner reaction I have seen to a dog being disqualified _is_ lying about what was found wrong with the dog and taking the defense that the dog is perfectly fine. That EVIDENCE of a similar situation is telling.



> The one's that are acting suspect in the entire matter is the Cruft staff. And here is why...
> Why did the Clumber's vet report come out so quickly and yet the Bulldog's report still a mystery?
> If the Clumber's report is correct, they acted properly.
> But the Bulldog's report remains a mystery....


The Clumber's report was LEAKED. It was not released by Crufts. Crufts policy is to not release the vet reports.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Xeph said:


> All I'm saying is that the feelings of these breeders should be taken into account during this change. Lord knows I am freaking sick and tired of ignorant people calling my breed mutants when they don't have a clue what they should be looking at, or for (and I'm not talking about show structure here).
> 
> I will admit that out of all the breeds in the world, I believe the Cavalier is closest to ruination, and something must be done. But it isn't going to happen overnight, and I certainly am not enjoying the accusations flying that breeders do not care about their dogs (this is in general and not specific to this forum).


The feelings of the show fancy were taken into consideration in the eighties when there was a gentle push with standards changing and lessons for judges. Here we are. We did this to ourselves.

People care more about the dogs now. People are angry.

I empathise with the breeders I know but I would be overjoyed if I was a breeder. I'll be thrilled to see Chihuahuas not bred to be one pound. I don't understand as i am not a breeder..Wouldn't you be happy these extremes were taken out of the ring? I'd be a mixture of very angry/very happy if I were a Clumber breeder for example.


----------



## RaeganW

JohnnyBandit said:


> Are you getting your information on facebook? Because I am not.....
> 
> And you must be talking about someone else with the emotional meltdown.... Because it ain't me......
> This is entertainment for me..... I am sitting in my hotel room with nothing good on tv talking to people that are never going to see my point of view on the subject. Why would I expect any responses other than the ones I am getting? I knew that going in....


Please name your sources. I have given all of my sources for everything I have put forward as fact (Crufts press releases about what dogs have failed their health checks and the leaked Clumber vet report). Specifically, what is the source for the eye injury of the Bulldog, and for that matter that the vet used a flashlight?

Mastiff and Neapolitan Mastiff fail vet checks: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/4205/23/5/3
Clumber Spaniel fails vet check: http://www.crufts.org.uk/news/clumber-spaniel-fails-crufts-vet-check
Bulldog and Pekingese fail vet check: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/4199/23/5/3
Clumber Spaniel vet report: see above.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

RaeganW said:


> Please name your sources. I have given all of my sources for everything I have put forward as fact (Crufts press releases about what dogs have failed their health checks and the leaked Clumber vet report). Specifically, what is the source for the eye injury of the Bulldog, and for that matter that the vet used a flashlight?


How do we even KNOW it was an eye injury? On an Aus forum it is believed the dog was eliminated for breathing difficulty, someone said the torch was a red herring and some of the show fancy gobbled it up. Who knows? The point is none of us do so why are we getting into a tizzy about the bulldog but _none_ of the other dogs?


----------



## Xeph

Because the Bulldog was a truly moderate example of its breed, and, IMO, a step in the right direction.

I am not a huge fan of Bulldogs. They're just not for me (CUTEST puppies ever though, OMG!!!!), however, when I watched this particular bitch move, I LOVED her. Easy, free flowing, not lumbering, not labored. I'm not saying she's not still exaggerated for a dog, but she's MUCH more moderate than many Bulls I have seen.


----------



## sassafras

RaeganW said:


> The dog Sassafras was referring to was the Bulldog.


Yes, thank you.



RaeganW said:


> The Clumber's report was LEAKED. It was not released by Crufts. Crufts policy is to not release the vet reports.


Using a flashlight = unethical. Leaking a report against Crufts policy (i.e., THE RULES) so it can be posted on the internet = ethical. LOLOLDERP.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Xeph said:


> Because the Bulldog was a truly moderate example of its breed, and, IMO, a step in the right direction.
> 
> I am not a huge fan of Bulldogs. They're just not for me (CUTEST puppies ever though, OMG!!!!), however, when I watched this particular bitch move, I LOVED her. Easy, free flowing, not lumbering, not labored. I'm not saying she's not still exaggerated for a dog, but she's MUCH more moderate than many Bulls I have seen.


I agree, but if the dog had a health problem, it had a health problem.


----------



## Xeph

*shrugs* We really don't know if it did or didn't, if reports aren't being released.

I don't know why I'm posting on this thread. Really not in my best interest to do so.


----------



## RaeganW

sassafras said:


> Using a flashlight = unethical. Leaking a report against Crufts policy so it can be posted on the internet = ethical. LOLOLDERP.


LOL touche`.

But, this is how I rationalize it.

IF the vet used a flashlight in his examination of the dog (I have not seen any evidence on this point), and the rules say he's supposed to visually examine the dog with no instruments/as a judge would, then he broke the rules he agreed to play by. To me there is a difference between using a flashlight to see better and to examine the inside of an eye. I have been to eye doctors that used a flashlight to examine my eyes.

The Clumber report, as far as I know, was photographed by someone not affiliated with Crufts. So, no, it's not ethical because it was not intended to make it to the public. But it's a different kind of not ethical because it wasn't made by the institution. Does that make sense? And regardless of how it got out, it's information that can be used to draw conclusions.


----------



## sassafras

RaeganW said:


> To me there is a difference between using a flashlight to see better and to examine the inside of an eye.


I assure you, you cannot examine the INSIDE of a dog's eye with a flashlight. But it can help you see things on the surface of the eye better in some instances, especially in a dark eyed dog. To me, it's no different than using a flashlight to see between the toes or the armpit or whatever. But on this, I suspect we shall never agree. 

IF the vet even used a flashlight. And IF a scar on the eye was really the reason it was dismissed.


----------



## RaeganW

sassafras said:


> I assure you, you cannot examine the INSIDE of a dog's eye with a flashlight. But it can help you see things on the surface of the eye better in some instances, especially in a dark eyed dog. To me, it's no different than using a flashlight to see between the toes or the armpit or whatever. But on this, I suspect we shall never agree.
> 
> IF the vet even used a flashlight. And IF a scar on the eye was really the reason it was dismissed.


Ok. I forget what you have but you have some kind of animal medical training, so in this I will defer to your experience.


----------



## Xeph

It was unethical of the offending party to post a picture of information that was supposed to be private (For all the good it does, if they're claiming to try and improve the health of these dogs). However, that is not the fault of the Kennel Club, as it was not an "inside job".

I believe that is what you're saying, Raegan, yes?


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Xeph said:


> *shrugs* We really don't know if it did or didn't, if reports aren't being released.
> 
> I don't know why I'm posting on this thread. Really not in my best interest to do so.


I know, i only meant on the assumption it was a fair DQ. 

Why isn't it in your best interest? I think it's great for showies to be on here, anyone can read these boards. Good for the public to see we don't all support one pound Chis and hair removal cream/epilation on Cresteds/Xolos etc.


----------



## RaeganW

Xeph said:


> It was unethical of the offending party to post a picture of information that was supposed to be private (For all the good it does, if they're claiming to try and improve the health of these dogs). However, that is not the fault of the Kennel Club, as it was not an "inside job".
> 
> I believe that is what you're saying, Raegan, yes?


That is correct.


----------



## Xeph

> I think it's great for showies to be on here, anyone can read these boards


Because I do not agree with the way this is being handled. I do think there is a need for change, but the way these "vet checks" are being carried out do not convince me that the purpose is being fulfilled, and, as a show exhibitor, I do not like my hobby of choice (one of few I am heavily interested and involved in) being attacked.

I just want to be left in peace to show my dogs without people hounding me and saying untrue things about the animals I own.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Xeph said:


> Because I do not agree with the way this is being handled. I do think there is a need for change, but the way these "vet checks" are being carried out do not convince me that the purpose is being fulfilled, and, as a show exhibitor, I do not like my hobby of choice (one of few I am heavily interested and involved in) being attacked.
> 
> I just want to be left in peace to show my dogs without people hounding me and saying untrue things about the animals I own.


I think we all do. I don't agree with the way this is being handled either, but I guess I see this as the breeders who chose to ignore the changes in the eighties fault. My anger lies with those breeders/judges for this. 

I want to know now we're in this mess, what are we going to DO to stop this hobby being destroyed? How do we show these idiots are the minority? I feel quite helpless as with Aus Chi breeders my voice is lost.


----------



## sassafras

Xeph said:


> It was unethical of the offending party to post a picture of information that was supposed to be private (For all the good it does, if they're claiming to try and improve the health of these dogs). However, that is not the fault of the Kennel Club, as it was not an "inside job".
> 
> I believe that is what you're saying, Raegan, yes?


I don't care whose "fault" it is... my point is more about the discussion here... that either doing things "against the rules" (which I'm not convinced using the flashlight was anyway) is right or wrong. And if it's wrong, don't turn around and post a leaked document claiming the source is "reliable" (ethical?) after going on about how unethical (unreliable?) the vet was for using a flashlight... it damages one's credibility at best.


----------



## sassafras

Xeph said:


> Because I do not agree with the way this is being handled. I do think there is a need for change, but the way these "vet checks" are being carried out do not convince me that the purpose is being fulfilled, and, as a show exhibitor, I do not like my hobby of choice (one of few I am heavily interested and involved in) being attacked.


Here's my thing... things like "oh, ALL Clumbers have ectropion, so it's ok" Should. Not. Be. Acceptable. Period. I think that over time people just don't SEE something like ectropion in Clumbers, not that it's not there, and there's no reason for it other than over the years people have chosen to turn a blind eye until it becomes "normal". But it's NOT normal.

So yea, the vet checks are like a bucket of icy water over the head. And yes, it's a big adjustment to make all at once, but that's what happens when something that was supposed to be self-policing didn't appear to self-police - standards are imposed from the outside. In some ways the hobby is its own worst enemy. "Leave us alone, trust us, we know best, you can't possibly understand" isn't going to cut it anymore in the eyes of the public. And it sucks for the people caught in the crossfire, but it's a situation that's been created over years and years of bad becoming normal. AR isn't to blame. The volunteer vets aren't to blame. The bad apples IN the hobby are to blame, and the status quo is to blame.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Anyway..... I was asked last night what would work because I said this will not work......

First expanding on why this will not work. A Registering body does not have the juice to enforce all of this. You will not see the AKC or UKC trying this stunt in the US. But The KC tried it. Well it is going to backfire. Because no one is forcing the breeders to compete in the UK. France and the rest of Europe is right across the channel. Breeders and owners in the UK can travel there as easily is I can go to shows in the US. Right at this moment, I am at a show 190 miles from my home. I will be at a show another 40 or 50 miles South of here next weekend. Take a map and figure out how far a couple hundred miles gets you in mainland Europe. 

And what is to stop another Registry starting up in the UK? It could be put in place quickly. Some could say the new registry would have no legitimacy. Maybe and maybe not.... Depends on who jumps ship. 

And that is why the AKC and UKC will never do anything like this.... Because there are two sometimes competing registering bodies already in place in the US. 

I don't know who at the KC thought this was a good idea. But it was a fools errand. And now if they go back without another plan in place.



So how do they change things? 

*First!!! IT IS IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE TO REMEMBER THE BREEDS IN TROUBLE DID NOT GET THIS WAY OVER NIGHT! THEY ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE OVER NIGHT EITHER. IT IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS REVISING A STANDARD. CHANCES ARE THAT DOING THAT MIGHT ELEMINATE FAR TO MANY DOGS. MAKING THE PROBLEM WORSE, NOT BETTER.*

To see change...... Real, Positive change, not smoke and mirrors shows for the media, it is going to take generations. 
Setting it up is not going to happen overnight either. 
This change needs to happen at the parent breed club levels. In reading and research on this, (not on facebook as some suggested) it appears that the breed clubs in the UK are pretty far behind most of the breed clubs in the US. And even farther behind much of the rest of Europe in regard to this. 

We know what the problems are in the breeds. 
So mandate that the breed clubs come up with a plan to breed away from those problems. 
That is it..... The Solution is simple, implementing is is harder.

It has to be a breed by breed basis. Some issues are not cut and dry, others are very complicated. PRA for example. You have clear, carriers, and affected. You can breed carriers to clear without producing any affected offspring. 

So....
Note the issues that need improvement, detail how to accomplish it, along with a realistic timeline. 

Anyway.... How to implement them. 
Most of the breed clubs that are going to do this have already put something in place. 

Two options....
Government intervention or Kennel Club Intervention. 
I am not in love with either but forced change often has some sour apples that must be eaten.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> I think it's extremely rude to tell me 'we'll never agree..But I'm right.' The torch is a matter of opinion.
> 
> .


Where did I make a statement that I was right? I sure wish you would quote it. You added your own little spin to a statement I made and then have the audacity to call me rude..... Thats rich....

And I did not dismiss the Clumber....


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> I
> 
> Your tunnel vision is concerning. You completely dismiss the fact the ONE dog we actually know the truth about was _rewarded by a judge_. The dog is not the one with a problem 'if that's the case.' The breeder is. The judge is.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is the average person is sick of the dog fancy and now they're doing something about it. As I said we've had thirty years to do something with the carrot approach. Now the public is using a stick. What matters to me is where we go from here to stop having vets at every show.


What tunnel vision? I have agreed, in fact stated multiple times on this very thread that changes NEED to come in some breeds. You, I, and most everyone else agrees on that. If I have tunnel vision, then I suppose we all do.

What we have disagreed on is how to enact that change..... 

Some folks are applauding this act.... I am saying it will not work. Time will tell whom is correct. 

BTW the public did not enact this. If they had is would be via legislation or other legal acts. This is a kennel club thing. They enacted it. I will give that public pressure played a role. But it was theirs to enact......



sassafras said:


> I assure you, you cannot examine the INSIDE of a dog's eye with a flashlight. But it can help you see things on the surface of the eye better in some instances, especially in a dark eyed dog. To me, it's no different than using a flashlight to see between the toes or the armpit or whatever. But on this, I suspect we shall never agree.
> 
> IF the vet even used a flashlight. And IF a scar on the eye was really the reason it was dismissed.


A judge does not examine the inside of a dogs eye.....


----------



## Pai

Apparently, the AKC President has sent out emails saying that they will never, ever do what the KC is doing now. Whatever the breed clubs want and the judges decide will always be their final word on the matter. So... yeah. The AKC folks who are appalled at the KC's current policies can rest easy.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> What's with the superiority complex? You don't have any more information than I or anyone else here. You may see us a brick wall, but the people who disagree are a diverse group of people from me who always planned to show in the future, to Sass who 'could fit what she knows about showing under her pinky nail.' We're not just Animal Rights nuts. It's the average person who is sick of the dog fancy. Pretending we're all nuts does't help show breeders right now. That's my concern.


No superiority complex..... I was accused of having an emotional breakdown.... I explained the way it was. 

Yes I see you as a brick wall..... And you have said nothing to suggest otherwise. And you don't know if I have the same info or not. 
I did not start that tangent...... Someone else chose to get nasty. All I did is clear up where I was coming from.......


----------



## sassafras

JohnnyBandit said:


> A judge does not examine the inside of a dogs eye.....



Ok. Not sure you're understanding my point, or if you did, what your point is. Because what I'm saying is, neither did this vet IF s/he used a flashlight. You need an ophthalmoscope to examine the inside of the eye, which a flashlight is not.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

I believe if another registry is started it would just fail. Breeders need the puppy buyers whether it's nice to admit or not, and sice this is instigated by the public I don't think they'd be amused or supportive. 

Also unsure what you mean bu saying Europe is 'behind?' In the eyes of the average person in my country, America is behind for still allowing cropping and docking. Or do you mean behind show wise? I still don't see how but okay. 

Yes, things won't change overnight but the KC gave breeders the generations you now refer too that breeders need to change the breeds. If breeders had _listened _thirty years ago, this wouldn't be happening.

Issues that are not black and white will now be made black and white because we didn't self regulate.

What has happened has happened. The question is where from here?

I wouldn't be too comfortable with 'don't worry, we won't do this' by the AKC. The ANKC is saying the same thing..We don't have any huge Aussie shows though. I believe that changed is here to stay and will be implemented or forced on in one way or another.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

JohnnyBandit said:


> No superiority complex..... I was accused of having an emotional breakdown.... I explained the way it was.
> 
> Yes I see you as a brick wall..... And you have said nothing to suggest otherwise. And you don't know if I have the same info or not.
> I did not start that tangent...... Someone else chose to get nasty. All I did is clear up where I was coming from.......


It's a shame, because you don't see that you are the brick wall. A huge diverse group of people are fighting showies, they just can't see it's not just PETA people.You also can't see how serious this is for the dog world.

You have the same info. If you didn't, your statements would be more informed.


----------



## RaeganW

JohnnyBandit said:


> *First!!! IT IS IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE TO REMEMBER THE BREEDS IN TROUBLE DID NOT GET THIS WAY OVER NIGHT! THEY ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE OVER NIGHT EITHER. IT IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS REVISING A STANDARD. CHANCES ARE THAT DOING THAT MIGHT ELEMINATE FAR TO MANY DOGS. MAKING THE PROBLEM WORSE, NOT BETTER.*
> 
> To see change...... Real, Positive change, not smoke and mirrors shows for the media, it is going to take generations.
> Setting it up is not going to happen overnight either.


At this point, I doubt the problem can be solved within the closed registry system. I think to see change, you have to open the stud books.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

RaeganW said:


> Please name your sources. I have given all of my sources for everything I have put forward as fact (Crufts press releases about what dogs have failed their health checks and the leaked Clumber vet report). Specifically, what is the source for the eye injury of the Bulldog, and for that matter that the vet used a flashlight?
> 
> Mastiff and Neapolitan Mastiff fail vet checks: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/4205/23/5/3
> Clumber Spaniel fails vet check: http://www.crufts.org.uk/news/clumber-spaniel-fails-crufts-vet-check
> Bulldog and Pekingese fail vet check: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/4199/23/5/3
> Clumber Spaniel vet report: see above.


No you have not put forward facts. You have put forward are Reports from Crufts......You are assuming they contain fact....

And yes the Clumber report was leaked. But who leaked it? I don't know. It could have been leaked by Crufts because of the outrage. As a way of saying see..... This is why we are doing this. Maybe, maybe not....


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> It's a shame, because you don't see that you are the brick wall. A huge diverse group of people are fighting showies, they just can't see it's not just PETA people.You also can't see how serious this is for the dog world.
> 
> You have the same info. If you didn't, your statements would be more informed.


I am not a brick wall... I have suggested change is needed..... You seem very convinced this is going to work. The brick goes the other way....

The ONLY thing you, me, Sas, Reagan, etc disagree on is that you all seemed convinced this is a step in the right direction. And I see it as a smoke and mirrors show. 

This is serious in the UK for UK breeders and the KC and Crufts......

This is not going to happen in the US..... Someone said that the AKC sent out an email stating this will never happen here..... I have not seen such an email or anything on it. I am the President of a regional AKC club, plus I am personally signed up for AKC communication. I have not seen anything yet. 
But I will say this, at the show I was at today with my dog the AKC rep was doing their best to re assure everyone to relax, that the AKC was going to be coming out with a very strong statement on the matter. I imagine it ill come out early next week. 

What happens in the UK or Australia for that matter does not often happen in the US. With dogs or other things.


----------



## Xeph

It may not be meant offensively, but I know I'd prefer not to be referred to as a "showie". The connotation just feels wholly negative :-/


----------



## JohnnyBandit

RaeganW said:


> At this point, I doubt the problem can be solved within the closed registry system. I think to see change, you have to open the stud books.


I will agree with that statement in some breeds....


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

JohnnyBandit said:


> I am not a brick wall... I have suggested change is needed..... You seem very convinced this is going to work. The brick goes the other way....
> 
> The ONLY thing you, me, Sas, Reagan, etc disagree on is that you all seemed convinced this is a step in the right direction. And I see it as a smoke and mirrors show.
> 
> This is serious in the UK for UK breeders and the KC and Crufts......
> 
> This is not going to happen in the US..... Someone said that the AKC sent out an email stating this will never happen here..... I have not seen such an email or anything on it. I am the President of a regional AKC club, plus I am personally signed up for AKC communication. I have not seen anything yet.
> But I will say this, at the show I was at today with my dog the AKC rep was doing their best to re assure everyone to relax, that the AKC was going to be coming out with a very strong statement on the matter. I imagine it ill come out early next week.
> 
> What happens in the UK or Australia for that matter does not often happen in the US. With dogs or other things.


Again, you're saying 'no I'm right and you're wrong.' Your opinion is you're not getting through to me. I get you, I just don't agree. And vice versa. 

Actually I said repeatedly I _don't_ agree with this. I have said I understand it. I have repeatedly said that I do not want the future of the dog fancy destroyed. I am just focusing on what we already have here to deal with and you're focusing on what has happened. 

As for saying that just because it happened here and in the UK it won't happen there..Crufts is a international century old dog show. I would say we ALL need to take this seriously.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Xeph said:


> It may not be meant offensively, but I know I'd prefer not to be referred to as a "showie". The connotation just feels wholly negative :-/


It does not bother me if she uses it. But I take it as a derogeratory term as well......


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Xeph said:


> It may not be meant offensively, but I know I'd prefer not to be referred to as a "showie". The connotation just feels wholly negative :-/


Sorry, it's the term Aussie showies use for each other. No offence intended. We tend to abbreviate everything to end with 'ee.'


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

JohnnyBandit said:


> It does not bother me if she uses it. But I take it as a derogeratory term as well......


Why? Does the word have ugly history in your country? There are a lot of terms and words I am careful not to use here or try my best not to but I cannot change my entire culture and vocabulary because some people take a word derogatorily. 

Since I myself have always dreamed of showing it's hardly intended that I am purposely being offensive. Which is how I take this post.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Again, you're saying 'no I'm right and you're wrong.' Your opinion is you're not getting through to me. I get you, I just don't agree. And vice versa.
> 
> Actually I said repeatedly I _don't_ agree with this. I have said I understand it. I have repeatedly said that I do not want the future of the dog fancy destroyed. I am just focusing on what we already have here to deal with and you're focusing on what has happened.
> 
> As for saying that just because it happened here and in the UK it won't happen there..Crufts is a international century old dog show. I would say we ALL need to take this seriously.


Your twisting words again. I have never said I am right and your wrong. Seems to me you are playing that because I don't agree with you.No offense meant but I find it amusing that you keep calling me a brick wall.


----------



## RaeganW

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Why? Does the word have ugly history in your country? There are a lot of terms and words I am careful not to use here or try my best not to but I cannot change my entire culture and vocabulary because some people take a word derogatorily.
> 
> Since I myself have always dreamed of showing it's hardly intended that I am purposely being offensive. Which is how I take this post.


It's diminutive. It's a way of talking down to someone. It's like calling someone "lil lady."


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

JohnnyBandit said:


> Your twisting words again. I have never said I am right and your wrong. Seems to me you are playing that because I don't agree with you.No offense meant but I find it amusing that you keep calling me a brick wall.


No offence taken, I know you don't see my point of view.


----------



## RaeganW

JohnnyBandit said:


> No you have not put forward facts. You have put forward are Reports from Crufts......You are assuming they contain fact....
> 
> And yes the Clumber report was leaked. But who leaked it? I don't know. It could have been leaked by Crufts because of the outrage. As a way of saying see..... This is why we are doing this. Maybe, maybe not....


LOL! What untrue thing do any of those releases from Crufts contain? "[Breed] failed it's vet check and will not be showing in group competition."


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

RaeganW said:


> It's diminutive. It's a way of talking down to someone. It's like calling someone "lil lady."


Everything Australians say sounds that way. If people are so offended I'll stop but I cannot deny not understanding. Must be a cultural thing. *Shrug* Certainly no malice behind my words.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> No offence taken, I know you don't see my point of view.


 Oh I see your point of view. I just don't see how you think anything good is going to come out of this.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Everything Australians say sounds that way. If people are so offended I'll stop but I cannot deny not understanding. Must be a cultural thing. *Shrug* Certainly no malice behind my words.


I said I didn't care if you used it. I said it felt derogatory. I don't know why would have found that as offensive.


----------



## begemot

Xeph said:


> All I'm saying is that the feelings of these breeders should be taken into account during this change.


But... the breeders involved did this. To the dogs. The dogs are the victims. What do you imagine happening differently when you say the breeders' feelings should be taken into account? Because they _feel _that they should be able to do whatever they want, even if it means producing dogs that tangibly, undeniably suffer in their own bodies. I find a plea to consider their "feelings" a bit tactless.

They need to adapt if they don't want to become obsolete. And the paranoid hysteria and chicken-little crufts-is-dead crap is hurting them more than anyone else. Those individuals are their own worst enemies here, not the vets or the other people who want to make things better.


About the english bulldog being "moderate" -- the vet isn't there to judge conformation by breed. They're not qualified to do that, and stop to think for a moment: would you really want vets making those judgements? No, I'm sure you don't.

They are there in a very limited capacity, solely to look for clear evidence of specific health problems, which is what they are qualified to do. So I find the whole idea that they shouldn't have DQ'd the english bulldog because she's "moderate" to be wrongheaded. You don't really want the vets involved in that kind of judgement.

About the flashlight controversy, has anyone actually linked to proof that the vets weren't supposed to use any kind of devices at all in their examination? Because as far as I've found, the only things not allowed were _medical devices_ (stethoscopes, etc.) used to measure _internal _characteristics.


ETA, whoops, I missed a few pages, so now this is a little out of context.



sassafras said:


> Here's my thing... things like "oh, ALL Clumbers have ectropion, so it's ok" Should. Not. Be. Acceptable. Period. I think that over time people just don't SEE something like ectropion in Clumbers, not that it's not there, and there's no reason for it other than over the years people have chosen to turn a blind eye until it becomes "normal". But it's NOT normal.
> 
> So yea, the vet checks are like a bucket of icy water over the head. And yes, it's a big adjustment to make all at once, but that's what happens when something that was supposed to be self-policing didn't appear to self-police - standards are imposed from the outside. In some ways the hobby is its own worst enemy. "Leave us alone, trust us, we know best, you can't possibly understand" isn't going to cut it anymore in the eyes of the public. And it sucks for the people caught in the crossfire, but it's a situation that's been created over years and years of bad becoming normal. AR isn't to blame. The volunteer vets aren't to blame. The bad apples IN the hobby are to blame, and the status quo is to blame.


+1111

Xeph, I think it's in the best interests of breeders to try to step back, stop feeling defensive like it's a personal attack, and try to adapt. The vet checks really are about making sure that people stop following unhealthy models.

I wonder how many breeders and enthusiasts out there are actually breathing a sigh of relief right now?


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

JohnnyBandit said:


> Oh I see your point of view. I just don't see how you think anything good is going to come out of this.


It's up to the show breeders whether anything good comes of this. It could be a turn around for the purebred world, or it could be the beginning of the end. We're in the situation now, right, wrong or in between; and I want to work out how to turn this into a positive.

Cannot deny I believe DQing a dog with those sort of eye issues (Clumber) is a good thing though. Hopefully this does lead to the breeding of less extreme dogs or in some breeds dogs with better temperamenta etc. I believe that will be the next course of attack so that's what I'm focusing on.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

I saw on another forum that the vet for the bulldog was an equine vet..Has information about what the vet specialises in actually been released or is it all gossip and hear say?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

BTW I found the AKC President's Statement.


5 hours ago · reply · retweet · favorite


Join the conversation





7. GCH CH Szumeria's Wildwood Silver Six Pence, "Tanner" 





8. GCH CH Oakley's B'Dazzled, "Dazzle" 





9. GCH CH Banana Joe V Tani Kazari 





10. GCH CH Marlex Classic Red Glare, "Classie" 




BARGAINS






DOGS2WATCH (Click on the Name for a Photo)

American Foxhound, GCH CH Kiarry's Pandora's Box. "Jewel"
Wire Fox Terrier, CH Afterall Paint the Sky, "Sky"
Toy Poodle, GCH CH Smash Jp Sakura' "Sakura"
Harrier, GCH CH Downhome Hi-Tech Innovator, "Chet"
Pomeranian, GCH CH CR Chase What Matters. "Chase"
English Setter, GCH CH Oakley's B'Dazzled, "Dazzle"
Miniature Poodle, GCH CH Surrey Sugar Baby, "Sugar Baby"
Cardigan Welsh Corgi, GCH CH Aubrey's Tails of Mystery, "Libby"
Lakeland Terrier, CH Larkspur Acadia Save Me A Spot, "Spot"
Norwich Terrier, GCH CH Skyscot's Hold'Em, "Decker"
Kerry Blue Terrier, GCH CH Perrisblu Kennislain's Chelsey, "Chelsey"
German Wirehaired Pointer, GCH CH Mt View’s Ripsnorter Silver Charm, "Oakley"
15" Beagle, GCH CH Langrigg Star of the Stage, "Sage"
Border Terrier, GCH CH Meadowlake Simply Sinful, "Maya"
Pembroke Welsh Corgi, GCH CH Dalarno Nite Song At Morningstar, "Spencer"
German Shepherd Dog, CH Babheim's Captain Crunch, "Capi"
Standard Poodle, GCH CH Dacun Kaylen's He's A Heartbreaker, "Thomas"
Pug, GCH CH Caper’s Sirius Endeavor, "Rufus"
Boxer, GCH CH Conquest-Rosend's New Kid In Town, "Riley"
Bichon Frise, CH PaRay Power & Privilege, "Dominick"
Boxer, GCH CH R And G’s Mystical Dancer, "Danny"
German Shepherd Dog, GCH CH Enchanted's American Thunder, "Stormy"
Miniature Pinscher, GCH CH Marlex Classic Red Glare, "Classie"
American Staffordshire Terrier, GCH CH Alpine’s Highwayman, "Jelly"
Akita, GCH CH Nakodo's Regin Of Glory, "Echo"
Pug, CH Kenshai's And That The Way It Is, "Walter"
the Kuvasz, CH Szumeria’s Wildwood Silver Six Pence, "Tanner"
Standard Poodle, CH Brighton Lakeridge Encore
Smooth Chihuahua, CH Lugari Holiday Rocco, "Rocco"
Doberman Pinscher, CH Protocol's Veni Vidi Vici, "FiFi"
American Staffordshire Terrier, CH Castle Rock's Sbigstaff Mad About You, "Maddy"
Shih Tzu, CH Hallmark Jolei Austin Powers
Whippet, CH Starline Chanel, "Chanel"
Black Cocker Spaniel, CH Casablanca’s Thrilling Seduction, "Beckham"
Smooth Fox Terrier, CH Slyfox Sneaks A Peek, "Adam"
Greyhound, CH Grandcru Clos Erasmus, "Era"
Alaskan Malamute, CH Catanya’s Latin Lover,"Ricky"
Great Dane, GCH CH Lobato's Jitterbug Man, "James"
Briard, Eastbay Déjà Vu Enjoy The Ride




SHOW INFO

AKC WEEKLY WINS
INFODOG
JACK BRADSHAW
ONOFRIO







Recent Viewers





borderwars1 day ago





shibasenji1 day ago





knowingtech8 days ago



Powered By BlogCatalog









Saturday, March 10, 2012




PALM BEACH COUNTY KC 1 






GCH CH Marlex Classic Red Glare 


Just think. All those folks who spent all that money to go to England for the Crufts show could have stayed here in the US and gone to the Palm Beach County Kennel Club show today in that Florida resort town. Seven who did were the handlers of Donald Buxbaum’s finalists, the Golden Retriever, CH Happy Hour Highmark Toasty, the Whippet, GCH CH Sporting Field’s Bahama Sands, the Boxer, CH Bullet Vancroft's You Must Remember This, the Skye Terrier, GCH CH Of Skyeline Captain Hook, the Miniature Pinscher, GCH CH Marlex Classic Red Glare, the Standard Poodle, D'Gani Iconic Princess Di, and the Rough Collie, GCH CH Sylvan Argent Simply Irresistible. 



Best went to the MinPin Classie. Classie is sitting in the Number Ten All Breed spot with six BIS this year.


Posted by Billy Wheeler at 7:13 PM 0 comments 







FRANKLIN TN DAY THREE 






GCH CH Dante’s Fire When Ready HOF


Back here in the USA, where only an AKC licensed judge can disqualify you, Carolyn Herbel was reviewing seven premium examples of the AKC purebred dog at today’s Tullahoma Kennel Club of Tennessee show in Franklin TN. The seven she saw were the Black Cocker Spaniel, GCH CH Casablanca’s Thrilling Seduction, the Bloodhound, GCH CH Heathers A Little Night Music, the Giant Schnauzer, GCH CH Skansen’s Holy Knight, the Border Terrier, GCH CH Meadowlake’s Simply sinful, the Toy Fox Terrier, GCH CH Barbary Rough 'N Ready, the Schipperke, GCH CH Dante’s Fire When Ready HOF, and the Cardigan Welsh Corgi, GCH CH Aubrey’s tails of Mystery.

BIS was the Schipperke, TJ. TJ and handler Erin Roberts have sat atop the Breed for the last four years finishing 2011 with two all breed Bests and 27 Non-Sporting Groups. It’s their first of 2012. Congratulations to Erin, breeders Gene Johnson & Amy Gossman, and owners Amy Gossman, Michael Jameson MD, P Allsion & Sandra Middlebrooks.



Posted by Billy Wheeler at 6:23 PM 0 comments 







AKC TAKES A STAND 










Dennis Sprung, AKC President & CEO


The controversy over the british kennel Club's new certification of breed winners at Crufts has prompted the American Kennel Club to respond. The AKC is preparing an official press release concerning the controversy over the disqualifications at Crufts becasue of the Br, but we want to share a preliminary message from Dennis Sprung, AKC President & Chief Executive Officer.


From: Dennis Sprung [mailto[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 5:26 PM
Subject: Fw: Any advice for Bulldog Club of America (BCA) and the other targeted breeds??

my response to staff is below and I am sending to you for PCs to know what is going on as emails and texts are flying (Unfortunately tonight BOB was also taken away from the Clumber Spaniel)..

From: Dennis Sprung
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 08:44 AM
To: Robin Stansell; Sheila Goffe; Margaret Poindexter; John Lyons
Cc: Gina DiNardo
Subject: Re: Any advice for Bulldog Club of America (BCA) and the other targeted breeds??

We should prepare a statement after all facts are in. However you can assure and share with everyone that AKC will NEVER allow any such practice to occur. Our Parent Clubs own their respective standard and we support them 100 percent. Furthermore a Judges' decision is final and we respect that as well. The situation is a very disappointing one here from the point of view of breeders, exhibitors and judges and fanciers from around the world. In summary while our PCs have a right to be upset and concerned I will never allow this wrongful practice in America. Never!!! Dennis


----------



## JohnnyBandit

And this is the Q and A right off the Crufts site.

High Profile Best of Breed Veterinary Checks - FAQs








Q. Could the Kennel Club explain its reasoning for this Veterinary check when
an accredited expert, the Judge, has already agreed to penalise any features or exaggerations they would consider detrimental to the soundness, health and wellbeing of the dog?
A. The decision to implement Veterinary checks was taken by the General Committee on the advice of the Kennel Club Dog Health Group, in order to ensure that the fifteen high profile breeds, 14 of which suffer from health issues associated with exaggerated conformation and as a result attract the greatest criticism, do not bring the whole hobby of dog showing into disrepute.

The purpose of the Veterinary check is for the Vet to look for visible conditions causing pain or discomfort under the headings; externally visible eye disease, lameness, dermatological / skin disorders and respiratory / breathing difficulty.

This will be a Veterinary observation and opinion at the time, for the purpose of establishing whether the dog is fit to continue on to the group competition on the day. It is not intended in any way for Vets to act as a Show Judge of conformation. For example, Vets will not assess gait in relation to conformational inadequacies.

This acts as an independent verification of the absence of clinical signs affecting the health and wellbeing or soundness of the animal associated with exaggeration of conformation.

A Judge in the first instance should note clinical signs associated with exaggerations and penalise excessive exaggeration. This is a subjective view based on experience. The Veterinary check ensures that the Judge has not permitted a dog with clinical signs to enter the ring for the Group Competition.

The clinical signs include:
• Lameness – including ‘hopping’
•Inappropriate temperament whether this is excessive timidity or aggression
• A discharge from one or both eyes or any signs of discomfort in either eye especially if associated with poor eyelid conformation
• Obvious breathing difficulty
• Obvious skin or ear irritation or inflammation

Q. This procedure could lead to a considerable loss of entries by exhibitors who do not want their dog to undergo a Veterinary check. Shouldn’t the Kennel Club look for a different approach?
A. This is part of an overall approach and it is the Kennel Club’s view that if exhibitors are not prepared to accept a Veterinary inspection; this has to be their decision. Feedback so far from the high profile breeds has not indicated this to be a problem since exhibitors believe their dogs to be healthy. The focus should at all times be on the health and welfare of the dogs.

Q. What is the purpose of the Veterinary check?
A. The dog declared Best of Breed / Best Any Variety Not Separately Classified from a breed designated by the Kennel Club as a High Profile Breed is not eligible to compete in the Group competition unless it has passed an examination by the Show’s Veterinary Surgeon. The Veterinary check is necessary in order to satisfy the eligibility requirements for the Group competition. The Veterinary check is also required for confirmation of a Champion Award.

Q. What will the Vet look for?
A. The Vet will be checking for obvious signs of ill health and especially for signs of eye discomfort or inflammation, lameness, respiratory difficulty and skin inflammation and no special diagnostic aids will be used so all of these signs of ill health would be noticeable by the Judge. Championship level Judges have a minimum of 7 years judging experience as well as significant experience as exhibitors and breeders; therefore, the Kennel Club is confident that Judges are able to recognise visible conditions which may cause health and welfare concerns i.e. lameness, painful sore eyes, skin irritations and obvious respiratory problems.

Show Society

Veterinary Health Checks for High Profile Breeds - Show Society Information


Veterinary Health Checks for High Profile Breeds - Veterinary Surgeon Information



Q. Will the Kennel Club be nominating the Vet to carry out these checks?
A. No, it will be the responsibility of the Vet appointed by the Show Society to carry out the checks.

Q. What if a Show Vet advises he will increase his fee to do these checks, will the Kennel Club be making a contribution towards the cost?
A. This fee is between the Vet and the Show Society to arrange. If Vets are not currently charging for their services, it is understandable that they might now charge for the additional work. Some Vets could charge a nominal fee to sign the Veterinary check form. However, those already being paid may choose not to increase their fee, or may avoid increasing the fee until they understand how much extra work is involved.

Q. Can the Show Society appoint a different Vet for the Best of Breed checks?
A. Yes, but the Vet must have received the Kennel Club briefing for this task.

Q. Some Shows may change a Show Vet or some Vets may not have been able to attend the Kennel Club briefing. Will the Kennel Club provide Societies with an information pack to be used by the Show, detailing those conditions which need to be checked for each breed?
A. Yes, Show Societies will have an information pack which is available from the
Canine Activities Department; however as far as possible Vets should receive a briefing from the Kennel Club.

Q. What if the appointed Vet cannot attend on the day of the Show?
A. Show Societies are required to have Veterinary cover at the Show and therefore a Vet will have to be appointed.

Q. What happens if there is no Vet at the Show or the Veterinary check cannot be conducted in time for the Group?
A. Without a successful Veterinary check the Best of Breed is ineligible for the Group Competition.

Q. Would owners be required to provide ID to prove the dog presented for the check is the correct dog?
A. There is an expectation that the exhibitors will not compromise their integrity. However, the Vet could, if they wished, scan the dog for a microchip and record the number.

Q. When checking for movement, does the dog have to be examined on the same type of surface as it was moved for the Judge?
A. No. The surface should be selected by the Veterinary Surgeon to allow him/her to make a reasonable assessment of soundness of movement.

Q. It may prove difficult for some societies to provide an area suitably private for the Veterinary check to take place. Shows will not wish to spend money on hiring specific undercover areas in which to carry out checks, and at some venues it may not even be possible to do so.
A. This has not proved a problem at Crufts where space is always at a premium. It is not expected that this will prove an issue.

Q. Will Specimen Schedules carry the new Show Regulations?
A. Yes, Specimen Schedules and the amended Rules & Regulations are available from the Kennel Club website.

Q. Can this system be put into operation without it being included in the Schedule? Some Schedules for Shows post Crufts will already have gone to print. What does the Society do if an exhibitor refuses to submit to the Veterinary check because this requirement is not in the Schedule?
A. The new Show Regulations are effective from 01 March 2012 and therefore exhibitors and Show Societies are required to abide by these regulations from this date. Anyone believed to be in breach of these regulations should be reported to the Kennel Club for follow up. In any event the Best of Breed award can only be confirmed following a veterinary examination.

Q. Are there legal grounds to sue in the case of a dog failing the Veterinary check?
A. The exhibitor by virtue of being bound by Kennel Club Rules and Regulations has signed up to the Veterinary check procedure. The exhibitor is contractually bound to permit the Veterinary check, but there is no direct contract between the Vet and the exhibitor.

The basis upon which legal action can be brought is usually (breach of) contract or negligence (breach of duty of care). The contract with the Vet is between the Society or the Kennel Club not the exhibitor. The veterinary opinion and observation is being sought by and given to the Society or the Kennel Club. It is important to understand that the examination is not intended as a Veterinary diagnosis upon which an exhibitor should rely. In the event that a Vet highlights concerns, the exhibitor is strongly recommended to seek his or her own independent veterinary advice after the Show.

Q. Are there any guidelines on avoiding confrontation?
A. Show Societies should impose the usual escalation & disputes procedure. Abusive behaviour should be reported to the Kennel Club for follow up.

Society/Exhibitor

Q. How many people can be present at the examination?
A. Only the Vet, owner and / or handler and a Show Official. It is preferable for the Show Society to have a Show Official present when the check is carried out. If there are multiple owners, a lead owner or nominated person should be present. The exhibitors should be respectful of a request from the Vet that only one owner is present for the examination. It may be difficult for the Vet to complete an effective examination with a large number of people present.

Q. Who receives a copy of the results?
A. The Kennel Club, Vet and Exhibitor.

Q. Can a Veterinary check be done more than once i.e. if a dog fails at one Show, can it be re-examined at a subsequent Show in order to have its Champion status confirmed?
A. Yes. There are any number of reasons why a dog could fail its Veterinary check at one Show but be fit enough to pass at its next Show. Each time a dog is selected as Best of Breed it will require an examination. Therefore a dog may pass an examination but fail a similar examination at a later show.

Q. Will Societies have to accept requests for Veterinary checks for CC winners which have not previously undergone a Veterinary check for confirmation of a Champion Award?
A. Yes, this can be done after the second CC has been awarded.

Q. Must Show Societies allow an unentered dog into a Show so that the dog may undergo a Veterinary check for confirmation of its Champion Award?
A. This is at the Show Society’s discretion. However, it is expected that Societies will not prevent dog owners from undergoing a Veterinary check. Show Societies are advised to admit these dogs to the Show using the Spectator Dog entry form.

Q. If the dog fails the check, is it still Best of Breed?
A. No, for High Profile Breeds confirmation of the Best of Breed award is dependent on a successful Veterinary check.

Q. If the Best of Breed withdraws before the Group competition, should the Kennel Club be notified?
A. Yes, the withdrawal should be noted in the Show Report.

Q. If the exhibitor keeps a Best of Breed rosette, could they not falsely advertise that the Best of Breed was received?
A. The exhibitor must return the rosette along with the Best of Breed card. It will be given back to them if the dog successfully passes the Veterinary check.

Exhibitor

Veterinary Health Checks for High Profile Breeds - Exhibitor Information


Q. Is it possible for the check to be carried out after the Group competition?
A. The Veterinary check must be carried out prior to the dog going into the Group ring. The new Show Regulations are explicit that for eligibility for the Group, a dog must have successfully passed a Veterinary check.

Q. Can a dog still be exhibited in the other classes it has entered if it fails the Veterinary check?
A. Yes. The Veterinary check only affects eligibility for Best of Breed, the Group competition and Champion status.

Q. How many times can a dog fail a health check?
A. The Kennel Club will be monitoring reports on Veterinary checks, especially those reporting failures and will be in correspondence with exhibitors. It is expected that exhibitors will take a responsible attitude and in the event of a number of failures, will not continue to exhibit the dog in question.

Q. Is the Challenge Certificate affected?
A. No, not at this time. The CC will not be disqualified in the event of a failed Veterinary check. However, it does affect confirmation of Champion status.

Q. Is there an appeal procedure if the Judge and / or Exhibitor disagree with the Vet?
A. The Show Regulations state that the Vet’s decision is final. There is no process to appeal the Vet’s decision.

Q. What is the level of confidentiality on the results of the Veterinary checks?
A. The matter shall be kept confidential between the relevant parties. If the exhibitor is approached, what they allow to become public knowledge is at their discretion but the Vet and Show Society must keep the reason for failure to pass the examination confidential.

Q. Will details of failed checks be published?
A. No, the details of a failed Veterinary check will be kept confidential but any Best of Breed not awarded will be annotated in the Kennel Club Stud Book.

Q. What will be published on Show result websites?
A. If a dog has failed the Veterinary check, the Best of Breed should be published as ‘Not Awarded’.

Judge

Q. Can the Judge be present at the examination?
A. No.

Q. Should the Best of Breed card be withheld until after the Veterinary check is complete?
A. Yes it must be; the award is invalid until a successful Veterinary check has been completed.

Q. Can the Judge still hand out the Best of Breed card as is custom and practise?
A. Yes, but the card and rosette should be collected back in and be completed and signed by the Judge then retained either by a Show Official or the Show Secretary. They are then only handed over to the exhibitor if the dog successfully passes the Veterinary check.

Q. In the event of an unsuccessful Veterinary check what follow up will there be from the Kennel Club regarding the Judge and / or Exhibitor?
A. The Kennel Club will write to the Judge with details of why the dog failed the check and request the Judge’s comments. The Regulations have been amended to allow the Judge to withhold the Best of Breed if there are visible conditions which may cause health or welfare concerns.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Here is what they say on the vets use of tools.


Q. What will the Vet look for?
A. The Vet will be checking for obvious signs of ill health and especially for signs of eye discomfort or inflammation, lameness, respiratory difficulty and skin inflammation an*d no special diagnostic aids will be used so all of these signs of ill health would be noticeable by the Judge*. Championship level Judges have a minimum of 7 years judging experience as well as significant experience as exhibitors and breeders; therefore, the Kennel Club is confident that Judges are able to recognise visible conditions which may cause health and welfare concerns i.e. lameness, painful sore eyes, skin irritations and obvious respiratory problems.

Sas in your opinion would a flashlight be a diagnostic aid? 
Might be a moot point because anything you can see with the aid of a flashlight a judge would not be able to see.

And... 

The owners get a copy of the of the report as well....


----------



## Xeph

> Xeph, I think it's in the best interests of breeders to try to step back, stop feeling defensive like it's a personal attack, and try to adapt


When you've spent 4-6 decades on a breed, and all of a sudden (3 years is pretty darn quick) people are saying "STOP!!! START OVER!!!!" how do you not take that personally?

I think you completely missed the point.

What I'm talking about doesn't involve people getting to do what they want (though, I think to some degree, they should). It involves an absolutely crushing blow that people will be taking to their breeding programs because of this. This may work, it may not, but if it doesn't, there's going to be a whole new mess to clean up because of the way things have been done.



> The vet checks really are about making sure that people stop following unhealthy models.


No they're not, or they'd be made public, and we wouldn't be watching the dog and pony show that's going on right now.


----------



## sassafras

I would not consider a flashlight to be a "special diagnostic aid", no. It is simply a light source, it is no more special or diagnostic than turning on the light in the room IMO.

An ophthalmoscope would be a different story as it also has magnification and typically various filters.


----------



## begemot

Xeph said:


> No they're not, or they'd be made public, and we wouldn't be watching the dog and pony show that's going on right now.


The only people who stand to gain from keeping that information private are the exhibitors themselves. I'm sure that the decision to allow them to disclose or keep private the vet info was made to protect them and their reputations from the worst of the damage.

Ditto to what sassafras said. A flashlight is a lightbulb in a tube. It's an illumination source like any other. They were still looking for things that were visible to the naked eye.


----------



## RaeganW

Xeph said:


> When you've spent 4-6 decades on a breed, and all of a sudden (3 years is pretty darn quick) people are saying "STOP!!! START OVER!!!!" how do you not take that personally?
> 
> I think you completely missed the point.
> 
> What I'm talking about doesn't involve people getting to do what they want (though, I think to some degree, they should). It involves an absolutely crushing blow that people will be taking to their breeding programs because of this. This may work, it may not, but if it doesn't, there's going to be a whole new mess to clean up because of the way things have been done.


Honestly to that I say tough shit. The fancy had its chance to police itself. It failed miserably at producing dogs with moderate conformation. So now someone else is going to do it for them.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

begemot said:


> The only people who stand to gain from keeping that information private are the exhibitors themselves. I'm sure that the decision to allow them to disclose or keep private the vet info was made to protect them and their reputations from the worst of the damage.


I agree. The vets were told to look for things like chemical burns on hairless breeds, they may have feared retaliation from AR people if that information was disclosed had things like that been found.



RaeganW said:


> Honestly to that I say tough shit. The fancy had its chance to police itself. It failed miserably at producing dogs with moderate conformation. So now someone else is going to do it for them.


This. Their feelings don't really matter after thirty years of warnings.


----------



## begemot

Xeph said:


> What I'm talking about doesn't involve people getting to do what they want (though, I think to some degree, they should). It involves an absolutely crushing blow that people will be taking to their breeding programs because of this. This may work, it may not, but if it doesn't, there's going to be a whole new mess to clean up because of the way things have been done.


Maybe it comes down to a different in opinions. I think the people who will be (temporarily) negatively affected are the people who made bad choices, and they have only themselves to blame.

Unless maybe you agree with this, and you just mean that you want people to have sympathy for them, because even if they did screw up they're suffering now because of it? In which case, sympathy would be a lot easier to come by if I hadn't read all the bashing and ranting of the last three years, which seems to be continuing unabated even now. But yeah, I grudgingly would try to see your point in that case.


----------



## Xeph

> Honestly to that I say tough shit.


Again, the point is being missed. People are yelling about stopping all the whining, and the fact of the matter is it IS a lot easier to not whine when YOUR program isn't the one being affected.

I'm not talking about correct breeding, dogs being victims, ethics, etc. I'm talking about the base defensiveness that those that are not being affected (breeding wise) seem so shocked by. And I will admit, I find the "Tough cookies" approach to be extreme offensive.

And I've not bred anything.

I'm not asking for sympathy of bad choices....I guess what I'm trying to get across is that there are those who honestly thought they were doing the BEST for their breed, and are being slapped upside the head with "LOLOLOL!!! NO YOU WEREN'T! Your years of study and hard work means NOTHING, your dogs are mutants! ENJOY YOUR HUMILIATION!!!"

I own GSDs. I'm no stranger to nasty comments. I've had some comments about dogs I've owned right here on this forum. I try very hard to be honest about my dogs, but you think it doesn't hurt when somebody calls a dog of mine deformed (and those comments have not always been directed at my show line dogs)?

I work hard, I study hard, and because of that, nothing in my house has reproduced yet.

If I had been doing this for 40 years instead of a bit over a decade, I would be devastated, because I do try so hard NOT to be kennel blind and do right by my breed and my dogs. THOSE are the people I am upset for. Not the ones who knowingly bred dogs that couldn't pass big clearances just because they were champions. The ones who spent decades studying bloodlines, and health tested, and did the best they could to breed the best specimen of their breed, who are now being punished for the unscrupulous others.


----------



## Xeph

> I'm sure that the decision to allow them to disclose or keep private the vet info was made to protect them and their reputations from the worst of the damage.


Then it shouldn't be so hard to draft up a public disclosure document that states if you want to show at Crufts, results of vet exams will be made public if the dog fails.

I do not support a system where disclosure is not being made, and we just have to speculate on why a dog was disqualified from competition rather than be told. Makes the whole thing seem moot.

But I'm arguing in circles, so I'll just attempt to let it go.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Xeph said:


> Again, the point is being missed. People are yelling about stopping all the whining, and the fact of the matter is it IS a lot easier to not whine when YOUR program isn't the one being affected.
> 
> I'm not talking about correct breeding, dogs being victims, ethics, etc. I'm talking about the base defensiveness that those that are not being affected (breeding wise) seem so shocked by. And I will admit, I find the "Tough cookies" approach to be extreme offensive.
> 
> And I've not bred anything.
> 
> I'm not asking for sympathy of bad choices....I guess what I'm trying to get across is that there are those who honestly thought they were doing the BEST for their breed, and are being slapped upside the head with "LOLOLOL!!! NO YOU WEREN'T! Your years of study and hard work means NOTHING, your dogs are mutants! ENJOY YOUR HUMILIATION!!!"
> 
> I own GSDs. I'm no stranger to nasty comments. I've had some comments about dogs I've owned right here on this forum. I try very hard to be honest about my dogs, but you think it doesn't hurt when somebody calls a dog of mine deformed (and those comments have not always been directed at my show line dogs)?
> 
> I work hard, I study hard, and because of that, nothing in my house has reproduced yet.
> 
> If I had been doing this for 40 years instead of a bit over a decade, I would be devastated, because I do try so hard NOT to be kennel blind and do right by my breed and my dogs. THOSE are the people I am upset for. Not the ones who knowingly bred dogs that couldn't pass big clearances just because they were champions. The ones who spent decades studying bloodlines, and health tested, and did the best they could to breed the best specimen of their breed, who are now being punished for the unscrupulous others.


But Xeph, _you've_ done everything right. It's hard to have sympathy for a judge of forty years who consistently rewarded extremes. They are the root of the problem, and I don't feel sorry for them.

I feel sorry for all the new breeders who are the ones who are going to have to clean up this mess and the first few generations don't get to be 'fun' because of the mess that's been left for them to clean up.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

RaeganW said:


> Honestly to that I say tough shit. The fancy had its chance to police itself. It failed miserably at producing dogs with moderate conformation. So now someone else is going to do it for them.


This is why there is such polarization on subjects such as this. I get told I am a brick wall, extreme, etc. 

Alot of breeders and alot of breeds that are in trouble are working for change. Alot of breeds are not in trouble and have a history of policing themselves. 

And those that have not..... Change is not going to to come overnight.


----------



## Xeph

> It's hard to have sympathy for a judge of forty years who consistently rewarded extremes. They are the root of the problem, and I don't feel sorry for them.


I do, because it is amazing what you DON'T notice, when you think you do.

The shift in style of the dogs I own has been pretty remarkable in the last few years. My opinion of what is good, and what is bad that has changed.

When you get used to looking at something for so long, you may not even realize what you're rewarding, anymore. You see things that you have known to be correct, but don't realize how those correct things have altered other things.

GSD rears are a pretty good example.

The standard calls for the rear to match the front. The rear angulation should be as close to a right angle as possible (AKC standard). You can see how this has resulted in overangulated animals. But the change was relatively gradual, and not noticeable because the standard also calls for an open, free flowing, suspended trot.

You get that, in part, by having an overangulated dog. All of a sudden, all you see is that floaty movement, and you've become SO used to seeing those overdone rears, anything less is "incorrect".


----------



## JohnnyBandit

begemot said:


> The only people who stand to gain from keeping that information private are the exhibitors themselves. I'm sure that the decision to allow them to disclose or keep private the vet info was made to protect them and their reputations from the worst of the damage.
> 
> Ditto to what sassafras said. A flashlight is a lightbulb in a tube. It's an illumination source like any other. They were still looking for things that were visible to the naked eye.


And you like Sas.... Are still keying in on half the statement. It says be notical by the judge...... A judge is not going to have a flashlight and not going to and has no need to look into the eye. 

A vet using the light is looking at things the judge would never see.


----------



## sassafras

Xeph said:


> When you get used to looking at something for so long, you may not even realize what you're rewarding, anymore.


I understand what you're saying and totally understand how it can happen, but at the same time it kind of boggles my mind. Because what's the point of judging or rewarding anything at all, then?


----------



## Pawzk9

AussieNerdQueen said:


> No offence taken, I know you don't see my point of view.


Maybe he just doesn't agree with your point of view.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

JohnnyBandit said:


> And you like Sas.... Are still keying in on half the statement. It says be notical by the judge...... A judge is not going to have a flashlight and not going to and has no need to look into the eye.
> 
> A vet using the light is looking at things the judge would never see.


Do we even know if the vet had a light for sure..?

We don't even know if the bulldog was disqualified for an eye injury. There's all sorts of rumours all over the internet.

I don't even think using a torch is an issue but do we even know if the vet did?


----------



## sassafras

JohnnyBandit said:


> And you like Sas.... Are still keying in on half the statement. It says be notical by the judge...... A judge is not going to have a flashlight and not going to and has no need to look into the eye.
> 
> A vet using the light is looking at things the judge would never see.


Are the judges forbidden from using flashlights? Are vets forbidden from using flashlights?

The whole POINT of the vet checks was for vets to double check for things the judges didn't see or notice. And AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN --- you are not going to be able to look INTO the eye with a flashlight. Not possible to look INTO the eye without magnification. Period. But it is sometimes difficult to see things on the surface of the eye against the brown eye of a dog, and light can help. Imagine that, light helping to see things!


----------



## Xeph

> Are the judges forbidden from using flashlights?


To the best of my knowledge, no. Do they ever? I can safely say never.


----------



## sassafras

Xeph said:


> To the best of my knowledge, no. Do they ever? I can safely say never.


Are they not allowed, or have they never thought to ask because "it isn't done"?


ETA: It's moot anyway. Light isn't a special diagnostic tool.


----------



## Bordermom

I agree with what the KC is trying to do but they're not doing it in a fair and reasonable mannor IMO. If they really wanted to instill changes and improvements, they should have done so in a way that wasn't going to be a gamble for owners to enter their dogs. I'm all for making changes but it should have been clear and not in the hands of one vet at ringside to pass or fail a dog - either test them all before allowing them into the ring, or require testing and passing based on that breed and the issues currently faced by the breed, and keep 'raising the bar' each year as things do improve. 

Breeders can't change their dogs overnight and would be just as badmouthed for dumping a bunch of dogs to start again, but can start to work with guidelines to select better type and so on with each generation. And they are not only to blame, judges who select extremes and yes, the public who see the extreme parents and get a puppy are just as much to blame.


----------



## Pawzk9

sassafras said:


> So yea, the vet checks are like a bucket of icy water over the head. And yes, it's a big adjustment to make all at once, but that's what happens when something that was supposed to be self-policing didn't appear to self-police - standards are imposed from the outside. In some ways the hobby is its own worst enemy. "Leave us alone, trust us, we know best, you can't possibly understand" isn't going to cut it anymore in the eyes of the public. And it sucks for the people caught in the crossfire, but it's a situation that's been created over years and years of bad becoming normal. AR isn't to blame. The volunteer vets aren't to blame. The bad apples IN the hobby are to blame, and the status quo is to blame.


It's an issue perpetrated by Jemima Harrison and her ilk. And I would hope that AKC doesn't do something that stupid.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Pawzk9 said:


> It's an issue perpetrated by Jemima Harrison and her ilk. And I would hope that AKC doesn't do something that stupid.


I would say it's an issue that breeders are ignoring and she made a cheap buck off of it. No winners there.


----------



## RaeganW

What issue?


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

RaeganW said:


> What issue?


Bad breeding in the show world?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sassafras said:


> I understand what you're saying and totally understand how it can happen, but at the same time it kind of boggles my mind. Because what's the point of judging or rewarding anything at all, then?


The judge judges what walks in the ring..... There have been some crappy dogs get best of breed. But they are the best crappy dog...

However there is a caveat to that........
And I can only speak for the AKC.....

The judge is obligated to send any lame dog out of the ring as an excusal. 
The judge is obligated to send any dog that has any condition that is a disqualification in the standard for that breed.

The judge can also withold awards, points etc.

I have seen judges do all of this....


----------



## Pawzk9

Xeph said:


> Because the Bulldog was a truly moderate example of its breed, and, IMO, a step in the right direction.
> 
> I am not a huge fan of Bulldogs. They're just not for me (CUTEST puppies ever though, OMG!!!!), however, when I watched this particular bitch move, I LOVED her. Easy, free flowing, not lumbering, not labored. I'm not saying she's not still exaggerated for a dog, but she's MUCH more moderate than many Bulls I have seen.


And all the people whining about a lack of genetic diversity want to eliminate even more good dogs from the gene pool? The fact is that "fault judging" focussing in on a single characteristc has never been a way to improve breeds. Especially when the people doing the "fault judging" aren't even qualified judges. I go to my vet for health issues. I don't ask them to evaluate conformation.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sassafras said:


> Are the judges forbidden from using flashlights? Are vets forbidden from using flashlights?
> 
> The whole POINT of the vet checks was for vets to double check for things the judges didn't see or notice. And AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN --- you are not going to be able to look INTO the eye with a flashlight. Not possible to look INTO the eye without magnification. Period. But it is sometimes difficult to see things on the surface of the eye against the brown eye of a dog, and light can help. Imagine that, light helping to see things!


A flashlight is so far out of the realm of what a judges responsibility that it is not even discussed. There is NOTHING for the judge to see with a flashlight. 

If a judge approached my dog with a flashlight, we would have an issue.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

To help improve the health of pedigree dogs, the Kennel Club has enacted a new rule for Crufts competitors. From Crufts 2012 onwards, 15 high profile breeds will have to pass a vet check before winning the top prizes at the show.

It's a sensible idea. As Ronnie Irving, the Kennel Club chairman, puts it: “sadly, a few judges in some breeds simply can’t or won’t accept the need to eliminate dogs that are visibly unhealthy from top awards”. The hope is that the new vet checks will improve the health of these problematic breeds, by selecting healthier animals to be the new show winners.

You’d think that this new measure would be universally welcomed, but predictably, the staunchest critics of the Kennel Club are sceptical. Jemima Harrison, the producer of the BBC documentary “Pedigree Dogs Exposed”, seems to feel that the vets involved may be less discerning than they ought to be. Writing on The Guardian's "Comment is Free" website, she points out that several of the vets breed and show pedigree dogs themselves. So she suggests that what they consider a health deficient warranting exclusion is likely to be very different from other vets who would be “less inured to the deformity and disease that is a feature of too many pedigree dog breeds”.

Jemima takes vet-bashing to a whole new level in a feature in this month’s Dogs Today magazine. She accuses the profession of "betraying dogs by allowing itself to be seduced by Kennel Club history, cash, platitudes, front-row seats at Crufts and a half-decent lunch". She also says that the veterinary profession has been “paralysed by fears that it will offend breeders who are a good source of income, as indeed is the unstemmed flow of dogs suffering from largely preventable inherited disease and physical handicaps inflicted on them by some breed standards”. Jemima believes that “history will find the veterinary establishment guilty on this issue”. She goes on to name individual vets who are prominent within the profession, criticising them for agreeing to become honorary members of the Kennel Club, and even for accepting invitations for meals at the Kennel Club HQ.

Jemima says that she is not questioning vets’ integrity, but many observers will believe that this is exactly what she’s doing. While she concedes that the vets concerned “think that they can change things from within”, the tone of her article suggests that she doesn’t believe that this is possible.

I know most of the vets that she mentions, and I know for sure that they're well-meaning and sincere individuals who care deeply about dog welfare. They’re looking for practical answers to challenging problems in pedigree breeds. They believe that any solution has to include engaging with the prime movers in the breeding business. In their view, if you don't engage, you're far less likely to be able to understand the background to the issues, and so are less able bring about real change. Despite what Jemima says, these vets aren’t afraid of offending breeders. The truth is that they do want to work for change together with people rather than alienating them by shouting from the outside.

It's fair enough that Jemima has taken a “shouty” stance – as the maker of hard-hitting television documentaries, that’s her job – and there’s no doubt that she’s managed to instigate significant change in the pedigree dog world through her actions and comments. But she’s wrong to presume that vets could achieve more by taking a similar approach. Diplomacy may not suit everyone, but in the real world, it's almost always the best way to achieve long-term, satisfactory results.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/p...n-has-taken-vet-bashing-to-a-whole-new-level/


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Since we are talking Jemina Harrison.... 

Someone asked me what proof I had that the AR was behind this..... I give you Jemina Harrison.... Who has gone far out of her way to state that she is not AR.... But words conflict with actions.......


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Pawzk9 said:


> And all the people whining about a lack of genetic diversity want to eliminate even more good dogs from the gene pool? The fact is that "fault judging" focussing in on a single characteristc has never been a way to improve breeds. Especially when the people doing the "fault judging" aren't even qualified judges. I go to my vet for health issues. I don't ask them to evaluate conformation.


Here is an interesting tidbit..... It takes longer to be a conformation judge than it does to be a vet.... If someone desires to be a judge and does it fast, they could probably do it in ten years. It takes most longer. And by the time they accomplish everything they need to, in order to qualify, most could have paid for vet school a couple of times.....


----------



## Willowy

Seriously? Half a million (at least) to become a dog show judge? It's a miracle you guys have any judges at all.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Willowy said:


> Seriously? Half a million (at least) to become a dog show judge? It's a miracle you guys have any judges at all.


That is why most show judges are old....

But the figure I had in mind was about 300 grand when I made that statement.


----------



## Willowy

I was just discussing this with someone on another forum, and currently an undergrad degree with a state university will run you (with dorm and food service) around $100,000. I just doubled that and added a bit extra for vet school, but for all I know it costs even more. (ETA: I just Googled "how much does vet school cost" and most answers came back with estimates of $200,000-$300,000).

At any rate, that's a significant investment for judging dog shows. Do they get paid much?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Willowy said:


> I was just discussing this with someone on another forum, and currently an undergrad degree with a state university will run you (with dorm and food service) around $100,000. I just doubled that and added a bit extra for vet school, but for all I know it costs even more. (ETA: I just Googled "how much does vet school cost" and most answers came back with estimates of $200,000-$300,000).
> 
> At any rate, that's a significant investment for judging dog shows. Do they get paid much?


Those figures are high.... I know this because I am five years into paying a significant portion of a relative's college tuition. 
At least they are high for State Universities in Florida. 

Undergrad.....
Figure about 20 including living expenses.... Four years 80 grand
Grad school about 30 including expenses. 7 years 90 grand.
That comes to 170 grand.

Double it you get 340 grand


----------



## JohnnyBandit

And I stand corrected.... You cannot do it in ten years. At least not with the AKC... 
12 years is the minimum.....


----------



## spotted nikes

Maybe some of the breeders that don't breed for extremes, but haven't shown since they are ridiculed and not rewarded in the ring (for not being extreme enough/in fashion), will now start showing their dogs.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

JohnnyBandit said:


> Since we are talking Jemina Harrison....
> 
> Someone asked me what proof I had that the AR was behind this..... I give you Jemina Harrison.... Who has gone far out of her way to state that she is not AR.... But words conflict with actions.......


Again, where's your proof? What actions? What makes you so sure she's with AR?


----------



## cshellenberger

AussieNerdQueen said:


> On the point of the vet specializing in different areas.
> 
> When you need a check up do you go to a GP or a specialist?


 
I go to a GP, but I wouldn't trust a GP with my eyes, I'd go to an Opthamologist for an Eye exam


----------



## spanielorbust

Pawzk9 said:


> And all the people whining about a lack of genetic diversity want to eliminate even more good dogs from the gene pool? The fact is that "fault judging" focussing in on a single characteristc has never been a way to improve breeds. Especially when the people doing the "fault judging" aren't even qualified judges. I go to my vet for health issues. I don't ask them to evaluate conformation.


WOW. This is a leap. You are declaring that those that want genetic diverstiy want to eliminate more good dogs from the gene pool just as a declaration without any basis what-so-ever. Jus cuz you say so then? 

As I am one of these proponents I can declare elimination of dogs from closed gene pools for defects that can be moderated or managed by carefully breeding better has NEVER been a suggestion. In fact it is something that is advised against. For many top breeders in many breeds 90% of born dogs are eliminated from closed gene pools already (pet homed), often on the basis of superficial factors. The last thing that is needed is more diversity lost.

Which dogs are you suggesting genetic diversity proponents want eliminated? . . . from which closed gene pools? Then please provide any indication from these same proponents that the suggestion is to eliminate them. 

SOB


----------



## hast

AussieNerdQueen said:


> On the point of the vet specializing in different areas.
> 
> When you need a check up do you go to a GP or a specialist?


For a check-up I go to a GP, if the GP finds a problem I go to a specialist.



JohnnyBandit said:


> <snip>
> *First!!! IT IS IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE TO REMEMBER THE BREEDS IN TROUBLE DID NOT GET THIS WAY OVER NIGHT! THEY ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE OVER NIGHT EITHER. IT IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS REVISING A STANDARD. CHANCES ARE THAT DOING THAT MIGHT ELEMINATE FAR TO MANY DOGS. MAKING THE PROBLEM WORSE, NOT BETTER.*
> 
> To see change...... Real, Positive change, not smoke and mirrors shows for the media, it is going to take generations.
> Setting it up is not going to happen overnight either.
> This change needs to happen at the parent breed club levels. In reading and research on this, (not on facebook as some suggested) it appears that the breed clubs in the UK are pretty far behind most of the breed clubs in the US. And even farther behind much of the rest of Europe in regard to this.<snip>


First of all; All of Europe have discussed this for a very long time, the discussion have become quite loud during the last 10+ years but the breeders have not been listening.
Secondly; UK "behind" the US??? Not how the rest of the world sees it. And if it's so, what does it matter to American breeders and dog people what they do in UK? Do anyone care what they do in breed clubs and kennel clubs in, say, Malaysia?
Either Europe in general is important to the US breeders and breed clubs, and therefore UK as well, OR it's not and then this should be a non discussion. 



AussieNerdQueen said:


> <snip>
> Also unsure what you mean bu saying Europe is 'behind?' In the eyes of the average person in my country, America is behind for still allowing cropping and docking. Or do you mean behind show wise? I still don't see how but okay.
> 
> Yes, things won't change overnight but the KC gave breeders the generations you now refer too that breeders need to change the breeds. If breeders had _listened _thirty years ago, this wouldn't be happening.
> 
> Issues that are not black and white will now be made black and white because we didn't self regulate.
> 
> What has happened has happened. The question is where from here?
> 
> I wouldn't be too comfortable with 'don't worry, we won't do this' by the AKC. The ANKC is saying the same thing..We don't have any huge Aussie shows though. I believe that changed is here to stay and will be implemented or forced on in one way or another.


Yes, yes, yes ... but, the American culture is quite different and I believe only those who are interested in showing and selling dogs abroad will now start to self modify ... which will slowly spread to everyone. 
When I got my rottie almost 5 years ago and took her to the first AKC shows (obedience) I was often asked what breed she is because of her tail ... Now there usually are several more rotties with tails at shows and I haven't been asked that in the last couple of years, now people point out that she has a tail and often that they like it. 



AussieNerdQueen said:


> Everything Australians say sounds that way. If people are so offended I'll stop but I cannot deny not understanding. Must be a cultural thing. *Shrug* Certainly no malice behind my words.


I stumble on cultural differences in nuances quite often ... I'm not showing my dog in conformation, but I think I understand exactly what you meant.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Terrier Group Winners: Pictures in one minute

1) Norwich Terrier: RAGUS MERRY GENTLEMAN (15 months old)

Can't find a picture of him will have to wait till its up on the results 

2) Kerry Blue Terrier: CH/Am GCh PERRISBLU KENNISLAINS CHELSEY










3) Irish Terrier: CH/AM GCH FLEET ST FENWAY FAN









4) Dandie Dinmont Terrier: CLOVERWOOD ROYAL GEORGE


----------



## Avie

Woohoo, an almost all-sighthound finale!!!  I love the Borzoi, Deerhound, Pharaoh, Saluki, Sloughi, Greyhound...! I'm very very happy with this


----------



## Avie

THE BORZOI WON!!! 

Second is the Basset griffon vendéen, 
Third is de Saluki! 
Fourth is the miniature Dachshund smoothcoat.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Hound Group Winners: Pictures coming soon

1) Borzoi: CH ROTHESBY SHOLWOOD SNOW HAWK










2) Basset Griffon Vendeen (Petit): CH SOLETRADER PEEK A BOO










3) Saluki: JORJENJO MIRZAM OF FERNLARK JW










4) Dachshund (Mini Smooth haired): CH CARPACCIO CAPTAIN SCARLET JW

(can't find picture will wait till it is put up)


----------



## brandiw

The basset failed the vet check.

On a worse note, a Dogue de Bordeaux collapsed on the way out of the ring and later died. Awful.


----------



## Avie

brandiw said:


> On a worse note, a Dogue de Bordeaux collapsed on the way out of the ring and later died. Awful.


Seriously? I can't find anything on it. That's horrible...


----------



## brandiw

Avie said:


> Seriously? I can't find anything on it. That's horrible...


I read about it on a couple of blogs and a forum, but first read it here:

http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/dogue-down/


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

brandiw said:


> I read about it on a couple of blogs and a forum, but first read it here:
> 
> http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/dogue-down/


Oh wow that's so tragic.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

brandiw said:


> The basset failed the vet check.
> 
> On a worse note, a Dogue de Bordeaux collapsed on the way out of the ring and later died. Awful.


Wow, talk about a PR nightmare. How much worse can it get than a dog collapsing and dying? 

The English Mastiff and Neopolitan Mastiff also failed the vet check. That's 6 dogs, for anyone who's counting.


----------



## begemot

Pawzk9 said:


> Especially when the people doing the "fault judging" aren't even qualified judges. I go to my vet for health issues. I don't ask them to evaluate conformation.


The vets are doing *health checks*. For health issues. That being precisely what they are qualified to do.



JohnnyBandit said:


> A flashlight is so far out of the realm of what a judges responsibility that it is not even discussed. There is NOTHING for the judge to see with a flashlight.


I'm not sure how the flashlight thing got turned around into "vets are only allowed to do precisely what the conformation judges do." Nowhere have I read that. They are doing health checks, looking for signs of disease. The only limitations on what they can do are pretty specific: no "special diagnostic aids" to monitor internal signs, with the example of a stethoscope being given by the KC secretary. I'm sure the vet probably did a lot of other things that judges don't routinely do. Because it was a health check, not a conformation judging.



Xeph said:


> Then it shouldn't be so hard to draft up a public disclosure document that states if you want to show at Crufts, results of vet exams will be made public if the dog fails.


But my point is that, while I'm sure it would be snap, why would they want to do that? It would just be needlessly damaging to the breeders and exhibitors. I'm sure they want to protect their privacy and let them decide whether to disclose the vet findings. Although I wish more of the reports would get leaked, because they would probably silence the people bitching about flashlights.

Anyway, here's the basset hound that failed.










Anyway, I think this will definitely affect the US and other countries, if not directly (like vet checks in AKC shows, which I'm sure won't happen).


----------



## perrodeapeso

Can someone please explain why are these dogs not given full vet checks? I'm aware the rule says visual inspection and no instruments, I'm asking for the reason for that rule.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

begemot said:


> I'm not sure how the flashlight thing got turned around into "vets are only allowed to do precisely what the conformation judges do." Nowhere have I read that. They are doing health checks, looking for signs of disease. The only limitations on what they can do are pretty specific: no "special diagnostic aids" to monitor internal signs, with the example of a stethoscope being given by the KC secretary. I'm sure the vet probably did a lot of other things that judges don't routinely do. Because it was a health check, not a conformation judging.


It never "got turned into that"....

It was exactly that right from the beginning. Straight from the parameters set by the KC.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

perrodeapeso said:


> Can someone please explain why are these dogs not given full vet checks? I'm aware the rule says visual inspection and no instruments, I'm asking for the reason for that rule.



Because this is a smoke and mirrors show, that is simply an effort to pacify public reaction to a very biased and one sided tv program with an agenda. There was no opportunity for any sort of rebuttal and little mention if any, and no focus on, breeders that are doing things the right way. 
This is not just a spin on my part. The KC filed a complaint about this show with the broadcast regulatory agency, OFcom. The complaint of unfair treatment was upheld in two areas. Lack of opportunity of reply and misrepresentation of the KC's Geneticist's statements. In other words, the program was one sided and put their own spin on things. 

IF the KC and the UK dog world, wanted to REALLY do something, acknowledge that there may be a problem with SOME breeders, SOME breeds, and SOME judges, they would have made health checks mandatory prior to the show for all breeds and EVERY dog. This could have been phased in and implemented. They had plenty of time. They have been working on this for quite a while. No need for a knee jerk conclusion. 

The way they handled things, made it appear to many that ALL the dogs entered in the breeds that failed, had health issues. 
Handling things in this way, made some breeds and some breeders sacrificial lambs. 

The SAD thing about this, in case of bulldog at least, is that the breeder that was penalized is breeding VERY moderate dogs. And has been being rewarded for it by winning. Every dog on that breeders website is far more moderate than 95 percent of the examples of the breeds you see now. They look like throwback dogs of 50 years ago. I was at an AKC show this weekend. Yesterday I made a point of watching the bulldogs. Nothing in the ring looked or moved like this breeder's dogs. 

I know some folks here are possibly either frustrated, angry, or have a lesser opinion of me over this thread. And some have probably written me off as a mental case. Well it is what it is.....


But bear this in mind.....

1) I have stated here on this thread that there are some breeds that are very screwed up and need some help. 
2) I have stated before on this forum but not on this thread, that I did not think we should be breeding any dogs that cannot "cover" naturally (male mount and tie naturally with a bitch) and must be impregnated via AI. I am not against AI. It deals with issues of timing, distance and stored semen of good dogs no longer in the breeding pool. But some of these breeds must be AI'd because of physical features. 
3) I have also stated in the past the dogs that cannot give birth naturally as a general rule ( exceptions for a bitch that is having difficulty) should not be bred. 
4) I have stated on this thread that I am not against testing but it needs to be right.

So why the hard stance? The multiple pages over a stupid flashlight? etc etc etc? 
1) Because this is just a smoke and mirror PR stunt to placate the masses in the UK.
2) By their own rules this is not really not a vet check. Its a stunt. If you are really going to check a dog as a vet, reasonable diagnostic tools should be available to you. You would not call a plumber to check your house for leaks but tell him he could not bring any tools into the house. (hence the entire "flashlight" argument. 
3) The testing should be don beforehand to all the dogs. Doing this would reward the breeders and owners of sound dogs. 
4) The testing should be on all breeds. Not just a few. 
5) People should understand that there are no perfect dogs. Some dogs will small issues, but have some other really good things going for it could be used in careful breeding situations. You cannot make the gene pool too small.
6) People need to understand that this cannot be a knee jerk adjustment. Simply changing standards and having health standards does not work if there is not a decent pool of dogs that meed the new standards or pass health checks. It could take 30, 40, or 50 years to make significant change in some breeds. What matters now is that direction and focus are changed and progress with each generation is made. 


And to the comment about what happened at Crufts having much of an impact here.... All this business has not even made the mainstream media here. Heck there are breeders and show people that still have not herd anything about it.


----------



## sassafras

JohnnyBandit said:


> And by the time they accomplish everything they need to, in order to qualify, most could have paid for vet school a couple of times.....


LOL $340,000 is not going to pay for vet school a couple of times, I assure you. Especially if you figure in prerequisites - nobody can just pick up and go to vet school, although they didn't used to I think all of the schools currently require an undergraduate degree these days in additional fulfilling specific class requirements and extracurricular requirements. And that's assuming someone gets in on their first try. So "being a vet" is going to take 8-10 years at minimum, and if you want to do an internship or specialize that's going to add 1-6 years on top of it.

Not that it matters, the whole thing is a strawman argument anyway. How long it takes to become something doesn't determine its worth. It's also apples to oranges. In vet school you are in class all day, every day, which I'm assuming is a lot more concentrated than how judges receive their education. And they are doing different things - the vets are not judging conformation, they are doing an examination.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sassafras said:


> LOL $340,000 is not going to pay for vet school a couple of times, I assure you. Especially if you figure in prerequisites - nobody can just pick up and go to vet school, although they didn't used to I think all of the schools currently require an undergraduate degree these days in additional fulfilling specific class requirements and extracurricular requirements. And that's assuming someone gets in on their first try. So "being a vet" is going to take 8-10 years at minimum, and if you want to do an internship or specialize that's going to add 1-6 years on top of it.
> 
> Not that it matters, the whole thing is a strawman argument anyway. How long it takes to become something doesn't determine its worth. It's also apples to oranges. In vet school you are in class all day, every day, which I'm assuming is a lot more concentrated than how judges receive their education. And they are doing different things - the vets are not judging conformation, they are doing an examination.


It was never an argument. Just a tid bit....

Another example why this is a bad idea....

Under the current system, if a dog fails the test, the entire breed is effectively removed from competition. How would you feel if you were the breeder of sound dogs, that got beaten by a dog that failed the test after the fact? There is no reward for your breeding program and your sound dog has no chance to shine. Showing dogs is expensive and you just basically threw a bunch of money away. I am not sure what the word would be but it goes beyond frustrating. 

If health testing was required before hand, the only dogs in the ring would be sound dogs. Giving those dogs the opportunity to shine would speed up the healing of the breeds that need help more quickly. And it would REMOVE any chance of a judge that favors any sort of extremism from continuing to put up unhealthy dogs. 

Get this....
1) If only sound dogs are in the ring, the judge is going to put up a sound dog no matter what. 
2) If sound dogs are what is winning, other breeders are going to make sure their program is producing dogs that can win. Many breeders breed to what is hot in their breeds. This gives them a positive target to aim for. 

In other words.... When the Champions and dogs that shine in a breed are sound.... The rest of breed will follow those leaders. 

This is how some of the extreme features and over breeding came into play..... The dogs that were winning had extreme features. So as a whole the breed followed that lead... Each generation becoming more extreme. 

It could be reversed in the same fashion.


----------



## sassafras

JohnnyBandit said:


> It was never an argument. Just a tid bit....


Then why even bring it up? What does it have to do with anything?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sassafras said:


> Then why even bring it up? What does it have to do with anything?


why not bring it up? I thought it was interesting. 

I fully realize that vets and judges do different things.


----------



## jiml

JohnnyBandit said:


> If health testing was required before hand, the only dogs in the ring would be sound dogs. Giving those dogs the opportunity to shine would speed up the healing of the breeds that need help more quickly. And it would REMOVE any chance of a judge that favors any sort of extremism from continuing to put up unhealthy dogs.


I think they are trying for a less radical and costly way to steer breeding in a better direction. Im sure this will evolve w time as complaints come from both sides.

found this interesting. http://www.astraean.com/borderwars/2012/03/ectropion-and-the-failed-crufts-dogs.html


----------



## jiml

JohnnyBandit said:


> 2) If sound dogs are what is winning, other breeders are going to make sure their program is producing dogs that can win. Many breeders breed to what is hot in their breeds. This gives them a positive target to aim for.


I think this is what they are shooting for. also trying not to destroy relationships w top breeders in the process.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

jiml said:


> I think this is what they are shooting for. also trying not to destroy relationships w top breeders in the process.



They already have destroyed relationships with top breeders. Couple years ago, the KC's secretary publicly humiliated the GSD fancy, by likening the BOB GSD at crufts to nothing more than if I am remembering correctly a freaky frog dog. Yet this dog was one of the most moderate GSDs they have, has high working certificates (i.e finish a 20 km endurance run and obedience test), normal hips and elbows and is clear on various other tests. I am not sure they ever got an apology. 

This is just another publicity stunt, that will have repercussions. JB while this may have not hit the masses over here (as it will in the coming weeks) it certainly has outraged the BCA and its members. I have a feeling it will be all people will be talking about at the specialty show I am going to this weekend. 

The peke breeder of the DQ'd dog is already trying to get a lawsuit going. As she got a second opinion, and the dog was cleared. The owner of the Clumber has said they will never be back to the UK. 

This has really made the KC look bad to many people, and not just the show community. Jenny is a great example of the bulldog breed, she is what breeders should be striving for.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

jiml said:


> I think they are trying for a less radical and costly way to steer breeding in a better direction. Im sure this will evolve w time as complaints come from both sides.
> 
> found this interesting. http://www.astraean.com/borderwars/2012/03/ectropion-and-the-failed-crufts-dogs.html


They could not have come up with a more radical way of attempting this if they tried. 

I don't think they would save anything. In fact the likely coming lawsuits will be costly to defend. 

I am not sure what or how the hierarchy is in the KC.... But if this happened in the AKC the members would be calling for blood. In fact if a similar scenario happened in the AKC, I would take vacation and spend the money to go to the general meeting. Both to voice my opinion and to watch the fireworks. In the end a number of people would be looking for jobs.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> This is just another publicity stunt, that will have repercussions. JB while this may have not hit the masses over here (as it will in the coming weeks) it certainly has outraged the BCA and its members. I have a feeling it will be all people will be talking about at the specialty show I am going to this weekend.
> 
> The peke breeder of the DQ'd dog is already trying to get a lawsuit going. As she got a second opinion, and the dog was cleared. The owner of the Clumber has said they will never be back to the UK.
> 
> This has really made the KC look bad to many people, and not just the show community. Jenny is a great example of the bulldog breed, she is what breeders should be striving for.


I get what you are saying. I was at the WPG dog show over the weekend. It was a big buzz there. But what I am saying is that even some US dog people that were not at shows, or on dog message boards over the weekend, had not heard of this. And the general public had little chance of hearing about it.


By the way. I have heard that there may be some funds set up for legal battles involving the Peke and the bulldog. IF you hear of anything let me know. I have been looking but have not found anything. I would like to donate to those two.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

The Bulldog Breed Council's take:

http://bulldogbreedcouncil.co.uk/


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

JohnnyBandit said:


> By the way. I have heard that there may be some funds set up for legal battles involving the Peke and the bulldog. IF you hear of anything let me know. I have been looking but have not found anything. I would like to donate to those two.


I have definitely heard that the Peke's breeder is talking lawsuit, as she took that dog afterwards to get a second opinion and the dog was cleared. I have not heard anything coming from the bulldog about Denise joining in on the lawsuit but I would not doubt it. I have read the Clumber's owner has posted results from the second opinion she got by an Ophthalmologist but haven't found where, the dog was clear. Also the Mastiff had it's health checks before crufts too so it would not surprise me if they joined in. I don't know about the other two having them. 

Also Andrew Brace, very well respected UK judge, is holding a meeting this Thursday for those to voice their opinion and disapproval, etc over this. He will be relaying what is said back to the KC from what I hear.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> The Bulldog Breed Council's take:
> 
> http://bulldogbreedcouncil.co.uk/



To those that kept asking me for proof in what I was saying.....


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Also I want to say the bulldog can and does mate and whelp naturally, its common practice in the UK and is becoming more popular here in the US.


----------



## Pai

PDE Blog's interpretation of the KC's position


----------



## jiml

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2012/03/dennis-sprung-is-baghdad-bob-of-akc.html
I apologize if this was posted earlier. responce from AKC president.


From: Dennis Sprung
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 08:44 AM
To: Robin Stansell; Sheila Goffe; Margaret Poindexter; John Lyons
Cc: Gina DiNardo
Subject: Re: Any advice for Bulldog Club of America (BCA) and the other targeted breeds??

We should prepare a statement after all facts are in. However you can assure and share with everyone that AKC will NEVER allow any such practice to occur. Our Parent Clubs own their respective standard and we support them 100 percent. Furthermore a Judges' decision is final and we respect that as well. The situation is a very disappointing one here from the point of view of breeders, exhibitors and judges and fanciers from around the world. In summary while our PCs have a right to be upset and concerned I will never allow this wrongful practice in America. Never!!! Dennis


----------



## spanielorbust

This would also be a good time to point out that the veterinary examinations are a pro-active *KC* initiative, not something put in place by any other body. If the KC so wished they could over-rule the vet decisions. It is their show and they make the rules. When you enter a KC reg show you sign a declaration to "abide by KC rules". So the vet does not disqualify the dog. They recommend the disqualification only.

SOB


----------



## hast

JohnnyBandit said:


> <snip>
> 
> And to the comment about what happened at Crufts having much of an impact here.... All this business has not even made the mainstream media here. Heck there are breeders and show people that still have not herd anything about it.


If it doesn't have any impact here, why are so many so very upset about it? Why don't people just roll their eye's and say "those crazy Brits!". I have never heard anyone in Europe debating to this degree what's being done here in the US ...
Most people and forums around Europe are quite positive even if there are many suggestions on a different set-up. But all in all, most agree that some kind of policing is needed since the breeders and judges don't seem to be able to self police the issue.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

They don't vet check all dogs beforehand because there is an assumption you are following the rules.

Kinda like in sports no one is allowed to take enhancement drugs but they only test the winners.


----------



## jiml

JohnnyBandit said:


> They could not have come up with a more radical way of attempting this if they tried.


while I disagree w that I will say this should have been implemented in smaller shows prior to crufts


----------



## jiml




----------



## JohnnyBandit

hast said:


> If it doesn't have any impact here, why are so many so very upset about it? Why don't people just roll their eye's and say "those crazy Brits!". I have never heard anyone in Europe debating to this degree what's being done here in the US ...
> Most people and forums around Europe are quite positive even if there are many suggestions on a different set-up. But all in all, most agree that some kind of policing is needed since the breeders and judges don't seem to be able to self police the issue.


I can't speak for others. But I am not upset in the least. I am very supportive of what my fellow members for the dog community in the UK are going through. 

You must be talking to different folks in Europe, because all I am hearing is they are not going back to the UK to compete until they do something about this circus. 

As to your last statement.... That is the problem with this whole fiasco... The dumping on breeders in general because of the actions of a small minority. And as it shows on the Bulldog Council's statement, they had a plan in place long before this Howdy Doody show started.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Pai said:


> PDE Blog's interpretation of the KC's position


Jemima is at it again...


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

jiml said:


>


And yet the clumber was checked before and after this and came up clear.


----------



## meggels

Anyone have a pic of the frenchie that won breed?


----------



## spanielorbust

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> And yet the clumber was checked before and after this and came up clear.


My understanding is the after check shows the eyeballs were all that were looked at on the followup certificate without comment on the haw or ectropian or the ear infection. I don't know the terminology well enough to read the certificate but that remark was made on another forum after the certificate was shown and has not been contested. As I read it there is comment on the conjuntiva, but this test was also a day later. Treatment could already be in place.

Here is the after certificate that has been circulating.










SOB


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

meggels said:


> Anyone have a pic of the frenchie that won breed?


BOB French Bulldog (MORVERN FRANK AVEC LABANJO):


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Apparently a judge for the 2013 Crufts, was convicted of animal cruelty in 2009 and is to judge the same breed he was abusing. I really hope this isn't true, but everything I am reading says it is.


----------



## Pai

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> BOB French Bulldog (MORVERN FRANK AVEC LABANJO)


Here's a video of him too. He's really nice imo!


----------



## begemot

JohnnyBandit said:


> Under the current system, if a dog fails the test, the entire breed is effectively removed from competition. How would you feel if you were the breeder of sound dogs, that got beaten by a dog that failed the test after the fact? There is no reward for your breeding program and your sound dog has no chance to shine. Showing dogs is expensive and you just basically threw a bunch of money away. I am not sure what the word would be but it goes beyond frustrating.


As far as I can tell, this will just create more pressure from within to fix the standards and get better judging. Which is a good thing. People with sound dogs who were eliminated by judges in favor of sick dogs _should _be mad.


----------



## begemot

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> This has really made the KC look bad to many people, and not just the show community. Jenny is a great example of the bulldog breed, she is what breeders should be striving for.


I think public opinion has actually swung in the opposite direction. It seems like many people who still had the blinders on three years ago have now jumped ship and are increasingly supportive of attempts to fix the problems. Public opinion is powerful, and it seems to be on the side of the KC.



JohnnyBandit said:


> I don't think they would save anything. In fact the likely coming lawsuits will be costly to defend.


I think this is extremely unrealistic. They don't really have legal ground to stand on. It's the KC's show. They determine the rules. When people sign up, they agree to those rules. What would the charges even be? That the vets lied? Good luck with that.


----------



## begemot

Pai said:


> PDE Blog's interpretation of the KC's position


I wish the KC would come out and say that. I would be a great statement, especially this:

"After a tumultous Crufts that we know was difficult for some of you, the Kennel Club is at a crossroads. One path leads to a world where our hobby is increasingly conducted behind closed doors, where we try to hide from scrutiny. It is, we believe, the path to oblivion. The other path affords a real opportunity for us and UK dog breeders to lead the world as we did when the Kennel Club - the first of them all - was founded in 1873.

"We believe the expertise, talent and commitment to dogs that define many Kennel Club breeders gives us the potential to do something special for dogs - to reconsider some breeds (and re-write their breed standards) where necessary; to open the door to judicious outcrossing where it is needed (and not just in those breeds that are already on their genetic knees); to be transparent on health issues and welcome outside input; to acknowledge that dog shows do need to find a way to reward good health as much as good looks; to give breeders and the public more tools to help them make better choices; to embrace science and history, and to not be too proud to learn from other Kennel Clubs where they are doing it better."


----------



## begemot

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> Apparently a judge for the 2013 Crufts, was convicted of animal cruelty in 2009 and is to judge the same breed he was abusing. I really hope this isn't true, but everything I am reading says it is.


Woah, I hadn't heard about this. Can you link a news story?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

begemot said:


> I think public opinion has actually swung in the opposite direction. It seems like many people who still had the blinders on three years ago have now jumped ship and are increasingly supportive of attempts to fix the problems. Public opinion is powerful, and it seems to be on the side of the KC.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is extremely unrealistic. They don't really have legal ground to stand on. It's the KC's show. They determine the rules. When people sign up, they agree to those rules. What would the charges even be? That the vets lied? Good luck with that.


The knee jerk is going to swing any which way when it comes out that this is a true witch hunt. And in the meantime, Crufts and the KC have lost credibility in the dog world. 

I am fully aware of signing an agreement to club terms. Similar statements are on AKC event entries....

Such agreements do not relieve the vet, Crufts, the KC, or its staff from liability for wrongdoing. Especially if their rules are followed. There is plenty of legal ground to stand on.....


----------



## spanielorbust

begemot said:


> Woah, I hadn't heard about this. Can you link a news story?


In Cavaliers Caroline Gatheral was found guilty of cruelty in regards to 80+ animals in 2000, and judged in 2009. She was heavily involved in mentoring many in the Cavalier world.

I believe this time 'round the talk is about a Mastiff owner and judge, David Blaxter, who has been previously convicted of cruelty with regard to leaving an older dog with a tumour go without treatment and starve until the need was for it to be put down. 

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/local/dog_suffering_the_worst_ever_seen_by_vet_1_888179

Keep in mind these reports are only part of the story. There is always another side.

SOB


----------



## RaeganW

begemot said:


> As far as I can tell, this will just create more pressure from within to fix the standards and get better judging. Which is a good thing. People with sound dogs who were eliminated by judges in favor of sick dogs _should _be mad.


The standards are not really the problem. Most standards describe a much more moderate dog than in seen in the ring. The competitive nature of conformation shows pushes breeds to extremes.


----------



## begemot

spanielorbust said:


> Keep in mind these reports are only part of the story. There is always another side.


It's pretty hard to imagine another side to that story that wouldn't still involve some level of serious neglect. 



RaeganW said:


> The standards are not really the problem. Most standards describe a much more moderate dog than in seen in the ring. The competitive nature of conformation shows pushes breeds to extremes.


I meant "standards" more broadly, not the written breed standards. I meant the sort of zeitgeisty, general, status quo standards. Sorry, poor word choice.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

If the breeders agreed to vet checks before the show, and their dog failed the vet check they will find it _very_ difficult to pursue a legal case unless they can prove the vet was bias and undermined them. Agreeing to something like that and then not liking the results isn't a legitimate defence for a legal case. Since it's not a specialist exam and it's the vet's opinion..You can't sue someone for their opinion. If they had out and out lied that would be very different. The closest you could argue is emotional distress and since the breeders agreed to the test that is nullified. 

Can't belief the story about the judge and the mastiffs..This year is truly a disaster PR wise!

Did the Crufts people know about this judges history?


----------



## cshellenberger

AussieNerdQueen said:


> If the breeders agreed to vet checks before the show, and their dog failed the vet check they will find it _very_ difficult to pursue a legal case unless they can prove the vet was bias and undermined them. Agreeing to something like that and then not liking the results isn't a legitimate defence for a legal case. Since it's not a specialist exam and it's the vet's opinion..You can't sue someone for their opinion. If they had out and out lied that would be very different. The closest you could argue is emotional distress and since the breeders agreed to the test that is nullified.


When it's coming back that the dogs are FREE of any problems via specialists and second and third opinion vets that's most CERTAINLY what it will appear to be. Frankly it would benefit the KC and breeds more if they simply required the dogs be cleared of all health problems (via health testing and orthopedic certification) common to each individual breed BEFORE being allowed to enter the show ring.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

cshellenberger said:


> When it's coming back that the dogs are FREE of any problems via specialists and second and third opinion vets that's most CERTAINLY what it will appear to be. Frankly it would benefit the KC and breeds more if they simply required the dogs be cleared of all health problems (via health testing and orthopedic certification) common to each individual breed BEFORE being allowed to enter the show ring.


How long would it take to vet test that many dogs though? If it's doable I agree with that part.

However unless you can PROVE they actively lied there's not much they can do. Proving that would be extremely difficult.

Even if they're free of defects the list of things they were supposed to look for didn't necessarily mean defect. Like couldn't a dog have trouble breathing without having an actual problem for example? It really is just the vet's opinion that these dogs weren't suitable, I thought that was the entire argument? I mean, what would the legal argument be? That is a genuine question not snarky.


----------



## begemot

cshellenberger said:


> When it's coming back that the dogs are FREE of any problems via specialists and second and third opinion vets that's most CERTAINLY what it will appear to be.


Even if those second and third opinion vets disagree, they still wouldn't have a case, because:

1. In order to win a lawsuit, they would have to prove that the vet wasn't simply giving her/his professional medical opinion, but was _intentionally lying_. Like if they managed to find an audio recording of the vets out toasting the success of their evil plot to slander these dogs.

2. Vets whose services were procured by the owner just don't have the same standing as independent vets.

3. Not to mention the obvious flaw in your logic, which is that the dogs almost certainly DO have these health problems, and the future *independent *examinations by vets (that would be necessary for a lawsuit) will just confirm it.



> Frankly it would benefit the KC and breeds more if they simply required the dogs be cleared of all health problems (via health testing and orthopedic certification) common to each individual breed BEFORE being allowed to enter the show ring.


By the exhibitor's own vets? In other words, the KC should embrace the use of meaningless paperwork to stall real change.


----------



## cshellenberger

AussieNerdQueen said:


> How long would it take to vet test that many dogs though? If it's doable I agree with that part.
> 
> However unless you can PROVE they actively lied there's not much they can do. Proving that would be extremely difficult.
> 
> Even if they're free of defects the list of things they were supposed to look for didn't necessarily mean defect. Like couldn't a dog have trouble breathing without having an actual problem for example? It really is just the vet's opinion that these dogs weren't suitable, I thought that was the entire argument? I mean, what would the legal argument be? That is a genuine question not snarky.


None of the dogs had trouble breathing, the EB was DQ'd for an eye injury sustained during PLAY as a PUPPY, it was not a defect (such as cherry eye surgery or correction for entrpian or ectropian) the dog had passed prior show exams with that same scar, it was an injury ANY dog could have gotten. 

The health clearances I speak of would be something that most responsible breeders are doing any how.


----------



## cshellenberger

begemot said:


> Even if those second and third opinion vets disagree, they still wouldn't have a case, because:
> 
> 1. In order to win a lawsuit, they would have to prove that the vet wasn't simply giving her/his professional medical opinion, but was _intentionally lying_. Like if they managed to find an audio recording of the vets out toasting the success of their evil plot to slander these dogs.
> 
> 2. Vets whose services were procured by the owner just don't have the same standing as independent vets.
> 
> 3. Not to mention the obvious flaw in your logic, which is that the dogs almost certainly DO have these health problems, and the future *independent *examinations by vets (that would be necessary for a lawsuit) will just confirm it.
> 
> 
> 
> By the exhibitor's own vets? In other words, the KC should embrace the use of meaningless paperwork to stall real change.


I'm pretty sure OFA and CERF certs are not given by the breeders vets, they may do the TESTING, but the x-rays and other results are scrutinized by third party vets. Those are the type of certifications I'm talking about. It's documetation that the dog carries no physical defects, is cleared (or a carrier only) of conditions that can be DNA tested (PRA, vonWillibrands, ect). 

Furthermore I'll take the an opthamologists opinion about a dogs eyes over the opinion of an ortho vet (who was used by the KC at Crufts).


----------



## hast

JohnnyBandit said:


> The knee jerk is going to swing any which way when it comes out that this is a true witch hunt. And in the meantime, Crufts and the KC have lost credibility in the dog world.
> 
> I am fully aware of signing an agreement to club terms. Similar statements are on AKC event entries....
> 
> Such agreements do not relieve the vet, Crufts, the KC, or its staff from liability for wrongdoing. Especially if their rules are followed. There is plenty of legal ground to stand on.....


Maybe KC and Crufts have lost credibility among American breeders, but that's not at all what I see in European countries. There the consensus is that it's a good thing they've started. The process needs to be refined, but I have not seen one single article/post on forums saying it's all bad. 

The talk about law suits is totally from an American perspective ... it doesn't work the same way in Europe. There might be plenty of ground to stand on in the US, but it's very unlikely there's any ground at all to stand on in the UK. I guess we'll have to wait and see if any lawsuit will be filed.

Oh, edited to say that as passionately as many here opposes what Crufts did, it's easy to believe those people are quite upset about it.:wink:


----------



## sassafras

begemot said:


> 2. Vets whose services were procured by the owner just don't have the same standing as independent vets.


Yea, sadly some vets who work a lot with breeders know who butters their bread, so to speak, and aren't going to upset them. Also, if two vets give two opinions, people are going to believe the one they want to believe.


----------



## begemot

cshellenberger said:


> None of the dogs had trouble breathing, the EB was DQ'd for an eye injury sustained during PLAY as a PUPPY, it was not a defect (such as cherry eye surgery or correction for entrpian or ectropian) the dog had passed prior show exams with that same scar, it was an injury ANY dog could have gotten.


Where is your proof of this? If you have it, I have yet to see it. Why hasn't the EB owner released the vet exam, if it's so simple?



cshellenberger said:


> I'm pretty sure OFA and CERF certs are not given by the breeders vets, they may do the TESTING, but the x-rays and other results are scrutinized by third party vets. Those are the type of certifications I'm talking about. It's documetation that the dog carries no physical defects, is cleared (or a carrier only) of conditions that can be DNA tested (PRA, vonWillibrands, ect).
> 
> Furthermore I'll take the an opthamologists opinion about a dogs eyes over the opinion of an ortho vet (who was used by the KC at Crufts).


I'm confused because now it sounds like you're actually advocating _more _regulation, which seems at odds with your previous stance. Although I may have misunderstood you before. This idea would involve a lot of wrangling to decide what tests would be required of what breeds, and lots of problems don't have tests. I'm not saying I would be opposed to it, but it's no substitution for basic vet health checks by a neutral party.



hast said:


> The talk about law suits is totally from an American perspective ... it doesn't work the same way in Europe. There might be plenty of ground to stand on in the US, but it's very unlikely there's any ground at all to stand on in the UK.


There really isn't any ground to stand on in the US either (and I'm American).


----------



## Pawzk9

begemot said:


> As far as I can tell, this will just create more pressure from within to fix the standards and get better judging. Which is a good thing. People with sound dogs who were eliminated by judges in favor of sick dogs _should _be mad.


What "sick" dogs?


----------



## Pawzk9

begemot said:


> Where is your proof of this? If you have it, I have yet to see it. Why hasn't the EB owner released the vet exam, if it's so simple?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused because now it sounds like you're actually advocating _more _regulation, which seems at odds with your previous stance. Although I may have misunderstood you before. This idea would involve a lot of wrangling to decide what tests would be required of what breeds, and lots of problems don't have tests. I'm not saying I would be opposed to it, but it's no substitution for basic vet health checks by a neutral party.


Personally, I think the Crufts policy is stupid. It only targets specific breeds and negates the judge's position to "judge". However, I wouldn't be at all opposed to requiring requisite health test on all dogs WHEN they enter/qualify for a major show. This would be fair and informative. Dog doesn't have health clearances, they aren't the quality to enter. It IS more stringent, but it also addresses the issue, and treats all dogs/breeds equally. I'd rather know that the bulldog had whatever health clearances are required than know that he got a grass seed in his eye (maybe). I do think the pseudo-judges (vets) were under pressure to eliminate certain dogs, and I don't think their opinion is necessary any more valid than "real" judges. Crufts wouldn't do the right thing, so they just did "something" and hoped that the smoke and mirrors would satisfy the koolaide drinkers


----------



## spanielorbust

Pawzk9 said:


> Personally, I think the Crufts policy is stupid. It only targets specific breeds and negates the judge's position to "judge". However, I wouldn't be at all opposed to requiring requisite health test on all dogs WHEN they enter/qualify for a major show. This would be fair and informative. Dog doesn't have health clearances, they aren't the quality to enter. It IS more stringent, but it also addresses the issue, and treats all dogs/breeds equally. I'd rather know that the bulldog had whatever health clearances are required than know that he got a grass seed in his eye (maybe). I do think the pseudo-judges (vets) were under pressure to eliminate certain dogs, and I don't think their opinion is necessary any more valid than "real" judges. Crufts wouldn't do the right thing, so they just did "something" and hoped that the smoke and mirrors would satisfy the koolaide drinkers


I just can't buy this conspiracy theory. The Pug, the Bloodhound and others from the 'at risk' breeds made it through the checks. Other than the fact that 'at risk' breeds were previously identified and warned they would be checked, why do you believe 'certain' dogs amongst these breeds were targetted? What would be the reasoning?

It was made clear by the Kennel Club that it was not the independent vet's job to rule on exaggeration. The vet's job was to pick up lameness, obvious respiratory problems; skin issues and debilitating eye problems.

I have been reading UK reaction to this as well. I personally think the checks are a good way to go for the KC as they put in place a check for the judging that DOES go on in breeds that 'looks past' some of these exaggeration issues that DO affect health. I think that this would have been better if rolled out in a smaller show to tweak it first. For instance, IF the Bulldog was DQd on an old eye injury identified by the vet, with the KC then making the decision, that type of conundrum should have been hashed out before an event like this that is so much in the spotlight.

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9

spanielorbust said:


> I just can't buy this conspiracy theory. The Pug, the Bloodhound and others from the 'at risk' breeds made it through the checks. Other than the fact that 'at risk' breeds were previously identified and warned they would be checked, why do you believe 'certain' dogs amongst these breeds were targetted? What would be the reasoning?
> 
> SOB


To appease the koolaide drinkers and to appear to be doing something (even something very ill-planned). You seem to ignored the rest of my post. Do you not agree that the most important consideration may not be spotted by a cursory vet exam - even with a flashlight?


----------



## spanielorbust

I ignored most of your post because I disagree with the assertions made. Simple as that, but I'll go through it as you've mentioned it.



> Personally, I think the Crufts policy is stupid. It only targets specific breeds and negates the judge's position to "judge".


I disagree whole heartedly that it negates the judge's position to judge. As to targetting breeds, the named exaggerated breeds have known they were on this list a great length of time. They were named specifically because of the problems inherent in them and the fact that judges keep rewarding exaggerated dogs so the problems continue and get worse with time. If breeders of these breeds don't want to enter a show with these rules they don't have to.



> However, I wouldn't be at all opposed to requiring requisite health test on all dogs WHEN they enter/qualify for a major show. This would be fair and informative. Dog doesn't have health clearances, they aren't the quality to enter. It IS more stringent, but it also addresses the issue, and treats all dogs/breeds equally. I'd rather know that the bulldog had whatever health clearances are required than know that he got a grass seed in his eye (maybe).


*You* wouldn't be opposed but this has been discussed prior many times and this idea has met tons of opposition by others, which is why the KC settled on the vet exams. Health clearances, to me, also mean very little as so little is tested for. Many UK breeds require 'no' clearances for even 'assured' breeders. Which clearances would the KC, then, be able to mandate? This has all been hashed over before on UK forums if you'd like to google.

Cavalier forums have been specifically heated on the topic as the only clearances required for ABS breeders in the UK are for eyes. The health clearances, then, would mean nothing with regard to the major problems in the breed (and according to many others scratching dogs with SM symptoms have been made up to CC on days they were obviously symptomatic ).

Re vets you said -


> and I don't think their opinion is necessary any more valid than "real" judges.


The vets opinions were only given on the health of the dog in front of them, in specific areas, not on conformation. The vets did not act as a judge so this statement makes no sense. As to the overlapping area they were looking at - specifically healthy eyes, skin, lameness and respiratory difficulties - I would take the vets opinion over the judges. 



> Crufts wouldn't do the right thing, so they just did "something" and hoped that the smoke and mirrors would satisfy the koolaide drinkers


When you say "Crufts wouldn't do the right thing", I have no clue what you are referring to. That sentence doesn't make sense to me. Crufts is a dog show. I don't know how 'it' could or could not do the right thing.

Are you suggesting the KC wouldn't do the right thing? If so what do you mean? Why not? What right thing are you referring to?

As per your last post then:



Pawzk9 said:


> To appease the koolaide drinkers and to appear to be doing something (even something very ill-planned). You seem to ignored the rest of my post. Do you not agree that the most important consideration may not be spotted by a cursory vet exam - even with a flashlight?


To appease the koolaide drinkers does not address your accusation that some specific breeds were targetted.

Why, if appeasing the koolaide drikers was the aim, do you believe that 'specific' breeds within that group of 15 were targetted? That makes no sense to me and is central to the conspiracy theory you put forward, so give me a hint please.



> Do you not agree that the most important consideration may not be spotted by a cursory vet exam - even with a flashlight?


It is hard to agree or disagree with a statement that is not clear in its meaning. I truly do not know what you are asking here. The double negative has thrown me and I can't find clarity. What is the 'most important consideration' that you are referring to? 

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9

spanielorbust said:


> Why, if appeasing the koolaide drikers was the aim, do you believe that 'specific' breeds within that group of 15 were targetted? That makes no sense to me and is central to the conspiracy theory you put forward, so give me a hint please.
> 
> SOB


I think the vets were under pressure to find "something" wrong with some of the dogs in the breeds called up for further "judging" If they hadn't Jemmy would be screeching even louder than she is now


----------



## spanielorbust

> I think the vets were under pressure to find "something" wrong with some of the dogs in the breeds called up for further "judging" If they hadn't Jemmy would be screeching even louder than she is now


So then you are no longer saying 'certain' dogs were aimed at, just generally 'some' dogs within that group of 15. Thanks for clarifying.

The suggestion then is that the vets were in kahoots? ... told beforehand that 'some' had to go. That is silly thinking IMHO. The KC is not that dumb.

IMHO the hope of the KC was that the BOBs put up would pass the exams. There was a year of warnings vet exams were going to be given at Crufts and judges education and re-education aimed at features that might be a problem for health.

If it so happened that a dog does not pass the test then it would be taken on the chin, so to speak, just as it would be if a dog was a bit lame on the day of the event. 

SOB


----------



## JohnnyBandit

begemot said:


> Even if those second and third opinion vets disagree, they still wouldn't have a case, because:
> 
> 1. In order to win a lawsuit, they would have to prove that the vet wasn't simply giving her/his professional medical opinion, but was _intentionally lying_. Like if they managed to find an audio recording of the vets out toasting the success of their evil plot to slander these dogs.
> 
> 2. Vets whose services were procured by the owner just don't have the same standing as independent vets.
> 
> 3. Not to mention the obvious flaw in your logic, which is that the dogs almost certainly DO have these health problems, and the future *independent *examinations by vets (that would be necessary for a lawsuit) will just confirm it.
> 
> 
> 
> By the exhibitor's own vets? In other words, the KC should embrace the use of meaningless paperwork to stall real change.


that is ridiculous...... You do not have to prove the vet lied. All that you have to prove is the vet was either not credentialed to make such findings or the vet was wrong..... If the dogs are found clear by credentialed vets, it would be a VERY strong case. 

And sometimes suits are not about winning or losing but about applying pressure. If say just a thousand people get behind this (and from what I am seeing the numbers are going to be MUCH higher than that) and each contributes to the costs of the plaintiffs expenses, the cost can be absorbed over many people. while defending it will be up the KC. It will be very costly for them. Especially since they are likely to have two or three of these suits going. Could last years and cost millions. Better move for them is to adjust how they are doing things. 

And what happens when it becomes very hot for the executive staff of the KC? 


And.... Every vet is not qualified to evaluate the things they were attempting to evaluate. '

Your local vet cannot give your dog OFA type clearances. There is a very small pool of vets that evaluate ofa xrays. A very small pool of vets that dog CERFs (eye exams) A small pool of vets that dog BAER testing, etc etc etc. 

The only two OFA tests a GP vet can sign off on are cardiac in which they are just listening for something irregular, and Patellas which they are just checking to make sure they are tight.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Interesting article in Dog World Today.
http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/67210

Verifies more of what I have said all along.

I am now going to state to those that asked me to provide my sources over the weekend.... I appeared to ignore these. It was NEVER that I did not have reliable sources. But that when this started going on and opinions such as some on here, praising this sideshow, started coming out, the dog world closed up. I am sure Chaos and others likely had "inside" information. But I was not about to reveal the sources of this information publically.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

hast said:


> Maybe KC and Crufts have lost credibility among American breeders, but that's not at all what I see in European countries. There the consensus is that it's a good thing they've started. The process needs to be refined, but I have not seen one single article/post on forums saying it's all bad.
> 
> The talk about law suits is totally from an American perspective ... it doesn't work the same way in Europe. There might be plenty of ground to stand on in the US, but it's very unlikely there's any ground at all to stand on in the UK. I guess we'll have to wait and see if any lawsuit will be filed.
> 
> Oh, edited to say that as passionately as many here opposes what Crufts did, it's easy to believe those people are quite upset about it.:wink:


I don't know where you are getting your information.... But I am on a couple of boards and groups that are heavily European. Everyone is up in arms over this. Most of the Herding breed people, and specifically the GSD people, don't like the current KC executive staff anyway. This is just another thing.

Heck I am on one group that just started up Sunday which is largely European. Some of the biggest names in dogs in Europe are in there.


----------



## Crantastic

I don't see how it's a conspiracy theory to suggest that this was a move by the KC to appease the general public after the popularity of the Pedigree Dogs Exposed specials. I am not suggesting that the vets faked results or anything like that, but this definitely seems like a political move rather than a change based on real concern for the breeds. 

I agree with Pawzk that it would have been better to require that all dogs of all breeds have the proper tests done to even qualify for the show. Singling out a few winners and publicly humiliating the breeders is not the way to effect change -- all that does is put people on the defensive and make them want to quit entirely. It's the same thing as when a new members gets dogpiled here and told that everything they're doing is wrong and that they should do it our way or else. 90% of those people get extremely offended and bail, refusing to take our advice even if it is good advice. I definitely think that some of these breeds are unhealthy and that something needs to be done. I just think that making a negative example of a few dogs was not the right thing to do. The KC should eliminate them before they even get a chance to enter the ring rather than very loudly and very publicly strip them of their awards.


----------



## hast

I've checked what they say in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany and Holland primarily ... Not "American-international" boards, but kennel clubs, breed clubs, and some bulletin boards too. They are all quite positive and find that a change is necessary, even if there are some suggestions on doing it differently for another year (two vets and a judge is what I've seen most often).


----------



## JohnnyBandit

hast said:


> I've checked what they say in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany and Holland primarily ... Not "American-international" boards, but kennel clubs, breed clubs, and some bulletin boards too. They are all quite positive and find that a change is necessary, even if there are some suggestions on doing it differently for another year (two vets and a judge is what I've seen most often).


Well the one that started up Sunday is NOT an American International group. And one of the others for herding breeds is not American based either.... Probably less than 50 Americans on it. I have to use the Bing translator to read much of it. Everyone posts in their native language. But much of it is in German.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

In other words... are there boards and groups similar to this one that are European based, that think this is a positive thing? I am sure there are.... Don't even need to look at that.... 

But breeder dominated boards that are supportive of this? Nope......


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

JohnnyBandit said:


> But breeder dominated boards that are supportive of this? Nope......


LOL, I wouldn't expect breeders to be supportive of this. After all, they are now subject to more scrutiny, more regulation - no one likes that. But it's not for the good of the breeders, is it? It's for the good of the dogs. 

Crantastic summed up my position pretty well. Change was needed, and I'm grateful for a step in the right direction. It could have been done better, though. Publicity stunt or not, I hope it makes people think twice before entering unhealthy dogs.


----------



## perrodeapeso

Visual inspections seem to both protect the breeder and pacify public opinion. Why are breeders outraged? Their dogs only have to look healthy if they win, that is not a lot to ask for, is it? The result of the inspections is also confidential. Vet checks only for winners is economic and prevents multiple disqualifications in one breed. Full, public and general vet checks would make breeders sacrificial lambs. Imagine the outcry if that happens. Crufts is not dead or changing, its just adapting.
The only controversy I see here is about the Bulldog. The Clumber, the Neapolitan and the Basset look unhealthy. I'm pretty sure there was a good reason for the others since nothing has been said about them. 

edit: how do Crufts and the Kennel Club get their funding?


----------



## cshellenberger

The breeders are outraged because these dogs have been CLEARED of any health problems, they never should have been DQ'd. They are upset because in at least one of the exams INSTRUMENTS were used that a judge WOULD NOT use in the ring, which was a RULE VIOLATION (whether you approve of the use or not).


----------



## perrodeapeso

Previous health clearances have nothing to do with the actual health of the animal. The veterinary surgeon evaluated them and determined they were at fault of at least one of the things being checked. The flash light thing is irrelevant (whether it was the rule or not). Arguing about it seem to completely miss the point of having the animals checked in first place. Even if its just a visual inspection without flashlights. Have any of the owners put forward third party tests that contradict the findings in the visual inspections? Would it make a difference if the flashlight was explicitly allowed? I guess the uproar would then be a flashlight not being enough to make a diagnosis. 
As long as its not proved that the animals were indeed healthy, outraged breeders have no leg to stand on. Conspiracy theories and rule breaking are pretty flaky arguments.


----------



## hast

JohnnyBandit said:


> In other words... are there boards and groups similar to this one that are European based, that think this is a positive thing? I am sure there are.... Don't even need to look at that....
> 
> But breeder dominated boards that are supportive of this? Nope......


Breed clubs and kennel clubs seem very positive, and quite a few breeders as well, together with everyone else on the boards I check in on. 



perrodeapeso said:


> Visual inspections seem to both protect the breeder and pacify public opinion. Why are breeders outraged? Their dogs only have to look healthy if they win, that is not a lot to ask for, is it? The result of the inspections is also confidential. Vet checks only for winners is economic and prevents multiple disqualifications in one breed. Full, public and general vet checks would make breeders sacrificial lambs. Imagine the outcry if that happens. Crufts is not dead or changing, its just adapting.
> <snip>


Ditto! They had to do something before the pressure from the general public become big enough to call at least some aspects of it animal cruelty ... and that might have been the end of Crufts. It was an outcry when ear cropping and tail docking was made illegal, in countries where it's been a while since it happened (in Sweden 1989, in Germany in the 90's) at first many breeders had the same kind of outcry over the issue, but have settled in and now are very positive. They will settle in and learn to work with Crufts new rules too. And best of all ... many breeds of dogs around the world will be healthier for it.


----------



## kathylcsw

I have been reading this thread and my non breeder opinion is that all dog lovers ought to be concerned about the health of the dogs. Breeders make a choice to breed but the dogs have no say in the matter. To me it is beyond dispute that these "responsible" breeders have done damage to several breeds - bulldogs especially - in the name of winning these shows. At the end of the day it is more important that a dog be healthy enough to live a normal life than to be able to win what is, in effect, a beauty contest. If some of these breeders decide to get out of breeding it might actually be beneficial to these breeds in the long term. I love dogs and for me it is about the dogs not the people involved. It is past time for change and when breeders won't initiate it on their own they lose control over how it happens.


----------



## cshellenberger

perrodeapeso said:


> Previous health clearances have nothing to do with the actual health of the animal. The veterinary surgeon evaluated them and determined they were at fault of at least one of the things being checked. The flash light thing is irrelevant (whether it was the rule or not). Arguing about it seem to completely miss the point of having the animals checked in first place. Even if its just a visual inspection without flashlights. Have any of the owners put forward third party tests that contradict the findings in the visual inspections? Would it make a difference if the flashlight was explicitly allowed? I guess the uproar would then be a flashlight not being enough to make a diagnosis.
> As long as its not proved that the animals were indeed healthy, outraged breeders have no leg to stand on. Conspiracy theories and rule breaking are pretty flaky arguments.


These dogs had passed previous health checks at other shows, one or two just the week before. Nearly all the owners have DOCUMENTATION (exams done within hours after) that there was NO problem with their dogs, jsut go back a page or two and you'll see the DOCUMENTATION links posted. The dogs were (are) HEALTHY.


----------



## perrodeapeso

I did miss that one post on the clumber spaniel. Its from the owner's vet. If you were to decide on clearing this dog by looking at this picture (No flashlights :rant and having that document in your hand, would you agree that the dog shows "no pathological or degenerative changes" and no inflammation of the conjunctiva?










I found that pic on a link in this thread.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

GottaLuvMutts said:


> LOL, I wouldn't expect breeders to be supportive of this. After all, they are now subject to more scrutiny, more regulation - no one likes that. But it's not for the good of the breeders, is it? It's for the good of the dogs.


This is not good for anyone.... Dogs or people.... 

And you could not be any more off base than you already are.

The reasons breeders are against it. 
1) It is discriminatory. 15 breeds have to face an extra hurdle to advance. This is not right for anyone.

2) It gives the appearance that all the dogs in a given breed are flawed. If the BEST dog fails, they all must be bad. 

3) It publically trashes people that may have devoted their lives to a breed. 

4) Volunteer vets may be examining for issues out of their area of expertise. 

There is going to be a lot of fall out from all this. And it is not going to go the way some folks are thinking.

Already things are coming down the pike....

Aside from the likely law suits from specific dog owners that has been raised, there a suit based on discriminatory practices in the works. (monies are already being raised) 

You may see a shift from KC sanctioned shows to FCI sanctioned shows in the UK....This would be a very easy transition and again talks are already taking place. If the breeders switch for FCI for registration, and the show host clubs switch to FCI sanction, the KC is done.... (Not what I want to see but....)

Already some judges have withdrawn from assignments at future shows on some of the targeted breeds. And getting replacement judges is not likely possible. 


And there is more to come.......


----------



## begemot

JohnnyBandit said:


> that is ridiculous...... You do not have to prove the vet lied. All that you have to prove is the vet was either not credentialed to make such findings or the vet was wrong..... If the dogs are found clear by credentialed vets, it would be a VERY strong case.


But they are VETS. They are credentialed. What part of that isn't understood?



cshellenberger said:


> The breeders are outraged because these dogs have been CLEARED of any health problems, they never should have been DQ'd.


To quote Shaina, "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt." 










Ithani.


----------



## cshellenberger

Take a LONG look at the EB that won, she is the MOST moderate and old style EB I've seen in the ring in years. No entropian, no ectropian, no breathing problems ( the dog was made to do down and backs 12 times and didn't even pant). Frankly if they're going to require vet checks at shows they need to do them BEFORE the dogs enter the ring, not just to the winners and they need to do them with every breed instead of discriminating.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

begemot said:


> But they are VETS. They are credentialed. What part of that isn't understood?
> 
> .


I am not the one that is having trouble getting it. I have been doing clearances on my dogs for YEARS!

Your General Practitioner is very likely not credentialed to do a kidney transplant. Your Podiatrist is not going fit you with a hearing aid. 

It is the same way with Vets. We are not talking doing spays, neuters, rabies shots, dealing with the things that most GP vets deal with. 
We are talking about potential genitic issues.

Your GP vet cannot give your dog a passing hip grade, cannot CERF your dog. 
The pool of vets qualified and credentialed to evaluate such matters is small. 

So unless this vet is one of those vets, then no..... He is not credentialed.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

To add to that..... I have not spent thousands and run dogs to vets, clinics, etc all over the place because I like being complicated. I have spent $1700 alone on testing for Merlin. And run him from one end of the state to the other. 

And I am lucky..... I live in Florida. Probably the easiest state in the country to get this sort of thing done.


----------



## Niraya

begemot said:


> But they are VETS. They are credentialed. What part of that isn't understood?


I've stayed away from this but thought I'd chime in on this ^ even though it's not show related maybe it'll help you understand that a vet isn't a vet isn't a vet. They all just aren't the same and because of that any "vet" can't give clearances on even GENERAL health. (at least this is how I've understand this argument about the vet talk. I'm sorry if I misunderstand)

Bella has a Cardiologist. She cannot go over Bella and examine her and say she's healthy in any other way. She cannot look at her eyes, ears, feet, legs, nose etc. I cannot make an appointment with her because Bella has an upset stomach and had diarrhea for a week. She HAS to see her other Vet.

Just because Dr. H is by rights a veterinarian and she is credentialed - I still cannot ask her to give Bella a clean bill of health in anything other than Cardiology.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

I will give you for an example..... When you have your dog's hips xrayed for hip dysplasia.

First you have the rads shot..... And using any vet can be a mistake. I have seen a lot of bad rads over the years. Just like you don't want just anyone shooting an important photo, you want someone that is good to take the shot. 

Then you send your rads to OFA. They look them over, check all supportive docs, etc. Then they send the photos out to three random board certified vet radiologists out of a national pool of 25. Each vet evaluates the rads. Majority rules. Two goods and an excellent, you have a good. Two fairs and a good, you have a fair, etc. There are only 25 vets in the country for this. That is it. 

For CERF.... the vet has to be a American College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists member. 

It is like that for each exam....

I just did the GP exam on cardiac on Merlin. But heart issues are not a problem in my breed. If I had a breed that is known for heart issues, I would have been dealing with a cardiologist.


----------



## cshellenberger

Yeah, I don't think the people arguing for this realize that verterinary medicine is JUST as specialized as human medicine. There are VERY few people I'd trust to take care of certain breeds, if I have a bulldog I want a vet that KNOWS Bulldogs, can do a cherry eye surgery blindfolded, can do a cleft palate surgery in his sleep and understands the EB structure strenghts and weaknesses. I drove 40 miles ONE WAY to take my EB to such a vet, hell, the opthamologists in town (San Diego) referred EB and FB patients to him due to his expertise. I've heard people on here say "There's no such thing as a 'bulldog' specailist", I beg to differ. This guy not only had a huge EB, FB clientele, he RAISED and showed them for 30 years.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

I think the argument is that they're _not_ specialized vets...They're like GPs doing a physical. They're not putting the dog under and examining every orifice.


----------



## begemot

This is... really frustrating. They weren't doing specialized tests. Or surgery, cshellenberger. Exactly like ANQ said, they were doing (limited!) general physical exams. Look at the lists of things they were supposed to look for each breed. This isn't rocket science, this is general practitioner territory, and EVERY VET is perfectly capable of looking for these basic health issues.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> I think the argument is that they're _not_ specialized vets...They're like GPs doing a physical. They're not putting the dog under and examining every orifice.


The arguement is that they are not qualified to diagnose some of the conditions they are looking for. That is the obvious case with the bulldog and the peke (more info on the peke will be coming out the first of next week most likely).

That is the entire point. A vet cannot do a CERF unless they are qualified to do so. They may have a general idea on what they are looking at. But do not have the credentials to make a diagnosis.

A vet cannot clear a dogs hips (in the US it actually takes three vets) unless they have the credentials to do so.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

begemot said:


> This is... really frustrating. They weren't doing specialized tests. Or surgery, cshellenberger. Exactly like ANQ said, they were doing (limited!) general physical exams. Look at the lists of things they were supposed to look for each breed. This isn't rocket science, this is general practitioner territory, and EVERY VET is perfectly capable of looking for these basic health issues.


Yep. General knowledge is something every vet has. 

I have no idea why anyone thinks they should bring in a team of specialists to examine the dog.


----------



## begemot

Niraya said:


> I've stayed away from this but thought I'd chime in on this ^ even though it's not show related maybe it'll help you understand that a vet isn't a vet isn't a vet. They all just aren't the same and because of that any "vet" can't give clearances on even GENERAL health. (at least this is how I've understand this argument about the vet talk. I'm sorry if I misunderstand)
> 
> Bella has a Cardiologist. She cannot go over Bella and examine her and say she's healthy in any other way. She cannot look at her eyes, ears, feet, legs, nose etc. I cannot make an appointment with her because Bella has an upset stomach and had diarrhea for a week. She HAS to see her other Vet.


Niraya, vets become vets before they specialize. They all have to learn the same stuff, and they all have to pass the same licensing exam. Then they may (or may not) choose to further specialize beyond what every general vet already does. Your dog's cardiologist _chooses _not to look at anything other than the heart, but that is her choice -- it's not because she's not qualified in general veterinary care. It's because she has a cardiology practice, and that is the field she has chosen to work in.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

begemot said:


> This is... really frustrating. They weren't doing specialized tests. Or surgery, cshellenberger. Exactly like ANQ said, they were doing (limited!) general physical exams. Look at the lists of things they were supposed to look for each breed. This isn't rocket science, this is general practitioner territory, and EVERY VET is perfectly capable of looking for these basic health issues.


 I have looked at the lists..... And it is most definately specialist territory.
ESPECIALLY with what is at stake. 

If my vet made any of the diagnosis's concerning the eyes on one of my dog.... (and I actually had something like this happen with my rescue Lab) I would thank them and make an appointment with a specialist. 



begemot said:


> From the kennel club link posted by pugmom on the last page, here are the things the vet checks were looking for:
> 
> *Bulldog*: The breed is prone to respiratory distress. Obesity may also be
> noted and may contribute to signs of respiratory fitness. N.B hyperthermia
> appears to be relatively common in this breed.
> o Ectropion or entropion are considered to be conformational defects
> that are disqualifying signs
> o Damage (scarring or ulceration) to the cornea caused by (e.g. facial
> folds, distichiasis, ectopic cilia, poor eyelid anatomy)
> o Respiratory difficulty due to soft palate or small (pinched) nostrils
> o Dermatitis associated with facial wrinkles or at the rail root due to a
> tightly ‘screwed’ tail.
> o Hair loss or scarring from previous dermatitis
> o Lameness
> 
> *Clumber Spaniel*: Conditions of eye and ear are a major focus for the breed
> and obesity can effect health and welfare.
> o Ectropion and entropion, are considered to be conformational defects
> that are disqualifying signs
> o Ear inflammation
> o Lameness
> o Clear evidence of eyelid surgery including taking to be disqualifying
> conformational defect
> 
> *Pekingese*: A breed associated with breathing difficulties and hyperthermia
> considered to be caused by lack of muzzle and pinched nostrils. Corneal
> pathology is also relatively common, considered to be due to, mechanical
> damage from the facial folds distichiasis, or medial lower eyelid entropion.
> Blinking may not be adequate because of prominence of eye and this can
> result in exposure keratopathy and inadequate distribution of tear film.
> o Respiratory difficulty or noise at rest or with light exercise
> o Corneal pathology or ocular pain
> o Nasal folds causing mechanical damage to eye
> o Inability to move effectively as a result of excessive coat or general
> lack of muscle tone or fitness
> o Lameness
> 
> Anyway, I'm going to try not to go any further down this depressing path here since people seem to just get further entrenched in their positions.


Other than lameness, very little of this is in the realm of a GP vet.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

And out of everything on those lists.... The eye issues are the most complicated. And mostly what caused dogs to fail. 

If they were going to mess with eye issues they should have had an opthamologist on hand.


----------



## Pai

One of the suggestions being put forth is for there to be 3 vets at next year's Crufts, with there having to be a 2/3 majority rule of a DQ for it to go through. Would that be enough to allay some people's fears about AR biases or wrong diagnoses?


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

JohnnyBandit said:


> And you could not be any more off base than you already are.
> 
> The reasons breeders are against it.
> 1) It is discriminatory. 15 breeds have to face an extra hurdle to advance. This is not right for anyone.
> 
> 2) It gives the appearance that all the dogs in a given breed are flawed. If the BEST dog fails, they all must be bad.
> 
> 3) It publically trashes people that may have devoted their lives to a breed.
> 
> 4) Volunteer vets may be examining for issues out of their area of expertise.


Ok, so would the breeders be happier if all competing individuals of all breeds had to be evaluated by an independent vet or team of vet specialists before they were allowed to enter the ring? If that was the case and some dogs still failed, do you think the breeders would happily accept it? Doubtful...very doubtful.


----------



## perrodeapeso

> Aside from the likely law suits from specific dog owners that has been raised, there a suit based on discriminatory practices in the works. (monies are already being raised)
> 
> You may see a shift from KC sanctioned shows to FCI sanctioned shows in the UK....This would be a very easy transition and again talks are already taking place. If the breeders switch for FCI for registration, and the show host clubs switch to FCI sanction, the KC is done....


Here is why lawsuit won't fly. Link

"Q. Are there legal grounds to sue in the case of a dog failing the Veterinary check?
A. The exhibitor by virtue of being bound by Kennel Club Rules and Regulations has signed up to the Veterinary check procedure. The exhibitor is contractually bound to permit the Veterinary check, but there is no direct contract between the Vet and the exhibitor.

The basis upon which legal action can be brought is usually (breach of) contract or negligence (breach of duty of care). The contract with the Vet is between the Society or the Kennel Club not the exhibitor."

A discriminatory practices suit would present a judge with both sides of the argument. Others already posted the reasons for targeting those breeds. 

I don't think it is in the best interest of breeders to switch to FCI, especially if the public opinion is happy with the veterinary checks.



> 1) It is discriminatory. 15 breeds have to face an extra hurdle to advance. This is not right for anyone.
> 
> 2) It gives the appearance that all the dogs in a given breed are flawed. If the BEST dog fails, they all must be bad.
> 
> 3) It publically trashes people that may have devoted their lives to a breed.
> 
> 4) Volunteer vets may be examining for issues out of their area of expertise.


2) Not necessarily. It might be argued that the title should go to the next dog, though.

3) This is a very good reason to be angry, however, anyone devoting his life to a breed should compromise opinion on looks over the well being of the animal. There is no need to recall the consequences of exaggerated features.

4) The evaluations are well within their expertise. Same link.

"The Veterinary check ensures that the Judge has not permitted a dog with clinical signs to enter the ring for the Group Competition.

The clinical signs include:

* Lameness – including ‘hopping’
* Inappropriate temperament whether this is excessive timidity or aggression
* A discharge from one or both eyes or any signs of discomfort in either eye especially if associated with poor eyelid conformation
* Obvious breathing difficulty
* Obvious skin or ear irritation or inflammation"

That's it. You don't need to be an orthopedic, behaviorist, ophthalmologist, anesthesiologist to recognize a clinical sign. Any vet can give these health clearances any time. Agreed, you don't go to a GP to treat a cardiac arrhythmia, but you also don't need a cardiologist to identify a heart attack.


----------



## cshellenberger

begemot said:


> This is... really frustrating. They weren't doing specialized tests. Or surgery, cshellenberger. Exactly like ANQ said, they were doing (limited!) general physical exams. Look at the lists of things they were supposed to look for each breed. This isn't rocket science, this is general practitioner territory, and EVERY VET is perfectly capable of looking for these basic health issues.


Well apparently there's more to it than that since these GP's are MISDIAGNOSING some of the animals. Saying a dog has an eye injury when it was DIRT in the eye (the Peke) and that a scar from PLAY that has NO bearing on the health of the dog is an injury (the EB). It may not be surgery but a diagnosis of an eye condition grom a GP bears little weight when an OPTHAMOLOGIST turns around and CLEARS the dog!


----------



## brandiw

JohnnyBandit said:


> 3) It publically trashes people that may have devoted their lives to a breed.


Of course, the breeding practices of some of these devoted breeders have led to the exaggerations and health issues in the breeds. And I'm supposed to nod my head and agree that they will fix it? I have to laugh so I don't cry. Breeds that have health issues are where they are because of devoted breeders.


----------



## brandiw

Interesting reading from the BVA stating that:

"Following the veterinary checks at Crufts some confusion has arisen regarding the BVA/KC/ISDS Eye Scheme, which we would like to address. The Scheme does not currently certify adnexal problems such as entropion and ectropion, although this information may be noted and discussed during the eye examination."

http://www.vetclick.com/news/bva-st...-following-crufts-veterinary-checks-p2046.php

So, since they only look at the eye itself for certification, disease/problems with the eyelid/tear production/drainage aren't reasons to deny a clear certification. So I guess it is wholly possible to have a passing eye certification yet still have an uncomfortable problem like ectropion/entropion.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

brandiw said:


> Of course, the breeding practices of some of these devoted breeders have led to the exaggerations and health issues in the breeds. And I'm supposed to nod my head and agree that they will fix it? I have to laugh so I don't cry. Breeds that have health issues are where they are because of devoted breeders.


Doing this is akin to saying someone committed a crime on national tv without a trial.


----------



## Willowy

JohnnyBandit said:


> Doing this is akin to saying someone committed a crime on national tv without a trial.


So who was it who bred for these exaggerated features? Presumably (allegedly? ) dedicated show breeders. Who else would have done it? BYB dogs don't end up in shows.


----------



## brandiw

Willowy said:


> So who was it who bred for these exaggerated features? Presumably (allegedly? ) dedicated show breeders. Who else would have done it? BYB dogs don't end up in shows.


This would be my question as well.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Willowy said:


> So who was it who bred for these exaggerated features? Presumably (allegedly? ) dedicated show breeders. Who else would have done it? BYB dogs don't end up in shows.


Targeting an individual breeder for a perceived problem that may be breed wide is right? 

A breeder that may or may not be part of the problem. Case in point. Looking at the breeder of the bulldog's lines, they were very clearly breeding for moderation. 
Their dogs look like throwbacks to dogs of 30-40 years ago. This breeder has been working to breed great dogs. The movement of their dogs is beautiful. So this breeder has been breeding a much more moderate dog and winning....

And yet they got publically trashed and penalized. This sound like a good way to reward someone for doing the right thing?


----------



## Willowy

Are we back to the Bulldog? I have no idea whether the Bulldog should have be DQed or not. 

You disagreed with brandiw's statement that "devoted breeders" got the breeds where they are today, exaggerations, health issues and all. And I'm disagreeing with your disagreement .


----------



## kathylcsw

It seems to me that the argument against what happened at Crufts always comes back to what is best for the breeder. Isn't the breed the thing? Do you not care that these dogs are suffering so that breeders can win and then sell champion puppies? I know that many of you are against the AR/AW people but again I say it is about the dogs NOT the people who make choices when breeding. In my mind if you continue to breed in ways that negatively impact the quality of the dog's life you don't love dogs you love winning. Humans manage to muck up pretty much eveey living creature they come across.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

kathylcsw said:


> It seems to me that the argument against what happened at Crufts always comes back to what is best for the breeder. Isn't the breed the thing? Do you not care that these dogs are suffering so that breeders can win and then sell champion puppies? I know that many of you are against the AR/AW people but again I say it is about the dogs NOT the people who make choices when breeding. In my mind if you continue to breed in ways that negatively impact the quality of the dog's life you don't love dogs you love winning. Humans manage to muck up pretty much eveey living creature they come across.




Well this thread has become "epic"...... So things can become a bit lost....

But speaking as a whole, breeders do care about the health and the future of their breeds. 
Much of the testing and knowledge we have on genetic issues in dogs is a direct result of funding from breeders. There are assorted canine health foundations that grant for research, better testing, etc. All Funded by breeders. 

Most modern breed clubs have mandates are protocols regarding breeders and breeding. 

As a whole breeders are on the forefront of improving canine health. 

That being said, I am fully aware there are some bad apples. But you don't crucify an entire city because you have a few thiefs in their midst. 

I have also said, I am not opposed with mandated health testing. But it needs to be pre show and for all breeds. 

Blaming the current generation on the problems in some breeds is very short sighted. None of these breeds changed overnight. And in many breeds these trends started before any of us were born. In some breeds it is not so much a trend as a several hundred years evolution.

Changes do not happen overnight. As a whole breeders in most breeds are on the right track. But those on the outside looking in are over simplifying things. It is not as simple as just changing a standard or testing a few dogs at dog shows. 


The problems I have with the entire thing is the process, not the testing. That sentiment is repeated over and over again in the dog world. 

How anyone actually thinks this is a positive step or that any good will actually come out of it. If anything it is a step backwards in the least. 

A few things of note...... 
In the last week there has been a polarization in the dog world as I have never seen in my 44 years. There seems to be no middle ground. The most amazing thing is the unity in the well bred dog world. There is often infighting between breeds, registering bodies, etc. But it is largely unified at this time. Money is flowing from some surprising sources. I would not be surprised if this current flow of money did not affect shelters and rescues in a negative fashion. There is only a finite amount of expendable cash that people and organizations have. Money for new spending has to come from somewhere. And people will always do whatever they can to protect their passion. 

Back when I posted often in off topic is was pretty clear that I like to gamble. Horses, sports, etc. 
Here are a few things I would bet on. 
1) That these post ring examinations will not still be in place this time next year. 
2) That one or more members of the KC will no longer be employed with the KC within the next year. 
3) The law suits will comes and win lose or draw, they will be very costly to the KC.


----------



## Rescued

EDIT: NEVERMIND I didnt see the last page. No repeat explanation needed. sorry!!!



JohnnyBandit said:


> I am not the one that is having trouble getting it. I have been doing clearances on my dogs for YEARS!
> 
> Your General Practitioner is very likely not credentialed to do a kidney transplant. Your Podiatrist is not going fit you with a hearing aid.
> 
> It is the same way with Vets. We are not talking doing spays, neuters, rabies shots, dealing with the things that most GP vets deal with.
> We are talking about potential genitic issues.
> 
> Your GP vet cannot give your dog a passing hip grade, cannot CERF your dog.
> The pool of vets qualified and credentialed to evaluate such matters is small.
> 
> So unless this vet is one of those vets, then no..... He is not credentialed.


Sorry I'm jumping in now, I've been following the thread and am still confused about something. If the Crufts vets were hired to examine the things they did (eye appearance and gait being among them), how is the argument about veterinary specialists valid? The things crufts were checking were NOT specialist areas- they didnt wan't an EKG, they wanted someone to listen to the dog breathing. They didn't want to check the official OFA status, they wanted to check if the dog was limping to the naked eye. I can see how you wouldnt wan't a specialist cardiovascular vet to check the gait, but I don't see the problem in a "normal" vet checking the gait.

Can someone clear this up? I'm not trying to bash anyone, I'm just confused about this part of the argument.


----------



## cshellenberger

Rescued said:


> EDIT: NEVERMIND I didnt see the last page. No repeat explanation needed. sorry!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I'm jumping in now, I've been following the thread and am still confused about something. If the Crufts vets were hired to examine the things they did (eye appearance and gait being among them), how is the argument about veterinary specialists valid? The things crufts were checking were NOT specialist areas- they didnt wan't an EKG, they wanted someone to listen to the dog breathing. They didn't want to check the official OFA status, they wanted to check if the dog was limping to the naked eye. I can see how you wouldnt wan't a specialist cardiovascular vet to check the gait, but I don't see the problem in a "normal" vet checking the gait.
> 
> Can someone clear this up? I'm not trying to bash anyone, I'm just confused about this part of the argument.


Would you want an ER doctor to diagnose your eyes or hips based on a CURSORY exam? If an ER or GP see's an irregularity with your eye (be it a scratch or debris in the eye) he's GOING to call an opthamologist for a diagnosis, not try to diagnose it himself. 

The gait? I've seen moderatly DYSPLASTIC dogs with BEAUTIFUL gaits (thanks to physical conditioning to keep the hip joint from slipping), in fact there is one who's gaits I've watched (via youtube) who's owner is on this forum. Basically it's not a reliable way to be sure a dogs joints are healthy and different breeds of dogs have VASTLY different gaits.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Well there is a new group formed in the UK to represent the interests of the breeders and judges. This has happened all since Sunday. Over three hundred were in attendance tonight. And there are over 5000 members, a governing board, and a sizable cash warchest. 

There are some VERY interesting things coming down the pike.... I am not going to say more on this. But in the days and weeks ahead there is going to be some great entertainment.


----------



## cshellenberger

Make SURE you post links to anything that results JB, I'll have the popcorn hot and buttered!


----------



## JohnnyBandit

cshellenberger said:


> Make SURE you post links to anything that results JB, I'll have the popcorn hot and buttered!


I will.... I know a few things that are planned and in the works. But I am not saying at the moment. 

How anyone thought the breeders would just sit still for this is beyond me.


----------



## Rescued

cshellenberger said:


> Would you want an ER doctor to diagnose your eyes or hips based on a CURSORY exam? If an ER or GP see's an irregularity with your eye (be it a scratch or debris in the eye) he's GOING to call an opthamologist for a diagnosis, not try to diagnose it himself.
> 
> The gait? I've seen moderatly DYSPLASTIC dogs with BEAUTIFUL gaits (thanks to physical conditioning to keep the hip joint from slipping), in fact there is one who's gaits I've watched (via youtube) who's owner is on this forum. Basically it's not a reliable way to be sure a dogs joints are healthy and different breeds of dogs have VASTLY different gaits.


I wasn't trying to attack anyones' opinions, I realized right after I posted the original question that it had already been brought up and I just hadn't seen it. I just didn't want to delete it in case it confused anyone, so I put the "NEVERMIND" at the top.

I completely see where you and the others are coming from.


----------



## Pawzk9

spanielorbust said:


> So then you are no longer saying 'certain' dogs were aimed at, just generally 'some' dogs within that group of 15. Thanks for clarifying.
> 
> The suggestion then is that the vets were in kahoots? ... told beforehand that 'some' had to go. That is silly thinking IMHO. The KC is not that dumb.
> 
> IMHO the hope of the KC was that the BOBs put up would pass the exams. There was a year of warnings vet exams were going to be given at Crufts and judges education and re-education aimed at features that might be a problem for health.
> 
> If it so happened that a dog does not pass the test then it would be taken on the chin, so to speak, just as it would be if a dog was a bit lame on the day of the event.
> 
> SOB


It might be useful if you actually quoted me, and not just what you think I might have been saying,


----------



## cshellenberger

JohnnyBandit said:


> I will.... I know a few things that are planned and in the works. But I am not saying at the moment.
> 
> How anyone thought the breeders would just sit still for this is beyond me.


 
Oh, I knew they wouldn't, I don't understand how the KC thought they would.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

cshellenberger said:


> Oh, I knew they wouldn't, I don't understand how the KC thought they would.


I think people are pretty much clueless as to how much people invest in their dogs and showing them. I Spent about 900 in January, about 200 in February, about 500 to 600 last weekend, will spend another 600 this weekend. And it goes on and on and on..... Merlin was out 18 Weekends in 2011... Figure 500 tp 600 per weekend. That does not include all the other stuff that goes along with the dog. And all the stuff that goes along with owning a show dog......

And what I spend is peanuts compared to some... People that spend serious jack on their dogs and passion are not going to hesitate to spend some very serious jack to protect what they love.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

JohnnyBandit said:


> I think people are pretty much clueless as to how much people invest in their dogs and showing them. I Spent about 900 in January, about 200 in February, about 500 to 600 last weekend, will spend another 600 this weekend. And it goes on and on and on..... Merlin was out 18 Weekends in 2011... Figure 500 tp 600 per weekend. That does not include all the other stuff that goes along with the dog. And all the stuff that goes along with owning a show dog......
> 
> And what I spend is peanuts compared to some... People that spend serious jack on their dogs and passion are not going to hesitate to spend some very serious jack to protect what they love.


We are spending over 400 on entries alone this weekend. Figure in gas and food, that can add another 100 or more to the mix. Plus we are hosts of this specialty so the fees involved with that figure in.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> We are spending over 400 on entries alone this weekend. Figure in gas and food, that can add another 100 or more to the mix. Plus we are hosts of this specialty so the fees involved with that figure in.


Which way are ya'll heading? 

I am going to Ft Lauderdale....


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

JohnnyBandit said:


> Which way are ya'll heading?
> 
> I am going to Ft Lauderdale....


The specialty is in Bel Alton, MD. After that I'll be in Raleigh for two days (so with that its food, gas, hotel cost, and entries, etc). Then I believe we are going to Timonium, MD. And then Rhode Island for a specialty. So yeah lots of money is getting shelled out. We are going for BB's grand so she will be out quite a few weekends.


----------



## So Cavalier

> Well there is a new group formed in the UK to represent the interests of the breeders and judges.


how about the interests of the DOGS!


----------



## begemot

JohnnyBandit, you have made a lot of grand prophecies on this thread. I hope you won't mind being held to them in the future, because I love saying "I told you so." 

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if they further refined the health checks in coming years, perhaps adding more vets or broadening them to include all breeds. But if anything, there will be more checks, not less. I think the bar has been raised permanently, and from now on the KC will be holding breeders and judges accountable. And I think it's absolutely to the KC's benefit, both financially and in terms of public support.

I think any attempts at lawsuits will fall flat, and all the money you keep talking about will disappear into a black hole -- or someone's pocket.

And about the bulldog that people keep bringing up because it's the only dog that isn't visibly sick, _you don't know why she was DQ'd_. The vets were explicitly _not _judging dogs on how "moderate" or "exaggerated" they are -- that's judge territory, not vet territory. They were looking for specific health problems, and presumably the vet found one. And we don't know what it was, because the owner of the bulldog has chosen not to make the report public. If the DQ was for something bogus, wouldn't they have made the report public to exonerate themselves and reveal the error? Of course!

cshellenberger, you can say over and over that it was an old eye injury, but the fact that you have yet to produce any evidence to support this belief is undermining your credibility.


----------



## brandiw

So Cavalier said:


> how about the interests of the DOGS!


Yeah, strangely enough that doesn't seem to factor into the dog fancy's discussions surrounding this.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

begemot said:


> JohnnyBandit, you have made a lot of grand prophecies on this thread. I hope you won't mind being held to them in the future, because I love saying "I told you so."
> 
> .


Everything I have said has come to pass. Every statement I made on the bulldog about the eye injury has been correct. 

I stand behind everything I have said.... My reputation may not be much here, but in the dog world, it is pretty respectable. 

When this all shakes out... I will stand behind everthing I have said. IF I am wrong, I will stand up say that I was wrong. In fact I will start a new thread on it and ask Carla to make it sticky... I will also apologize to everyone involved in this thread. 

But I am not worried about that happening. I have seen proof on everything I have said. You can take my word for it or not. It is year choice. But in the end it is going to come out that I am correct.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

brandiw said:


> Yeah, strangely enough that doesn't seem to factor into the dog fancy's discussions surrounding this.


The dogs are at the center of this.... This is all about the dogs and the people that love them most protecting them from the uninformed. 

For instance, were you aware the the Bulldog Council of the UK had a comprehensive scheme for testing and evaluating the health of Bulldogs and potential breeding stock in place complete with a long list of veterinary specialists, in place YEARS before PDE ever came out?

There has been extremely strong effort to move the breed into the modern age. Jenny, the Crufts BOB winner, was a direct result of those efforts. Only to be "failed" by a Mickey Mouse exam cooked up as a media opportunity. 

If anything, bulldogs as a breed, were harmed by what happened at Crufts....


----------



## brandiw

JohnnyBandit said:


> The dogs are at the center of this.... This is all about the dogs and the people that love them most protecting them from the uninformed.
> 
> For instance, were you aware the the Bulldog Council of the UK had a comprehensive scheme for testing and evaluating the health of Bulldogs and potential breeding stock in place complete with a long list of veterinary specialists, in place YEARS before PDE ever came out?
> 
> There has been extremely strong effort to move the breed into the modern age. Jenny, the Crufts BOB winner, was a direct result of those efforts. Only to be "failed" by a Mickey Mouse exam cooked up as a media opportunity.
> 
> If anything, bulldogs as a breed, were harmed by what happened at Crufts....


I do think that the bulldog looked more moderate than many, and I think it is great that they have a health scheme in place. 

That doesn't change the fact that there are several breeds of dogs that have many health problems that breeders caused (knowingly or unknowingly), and many want to stick with the status quo rather than look at new ideas. For instance, you can see this with the strong minority that didn't want to allow the LUA Dalmatians to be registered with the AKC, and with the Cavalier breeders that refuse to consider doing an outcross to try and fix the syringomyelia and MVD that is so prevalent in the breed. I cannot imagine how breeders of those breeds can rationalize breeding within the closed registry system. I understand that genetic defects crop up unintended, but in these breeds, you are practically guaranteeing that they will have a genetic defect - ones that can be very painful and/or cause death. Not very ethical in my book.


----------



## hast

So Cavalier said:


> how about the interests of the DOGS!


I too have wondered about this. The general public in Europe, in mainland Europe more than UK but they're right behind, have been very critical to dog shows for a long time. The discussion about some breeds and how unhealthy dogs can be judged as prime example of the breed have gone on for at least more than 10 years ... and nothing has happened. Everyone hoped the breeders and judges would 'self police' and start to get healthier examples of their breeds, instead it's become even more extreme. 
When the discussion comes up here in the US most waives their hands and say something like "the AR people aren't getting away with it, we can't give in to them" but fact is that in Europe they have to take them into consideration. Look at docking of tails and cropping of ears ... no one thought that would grow like it has either. 
If the KC are going to survive they have to listen to people who are concerned about the dogs health and couldn't care less about how they look ... somewhere they have to find the balance. Personally I think it was a good first attempt, I'm sure it's going to change and evolve as everything else does.


----------



## cshellenberger

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> The specialty is in Bel Alton, MD. After that I'll be in Raleigh for two days (so with that its food, gas, hotel cost, and entries, etc). Then I believe we are going to Timonium, MD. And then Rhode Island for a specialty. So yeah lots of money is getting shelled out. We are going for BB's grand so she will be out quite a few weekends.


I might be able to make Timonium as a spectator, what are the dates and show location?


----------



## cshellenberger

begemot said:


> cshellenberger, you can say over and over that it was an old eye injury, but the fact that you have yet to produce any evidence to support this belief is undermining your credibility.


Actually the info on the EB and the Peke was POSTED on this thread as well as a STATEMENT from the BREEDER and the vet that did the re-exam, you must have missed it. 

Also, I garauntee these breeders have the welfare of the DOGS in mind, which is more than I can say about the KC who is bowing to the pressure of PDE and it's producer and making a show of this. I'm very interested in how this will wash.


----------



## begemot

cshellenberger said:


> Actually the info on the EB and the Peke was POSTED on this thread as well as a STATEMENT from the BREEDER and the vet that did the re-exam, you must have missed it.


I saw hearsay and rumors, but no evidence that the DQ was because of an old eye injury.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

cshellenberger said:


> I might be able to make Timonium as a spectator, what are the dates and show location?


We will be there Friday (specialty day)-Sunday we never do Monday. The dates are April 20th-23rd, and its at the Maryland State Fairgrounds on York Road

The Specialties on Friday are

Terriers (which will be in the smaller building on site, can't remember what the building is called)
Tibetan Mastiffs
Golden Retrievers
English Springer Spaniels
Bearded Collies
Weimaraners
Dachshunds
Dobermans
Irish Setters
Poodles
Chihuahuas
Boxers
Bouvier Des Flandres


----------



## JohnnyBandit

begemot said:


> I saw hearsay and rumors, but no evidence that the DQ was because of an old eye injury.


Well the Bulldog Council of the UK.... Which is the parent club to all of the bulldog clubs in the UK has made an official statement on the matter on Monday. I posted it on this thread days ago. The same statement has been on Dog World. Both are very respected organizations that are not going to report on hearsay and rumor. 

All these statements are exactly as I said over the weekend. And there is more coming.... I ASSURE you it was an old eye injury that happened when the dog was a puppy.....

You threw out the "I told you so" statement a while ago... Well that is a two way street.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

JohnnyBandit said:


> Back when I posted often in off topic is was pretty clear that I like to gamble. Horses, sports, etc.
> Here are a few things I would bet on.
> 1) That these post ring examinations will not still be in place this time next year.
> 2) That one or more members of the KC will no longer be employed with the KC within the next year.
> 3) The law suits will comes and win lose or draw, they will be very costly to the KC.


I'm on pretty much the other side of the fence from you, but I'd bet on all of this, too. 

1) The post-ring examinations may not exist in a year, but I think and genuinely hope that the KC will continue to pressure breeders to make health a priority. Perhaps in the future the exams can apply to all breeds, and can happen before the dogs are judged for conformation, so that titles aren't stripped away after the fact. This seems completely reasonable to me, and I'd back that decision. I'd also back a decision to have a panel of vets with as many specialists as it takes to satisfy breeders. But they have to be independent vets, not certifications from the breeders' favorite vets.

2) The KC receives a lot of funding from breeders, so I commend them for having the balls to bite the hand that feeds them. I would have been very surprised if breeders rolled over and took this beating. Blood will flow, that's for sure. But as someone whose main concern is not the KC or the breeders, but rather the welfare of the dogs being shown, I'm not sure I should be upset about the blood that's about to be shed.

3) Yes, there will most likely be lawsuits. I predict that the KC will win them all, but I agree that they will not come without cost to the KC. Again, I don't see that as a huge tragedy. I hope it's not so costly that the KC drops the whole health initiative, but I don't think the public would stand for that. At this point, the cat's out of the bag, so to speak, and the KC is stuck between a rock and a hard place; they're never going to be able to satisfy the breeders, who don't want their oversight, and at the same time satisfy the public, who want healthy dogs.


----------



## Shaina

Statement released by one of the Cruft's veterinarians. Apologies that I cannot c/p the text, but here's the url:

www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/67384


----------



## jiml

begemot said:


> This is... really frustrating. They weren't doing specialized tests. Or surgery, cshellenberger. Exactly like ANQ said, they were doing (limited!) general physical exams. Look at the lists of things they were supposed to look for each breed. This isn't rocket science, this is general practitioner territory, and EVERY VET is perfectly capable of looking for these basic health issues.


bingo, i agree


----------



## jiml

JohnnyBandit said:


> Back when I posted often in off topic is was pretty clear that I like to gamble. Horses, sports, etc.


And I could have bet years ago this was coming. It was as clear as day


----------



## jiml

None of the dogs had trouble breathing, the EB was DQ'd for an eye injury sustained during PLAY as a PUPPY, it was not a defect (such as cherry eye surgery or correction for entrpian or ectropian) the dog had passed prior show exams with that same scar, it was an injury ANY dog could have gotten. 
>>>>>>

the EB was DQ'd for an eye injury >>> Did the KC release the results of the actual exam?



from Pedigree Dogs Exposed:

"It says that "Jenny" had an old and minor eye injury - incurred when she was a puppy. It has caused the dog no lasting irritation or damage.

It is obviously important to tread a little carefully here as I do not have the benefit of the vet report which has not been released. But if this is the case, and if there was no other reason for the dog's DQ, then her disqualification would seem unfair.

Overall, Jenny is a less exaggerated Bulldog; she was not panting in the ring and having seen some footage of her at Crufts uploaded to YouTube, she did, indeed, move freely enough. So did the dog CC, incidentally - Birmingham Prince at Midlandbulls - although this dog's right nostril looks stenotic which will not help his breathing and, as others have noted before, Bulldog teeth do not seem a big priority in the ring (perhaps because of the difficulty of achieving good teeth in a brachycephalic head).


The dog CC - Birmingham Prince at Midlandbulls

Of course, as was made ultra clear by the Kennel Club, it was not the independent vet's job to rule on exaggeration - or even stenotic nares - so the fact that Jenny is better than some is not the issue here. The vet's job was to pick up lameness, obvious respiratory problems; skin issues and debilitating eye problems. Does an old, healed eye injury fit this bill? No, it doesn't. But what's needed now is not litigation (after all, everyone entered knowing the vet decision was final and referees in every sport from cricket to tennis to football get it wrong from time to time - you just have to take it on the chin)."


----------



## spanielorbust

. . . and from the link above, supplied by Shaina.

_". . . What I am, I hope, is an ordinary vet with a strong interest in, and love for, the pedigree dog, a good degree of clinical competence, and enough personal integrity to do what I think is right. I know how the dog world works, but I know very few of the main players within it, and these, I think, are the reasons why the KC and BVA appointed me as one of these first two vets. To go from a quiet life one week to being at the centre of such an emotive controversy the next is not easy, or fun. Why did I agree to do it? It wasn’t for the money; we didn’t get paid. The KC gave me food for the weekend, a bed for the night, and the chance to watch the groups on the days I was at Crufts, which was all very nice but I could have stayed at home and watched it on TV, and saved myself a lot of trouble. I’m not stupid: I knew it would be extremely controversial, and that I would probably have to make decisions that would be very unpopular. And it wasn’t without personal risk; *if I were found guilty of false certification I could be struck off the veterinary register and lose my livelihood. That’s a pretty strong incentive to be accurate when carrying out a clinical examination*. I agreed to do this because I thought it would help to improve the health and welfare of pedigree dogs. . .

. . . We were chosen to do this, rather than specialist vets, because Steve Dean thought it would be unfair for judges to be over- ruled by, for example, specialist ophthalmologists, because they might notice things that no judge could be expected to see. He thought that experienced general practitioners would know what’s normal and what isn’t – we earn our livings doing it – and would be able to see obvious problems that a judge could also see. The KC told us exactly what they wanted us to do, and then left us to go and do it. *They did not try to influence our decisions in any way. *We could have passed – or failed – any or all of the 15 dogs quite freely. It is sad that some dogs failed, but I think it shows that there is a need for this scheme:. . .

. . . Nine dogs were judged the best of their breed, passed as free from issues that were affecting their health and welfare, and went on to compete in their groups, with several being shortlisted by the group judges. Those breeds should be enormously proud of what they have achieved, because in many cases the winners were indeed of far less exaggerated conformation than they would have been a few years ago, *which is a great cause for celebration*. Those breeders have done wonders . . ." _​
SOB


----------



## Miki the aussie owner

i didn't know crufts was going on! wish i knew.


----------



## cshellenberger

Those of you who are TRULY interested in the view point of the owners and breeders http://dogknobit.com/2012/03/15/why-crufts-should-worry-us/ hopefully you'll understand better.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

cshellenberger said:


> Those of you who are TRULY interested in the view point of the owners and breeders http://dogknobit.com/2012/03/15/why-crufts-should-worry-us/ hopefully you'll understand better.


I read it. What I'm hearing from you and the author of this article is this:
"Who better to know what rears its ugly head in a breed than the breeders, exhibitors and owners who’ve devoted their lives to that breed?"

I disagree. Because of their training, vets are the experts on disease and its treatment. Casual owners (not just the ones who have devoted their lives) should also get a say, because they're the ones footing the bill, emotionally and financially, when the dog is ill. The general public should also get a say - I'd rather live in a world where dogs are healthier. While some breeders care about health issues in their breed, many turn a blind eye, whether out of greed (denying problems exist sells puppies), ignorance (not every breeder can be a geneticist), or simply a love of the breed/line/dog (despite its problems, this breed/line/dog must be continued). I do think that good breeders generally have the best interests of their breed at heart. I just don't believe that the rest of us should be deferring to them as the "experts" on all issues pertaining to their breed, especially when some have already proven that they'd rather deny problems than attempt solutions.


----------



## Xeph

> vets are the experts on disease and its treatment


Do you know how many vets think that dysplasia in GSDs is caused by angulation in the rear quarter?


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

Xeph said:


> Do you know how many vets think that dysplasia in GSDs is caused by angulation in the rear quarter?


Sure there will be crappy vets, just like there are crappy plumbers, crappy lawyers, and crappy scientists. You ask us not to paint all breeders with the same brush, but all vets must be useless because a few of them are too stupid to know what causes hip dysplasia?


----------



## begemot

I keep wondering what the angry people think will happen if they do succeed in getting rid of outside interference. To those of you here, what is your best-case-scenario? You can't go back in time. You can't convince the public, vets, and dog lovers to just stop caring what breeders do to dogs. If the KC fails to change the status quo among dog breeders, the next step in the UK could involve the government. They have a different political climate there than in the US, and if people are upset about cruelty in breeding -- which they are -- political interventions are a possibility.

Instead of complaining about vet checks, I should think it would be in breeders' best interests to try to change things ASAP, before animal cruelty laws are broadened to cover inhumane breeding practices.


----------



## jiml

Xeph said:


> Do you know how many vets think that dysplasia in GSDs is caused by angulation in the rear quarter?


It most certainly causes stress on the rear causing exacerbated symptoms and arthritis. Id also argue that the trend in sloped backs is not in the standard which calls for a level back and hinders its working ability.

Go to a place like the working dog forum and see their opinions on current gsd show dog champions.










vs










or


----------



## cshellenberger

The bottom two dogs lack angulation whick means they lack drive and POWER in the rear, they will also lack the PROPER reach in their gait making it less efficient. There are a HELL of a lot of GSDs with the proper agulation with Excellent/Superior OFA hip ratings and plenty of 'straight backed' GSDs with HD.


----------



## jiml

"proper angulation" the angulation should be in the withers. not the entire back. that is a show dog creation. Look at the majority of dogs in protection sports and not show. Those breaders and owners shy away from the dog w the so called "proper angulation". In fact the top dog is looked at as a freak in working dog circles and he was a crufts winner.


----------



## Bordermom

I have to say the gsd that a well known trainer got here to do agility with was a nice dog, but a show dog. She had a hard time clearing 16 inch jumps, which was kinda sad for a 'working' dog. That angled back may mean a fancy trot but that doesn't mean the right power to get over little hurdles. At least at the time she did have an option to go to the much lower jumps, when I started agility the only option for her would be the 30 inch ones!

I would love to see the show gsd changed back to a more stable working dog.


----------



## Avie

Jiml, you're questioning the wrong person. Xeph knows A LOT about everything GSD. 

...though I too question the insinuation that's being made that show dogs with 'proper angulation and reach in their gait' are likely to be better workers than the working dogs themselves. 

I'm gonna go read that link of cshellenberger now...


----------



## JohnnyBandit

GottaLuvMutts said:


> I read it. What I'm hearing from you and the author of this article is this:
> "Who better to know what rears its ugly head in a breed than the breeders, exhibitors and owners who’ve devoted their lives to that breed?"
> 
> I disagree. Because of their training, vets are the experts on disease and its treatment. Casual owners (not just the ones who have devoted their lives) should also get a say, because they're the ones footing the bill, emotionally and financially, when the dog is ill. The general public should also get a say - I'd rather live in a world where dogs are healthier. While some breeders care about health issues in their breed, many turn a blind eye, whether out of greed (denying problems exist sells puppies), ignorance (not every breeder can be a geneticist), or simply a love of the breed/line/dog (despite its problems, this breed/line/dog must be continued). I do think that good breeders generally have the best interests of their breed at heart. I just don't believe that the rest of us should be deferring to them as the "experts" on all issues pertaining to their breed, especially when some have already proven that they'd rather deny problems than attempt solutions.


Who is denying there are issues in some breeds? (Well all breeds have at least some issues in the lines. This same issues occur in mix breeds, crosses.)

It is the breeders that are funding the genetic research; the breeders are funding the development of health testing; the breeders are paying for the tests; the breeders are using the information in theses tests in moving both their programs and the breeds forward. 

While these tests accomplish nothing.....

As to your other post...... The KC did not stand up to breeders. They abandoned them and bowed down to pressure applied by a radical so called journelist that fueled a mis informed public.


----------



## Bordermom

begemot said:


> I keep wondering what the angry people think will happen if they do succeed in getting rid of outside interference. To those of you here, what is your best-case-scenario? You can't go back in time. You can't convince the public, vets, and dog lovers to just stop caring what breeders do to dogs. If the KC fails to change the status quo among dog breeders, the next step in the UK could involve the government. They have a different political climate there than in the US, and if people are upset about cruelty in breeding -- which they are -- political interventions are a possibility.
> 
> Instead of complaining about vet checks, I should think it would be in breeders' best interests to try to change things ASAP, before animal cruelty laws are broadened to cover inhumane breeding practices.


The problem is though, that any suggestion of making things like health clearances manditory (in North America anyhow) is met with 'I will do whatever I want with my dogs regardless!!!'. The same people will say they wouldn't ever ever do this or that, but don't want it manditory either. If the AKC for example were to make the breed clubs define what tests are needed for their breed, and then only register the pups from parents with those clearances, it would cut out a lot of puppy mills and byb's who do register their dogs with the AKC.


----------



## Pawzk9

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Sure there will be crappy vets, just like there are crappy plumbers, crappy lawyers, and crappy scientists. You ask us not to paint all breeders with the same brush, but all vets must be useless because a few of them are too stupid to know what causes hip dysplasia?


Nobody said vets are crappy and useless That's a strawman arguement.When I need bloodwork done, I go to a vet. When I need a bone set, I go to the board certifiied vet (though I find my regular vet quite sufficient for OFA xrays. I have a holistic vet who is very good at seeing slightly irregular locomotion. But unless it was a very special vet, I would not go to th vet to determine whether my dog is breeding quality - that's not their strong suit (except couple of vets I know who are also breeders). If they have the hoostpa to disqualify a dog for an old eye injury that is not harming the dog and is not genetic, they also need to be upfront about what they are disqualifying the dog for (other than KC/Public opinion


----------



## Pawzk9

Bordermom said:


> I have to say the gsd that a well known trainer got here to do agility with was a nice dog, but a show dog. She had a hard time clearing 16 inch jumps, which was kinda sad for a 'working' dog. That angled back may mean a fancy trot but that doesn't mean the right power to get over little hurdles. At least at the time she did have an option to go to the much lower jumps, when I started agility the only option for her would be the 30 inch ones!
> 
> I would love to see the show gsd changed back to a more stable working dog.



Everything is a trade-off. Angulation is important for a straight trotting dog (which is supposed to be the GSD's premier gait) But I do think any desirable feature can be "improved on" to the point of exaggeration and loss of usefulness. Now, with Aussies, I wouldn't want a dog with that kind of angulation, roach to back. I want a dog who is able to get its feet under itself and turn in an instant.. I think if I had a GSD I wouldn't either, but that's a different issue. It's a problem with showing conformation, and I'd love to see it fixed. I just don't see the KC's new rules as anything more than a bandaid and salute to Jemmy. Why not require tests that show the real issues with the dog, not just shining a flashlight in the dog's eye to discover and old and irrelevant injury, that will no effect future offspring.


----------



## juliemule

cshellenberger said:


> The bottom two dogs lack angulation whick means they lack drive and POWER in the rear, they will also lack the PROPER reach in their gait making it less efficient. There are a HELL of a lot of GSDs with the proper agulation with Excellent/Superior OFA hip ratings and plenty of 'straight backed' GSDs with HD.


 Dogs with straighter angulation can easily trot around, if that is considered "power". By no means will a dog like the top pictured out work a working dog. Yes HD can occur in either, but added stress on joints causes many issues. The dogs with the extreme angularity can't jump or run to even keep up with the types pictured at the bottom. Unless trotting is all you expect from a gsd, take a look at the power and drive behind some that are still what they were created to be, general all purpose working dogs.
"Show lines" and "work lines" are all fine, but at least keep the dogs healthy and capable of proper movement and ability in ALL breeds.


----------



## Pawzk9

brandiw said:


> Yeah, strangely enough that doesn't seem to factor into the dog fancy's discussions surrounding this.


says who? I'm just not cdrtain that there is anything in this loopy policy that is beneficial to the dogs


----------



## Pawzk9

spanielorbust said:


> To appease the koolaide drinkers does not address your accusation that some specific breeds were targetted.
> 
> Why, if appeasing the koolaide drikers was the aim, do you believe that 'specific' breeds within that group of 15 were targetted? That makes no sense to me and is central to the conspiracy theory you put forward, so give me a hint please.
> 
> 
> It is hard to agree or disagree with a statement that is not clear in its meaning. I truly do not know what you are asking here. The double negative has thrown me and I can't find clarity. What is the 'most important consideration' that you are referring to?
> 
> SOB


Are you actually stating that 15 breeds were NOT SPECIFICALY TARGETED? care to tell us how that is so? when 15 breeds are specifically demanded to be run through certain tests after winning, that's not a target?
As to your reading comprehension, if you truly can't get what I'm saying, you might want to work on that,


----------



## spanielorbust

Pawzk9 I was responding to this statement:



Pawzk9 said:


> Personally, I think the Crufts policy is stupid. It only targets specific breeds and negates the judge's position to "judge". However, I wouldn't be at all opposed to requiring requisite health test on all dogs WHEN they enter/qualify for a major show. This would be fair and informative. Dog doesn't have health clearances, they aren't the quality to enter. It IS more stringent, but it also addresses the issue, and treats all dogs/breeds equally. I'd rather know that the bulldog had whatever health clearances are required than know that he got a grass seed in his eye (maybe). *I do think the pseudo-judges (vets) were under pressure to eliminate certain dogs,* and I don't think their opinion is necessary any more valid than "real" judges. Crufts wouldn't do the right thing, so they just did "something" and hoped that the smoke and mirrors would satisfy the koolaide drinkers


That implies there was *pressure* to *eliminate* specific dogs. 

That is crap as this vet has explained.

_". . . What I am, I hope, is an ordinary vet with a strong interest in, and love for, the pedigree dog, a good degree of clinical competence, and enough personal integrity to do what I think is right. I know how the dog world works, but I know very few of the main players within it, and these, I think, are the reasons why the KC and BVA appointed me as one of these first two vets. To go from a quiet life one week to being at the centre of such an emotive controversy the next is not easy, or fun. Why did I agree to do it? It wasn’t for the money; we didn’t get paid. The KC gave me food for the weekend, a bed for the night, and the chance to watch the groups on the days I was at Crufts, which was all very nice but I could have stayed at home and watched it on TV, and saved myself a lot of trouble. I’m not stupid: I knew it would be extremely controversial, and that I would probably have to make decisions that would be very unpopular. And it wasn’t without personal risk; *if I were found guilty of false certification I could be struck off the veterinary register and lose my livelihood. That’s a pretty strong incentive to be accurate when carrying out a clinical examination*. I agreed to do this because I thought it would help to improve the health and welfare of pedigree dogs. . .

. . . We were chosen to do this, rather than specialist vets, because Steve Dean thought it would be unfair for judges to be over- ruled by, for example, specialist ophthalmologists, because they might notice things that no judge could be expected to see. He thought that experienced general practitioners would know what’s normal and what isn’t – we earn our livings doing it – and would be able to see obvious problems that a judge could also see. The KC told us exactly what they wanted us to do, and then left us to go and do it. *They did not try to influence our decisions in any way. *We could have passed – or failed – any or all of the 15 dogs quite freely. It is sad that some dogs failed, but I think it shows that there is a need for this scheme:. . .

. . . Nine dogs were judged the best of their breed, passed as free from issues that were affecting their health and welfare, and went on to compete in their groups, with several being shortlisted by the group judges. Those breeds should be enormously proud of what they have achieved, because in many cases the winners were indeed of far less exaggerated conformation than they would have been a few years ago, *which is a great cause for celebration*. Those breeders have done wonders . . ." _​
http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/67384



> Do you not agree that the most important consideration may not be spotted by a cursory vet exam - even with a flashlight?


As to me questionning what you mean in the above statement . . . truly I have not a clue what you are trying to confer. Please elucidate. What is the 'most important' consideration?

SOB


----------



## Xeph

> "proper angulation" the angulation should be in the withers


You are incredibly incorrect. Angulation is NOT measured through the back. It is measured in the shoulder blade and the rear quarter (upper and lower thigh).

None of those three dogs are correct. The first one has decent angulation, its issue is a roached topline. The second dog has no rear, and will not cover ground as well as he should. He'll still work, but he'll work as much on heart as an overangulated dog would. The third dog is weak in the rear and lacks muscle tone, though the angulation isn't bad.

You want a correct dog? Here's a correct dog:









Here's a dog with correct rear angulation, but lacks front:









And here's an animal with a beautiful forequarter that could use less rear behind (shorter upper thigh, to be specific):


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Xeph said:


> You want a correct dog? Here's a correct dog:


Bit off topic but I LOOOVE this dog! I rarely see darker GSDs, why is that?


----------



## Equinox

jiml said:


> Go to a place like the working dog forum and see their opinions on current gsd show dog champions.


Wait, you are recommending going on a working dog forum to inquire about show bred dogs? LOL Might as well hop on a large Border Collie board and talk about how only AKC GR CH Border Collies should be bred, while you are at it 

At any rate, I have found that all of the Ehret German Shepherd Dogs lack rear, as does Hutch Tiekerhook. Surprising, as I usually am accustomed to more on the Tiekerhook dogs

Xinerobella van Tiekerhook SCHH3 FH IPO1 CGC Kkl 2 









Lindsey van Tiekerhook VZH VH3 Kkl 1 









SG Natz van Tiekerhook VH3 IPO3 SCH3 BH UV Kkl 1 









SG Lanzo van Tiekerhook IPO3 VH3









SG Goldy Van Tiekerhook SCHH1 KKL1









Not to say any of these dogs are overall correct or incorrect but they certainly have some amount of rear!



AussieNerdQueen said:


> Bit off topic but I LOOOVE this dog! I rarely see darker GSDs, why is that?


High lines are, overall, the more common German Shepherd type especially in certain parts of the world. With a few exceptions, the German show lines are almost always a deeper pigmented black/tan (or black/red) with a saddle back. 

If you're asking about black sables specifically rather than darker coated dogs in general, the black sables are almost always from working line lineage. In many circles, they are bred more likely with the current color fads in mind, in my opinion and experience at least.


----------



## Xeph

*drools* Lanzo and Goldy!

Xinerobella was one of Molly's dogs! Her call name was "Ike" IIRC


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Equinox said:


> If you're asking about black sables specifically *rather than darker coated dogs in general*, the black sables are almost always from working line lineage. In many circles, they are bred more likely with the current color fads in ind, in my opinion and experience at least.


I was referring to the stunning darker coloured GSD Xeph posted before. Not a breed I am experienced enough to own, but that is one stunning dog!


----------



## Pawzk9

spanielorbust said:


> Pawzk9 I was responding to this statement:
> As to me questionning what you mean in the above statement . . . truly I have not a clue what you are trying to confer. Please elucidate. What is the 'most important' consideration?
> 
> SOB


Gee, I'm really sorry that your reading comprehensionseems to have really deterioated (Or maybe it's just my chemo brain though I thought what I wrote made it perfectly clear to anyone taking the time to read it.). I don't think it is difficult to note that it is more problematical to have bad hips,bad eyes,bad heart,SM - all things that can be noted on tests on ALL potential breeding stock than to note that at one time, the dog scratched its cornea.and so should be eliminated. Especially in a breed with many problesm, why would you WANT to eliminiate a nice, moderate, healthy dog? It's a stupid answer to a not-very-bright question


----------



## spanielorbust

> Do you not agree that the most important consideration may not be spotted by a cursory vet exam - even with a flashlight?





spanielorbust said:


> . . . truly I have not a clue what you are trying to confer. Please elucidate. What is the 'most important' consideration?
> 
> SOB





Pawzk9 said:


> Gee, I'm really sorry that your reading comprehensionseems to have really deterioated (Or maybe it's just my chemo brain though I thought what I wrote made it perfectly clear to anyone taking the time to read it.). I don't think it is difficult to note that it is more problematical to have bad hips,bad eyes,bad heart,SM - all things that can be noted on tests on ALL potential breeding stock than to note that at one time, the dog scratched its cornea.and so should be eliminated. Especially in a breed with many problesm, why would you WANT to eliminiate a nice, moderate, healthy dog? It's a stupid answer to a not-very-bright question


Thank you for clarifying that you were speaking of health considerations.

Of course these things cannot be seen by a vet, or a judge, on a cursory check. As I explained in a former post the KC has already met with resistance to the idea of ANY health test criteria required for dogs entering shows, so they went forward with the idea of vet checks on the breeds deemed the most problematic due to conformation exaggeration. The idea of the vet checks was to assess whether the extreme characteristics in these breeds caused impairment to their quality of life. It was announced long in advance.

_*Veterinary health check to be introduced for Kennel Club shows*

ALL dogs within 15 high-profile breeds that are judged ‘Best of Breed’ at next year's Crufts dog show will have to undergo a veterinary check and be given a clean bill of health before their award is confirmed, the Kennel Club has announced.

*The decision to introduce the veterinary examination was made following advice from the Kennel Club's Dog Health Group. *The aim, the club says, is to improve canine health and protect the sport of dog showing, and to ensure that ‘the 15 high-profile breeds – which include the likes of the Pekingese and bulldog – some of which suffer from health issues, do not bring the whole hobby of dog showing into disrepute’.

Additionally, before the ‘Champion’ title of any dog or bitch within these breeds can be confirmed, the animal will have to undergo a successful veterinary examination at a group or general championship show. The new rules will be introduced at the 2012 Crufts and will then apply at all subsequent Kennel Club-licensed general and group championship shows.

Caroline Kisko, secretary of the Kennel Club, commented: *‘There are 195 breeds whose participation in the hobby of dog showing is overshadowed by the small minority of people within some high-profile breeds who seem to continue to breed, and occasionally reward, unhealthy dogs and who by so doing are bringing down the reputation of the hobby and the rest of the dog-showing fraternity.*

‘The Kennel Club must ensure, for the future prospects of dog showing and for the good of dogs, that only healthy dogs go home from dog shows with prizes.’

She believed that the new rules would help protect the reputation of the majority of exhibitors who put the health and welfare of their dogs first, and would also continue to encourage improvement within the high-profile breeds by ‘ensuring that the healthiest are justly held up as an example for others to follow’.

*Steve Dean, Crufts' senior veterinary surgeon and a member of the Kennel Club's General Committee, said that the guidance that would be issued to vets would focus on clinical signs associated with pain or discomfort under the categories of external eye disease, lameness, skin disorders and breathing difficulty. *

‘The show veterinary surgeons will be looking for signs such as ectropion, entropion, corneal damage, dermatitis, breathing difficulty on moderate exercise, and lameness,’ he said.

‘It is not intended for the vet to act in any way as a show judge of conformation. Veterinary opinion will only lead to disqualification of a dog from further competition where there is clinical evidence of disease. Perhaps the only arguable exceptions are ectropion and entropion as both are conformatory defects of the eyelid, but both conditions are closely associated with chronic conjunctival inflammation or corneal damage and thus they will be disqualifying signs in their own right.’

He hoped that, by giving exhibitors and judges a year's notice of the introduction of the veterinary examination, judges would ensure that only healthy exhibits came forward and that the number of times dogs were excluded following veterinary examination would therefore be minimal. 

‘For some of the breeds this will still be a huge challenge,’ he said, ‘but the intent is to improve the overall health and welfare of dogs and if this measure helps achieve this then it has to be a step in the right direction.’

http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/168/2/35.1.full_​
SOB


----------



## Pawzk9

sassafras said:


> Are the judges forbidden from using flashlights? Are vets forbidden from using flashlights?
> 
> The whole POINT of the vet checks was for vets to double check for things the judges didn't see or notice. And AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN --- you are not going to be able to look INTO the eye with a flashlight. Not possible to look INTO the eye without magnification. Period. But it is sometimes difficult to see things on the surface of the eye against the brown eye of a dog, and light can help. Imagine that, light helping to see things!


If the dog has a recent CERF, why would the flashlight examination be required


----------



## Purple

The German Shepherd in Word and Picture is a wonderful book for those who would like to learn more about the breed.
I'm a fan of Koos Hassings breeding program and the dogs he produces.


----------



## juliemule

Does anyone have any links to what the original German shepherds were bred to be? I see alot of changing in them and bulldogs.


----------



## Purple

Do you mean what they looked like, or what their function was?
Function has been beaten to death and is up for interpretation. Some people say utilitarian, some say herding dogs. Best way to find out what fits best to you is to read the breed founders book. 

Here is a good link showing how they've changed via VA1 Ratings.

http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/siegershow_winners.html


----------



## juliemule

Purple said:


> Do you mean what they looked like, or what their function was?
> Function has been beaten to death and is up for interpretation. Some people say utilitarian, some say herding dogs. Best way to find out what fits best to you is to read the breed founders book.
> 
> Here is a good link showing how they've changed via VA1 Ratings.
> 
> http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/siegershow_winners.html


 Thank you. Looks and conformation is what I am questioning. Purpose, from what I understand, they were basically mixed shepherds to herd, then they were bred to herd and guard, then for utilitary, as in specifically police style dogs.


----------



## juliemule

Awesome link! What a difference in dogs.


----------



## Purple

Yup, they've changed a great deal!


----------



## Equinox

Xeph said:


> *drools* Lanzo and Goldy!
> 
> Xinerobella was one of Molly's dogs! Her call name was "Ike" IIRC


Was she really? How cool is that?! Her registration name is a mouthfull, though, I like the shorter call name 



AussieNerdQueen said:


> I was referring to the stunning darker coloured GSD Xeph posted before. Not a breed I am experienced enough to own, but that is one stunning dog!


Yes, Francesco Anrebri is a black sable, and a gorgeous one at that.



Purple said:


> The German Shepherd in Word and Picture is a wonderful book for those who would like to learn more about the breed.
> I'm a fan of Koos Hassings breeding program and the dogs he produces.


Thumbs up for this post - the book is an excellent read and an absolute must for any German Shepherd Dog lover. I have only read an electronic copy and am dying to get my hands on the actual book. 

Am also a fan of Koos Hassing's breedings, his knowledge, and the application of that knowledge and experience. He has many valuable things to say... additionally due to the nature of many of his breedings I have found it fascinating to look at the lineage of some Tiekerhook dogs and see what particular pairings and combinations of lines yield. 



juliemule said:


> What a difference in dogs.





Purple said:


> Yup, they've changed a great deal!


Depends on where you look, doesn't it?


----------



## Purple

Great looking dog. What's his pedigree like? 
He looks a lot like my old dog who was linebred Fero through Troll and good old Mink.
He was a cousin to "the black pearl" Paska.

I got my copy of the book from Amazon for $100.00. It's a reprint, of course. 
I think I saw a few on Ebay for around $80.00 on Ebay recently.


----------



## Equinox

Thank you, he is a lovely dog. He is mostly West German working lines, his dam has Crok Erlenbusch in the 3rd generation as well as some DDR through Muchta Schwarzhorn. His sire is WGR with a small amount of Czech through Cent An-Sat, rather far back in the pedigree. Mostly lesser known West German lines, so there is no Fero or Troll as far as I know. He does have Mink, though!

Here is his pedigree if you are interested
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/dog.html?id=593853

Me and Xeph are both fans of Paska and most of the Salztalblick dogs. 

I will have to put the Captain's book on my birthday wish list  Well worth the money.


----------



## Purple

He is very nice, I like the fact that he does not have common ancestors close up in his pedigree.

My boy's father was from a breeding done by Dieter Haupt. His mother was from Salztalblick kennels.
I miss him dearly 

I have a soft spot for WG working line dogs. The only thing I do not like about them, is that is seems they are getting larger and larger. I like a smaller German Shepherd. My old girl (9) is very lithe and small framed. She is within standard but I'm often told she is too small by people outside of the breed ("You sure she's a Shepherd? She's awfully small"). I found that compared to my male, she is much faster and agile.


----------



## juliemule

Equinox, beautiful dog! I stopped following lines of gsds long ago. We do have many we work with, some are still exemplary dogs.


----------



## Equinox

Yes, he has no linebreeding within the first few generations, but his dam's dam is heavily bred on Dieter Haupt's Lindenhalle lines 
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/dog.html?id=373821



> * 4 - 5............................................. in SG Mink vom Haus Wittfeld
> * 3 - 4............................................. in SG Iko von der Lindenhalle
> * 4 - 5............................................. in Anschi von der Lindenhalle
> * 4 - 5............................................. in Santo von der Kopperpahlerallee
> * 4,5 - 5........................................... in G Ira vom Jägermeister
> * 3 - 4............................................. in Freia von der Lindenhalle
> * 2 - 3............................................. in Nora von der Lindenhalle


Motherline is part Gleisdreieck x Lindenhalle

My dog's sire is bred by the breeder, a local breeder who has been breeding/training working dogs for about 40 years now. My dog gets his size from his sire, he is at the high end of the standard at 82 lbs, his dam was 64 lbs, I believe, and he has two full sisters around 70 lbs. I met one of them recently in person, she is very compactly build and does not lack in either power or agility. Aside from size, my dog is built very long (as you can see) so he definitely does not have the ideal structure for agility. All of them are very "dense", though, thickly built. 

On the other hand, a friend actually got a male recently (Belgian lines) and he is hovering around high 50 - low 60 lbs!! For females I do prefer the 55 - 70 lb range whereas for males I like 70 - 80 lbs. My friend, who has a 55 lb bitch, gets asked all the time if she is starving her dog, or if her dog is "still a puppy" :/



juliemule said:


> Equinox, beautiful dog! I stopped following lines of gsds long ago. We do have many we work with, some are still exemplary dogs.


Thank you very much  

I have always thought a good German Shepherd Dog to be worth its weight in gold and more... the only shame is that it is becoming harder and harder to find a good German Shepherd Dog (though also not the completely impossible task that others like to make it out to be). I hope I'm as fortunate next time around as well!


----------



## Xeph

> Was she really?


Ike was Eagle's mother


----------



## Equinox

Oh, now I remember!! Recalled that it was a Tiekerhook dog but the name completely slipped my mind. I remember you telling me about her LOL


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

Pawzk9 said:


> Nobody said vets are crappy and useless That's a strawman arguement.


For the record, Xeph said that a lot of vets don't know what causes HD in GSDs. I was responding to her criticism.


----------



## Xeph

GottaLuvMutts said:


> For the record, Xeph said that a lot of vets don't know what causes HD in GSDs. I was responding to her criticism.


What I actually said is that many vets think that overangulation is what causes HD, which is gross misinformation.

Overangulation certainly hinders a dog, but has nothing to do with HD.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

People also need to keep in mind that GSD as a breed is just a little over 100 years old. Very young as far as breeds go....... Some change over that time in a young breed is to be expected and in many cases needed


----------



## Purple

It's seen some pretty big changes in that small amount of time. 
Whether that is good or bad is a matter of opinion. I can't see much, if any, benefit to the degree of change that has happened to many of the conformation lines. But they are very popular so obviously some people like them and what they have to offer.


----------



## juliemule

JohnnyBandit said:


> People also need to keep in mind that GSD as a breed is just a little over 100 years old. Very young as far as breeds go....... Some change over that time in a young breed is to be expected and in many cases needed


 Why is the change in conformation needed in the gsd? From what they were, to what they are now, what benefit is there?


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

Xeph said:


> What I actually said is that many vets think that overangulation is what causes HD, which is gross misinformation.
> 
> Overangulation certainly hinders a dog, but has nothing to do with HD.


You really enjoy splitting hairs, don't you? Your exact words were:
"Do you know how many vets think that dysplasia in GSDs is caused by angulation in the rear quarter?"

In other words, a lot vets don't know what causes HD in GSDs, as I said. You implied that vets shouldn't be trusted, and it was that which I was responding to. Yes, obviously I know that overangulation does not equal HD. If I didn't get that, the initial comment would have seemed pretty out of place.


----------



## houndies

Crufts was a farce! The KC should be ashamed of itself by the way they conducted the vet checks on the 15 breed hit list. They should test all breeds before the show and not humiliate people that have dedicated their life to improving the health of their breeds. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! It is also insulting to the judges that specialise in their breeds to suggest they cannot see entropian or ectropian. particularly insulting is that the vet was a cat specialist. These dogs would not have multiple CCs and it is very cynical to think breeders would promote dogs with these defects. (Many breeds have pronounced haws and have done for centuries). To DQ an EB who didn't even pant is a slap in the face to all dog breeders IMO.
Pedigree Dogs Exposed was a sensationalist piece of journalism and Jemima is loving her fifteen minutes. And the precision of PDE part 2 being shown during the lead up to Crufts was Jemima PR genius. 
Of course there are some bad (show)breeders unfortunately some people are bad. 
Of course dogs should be healthy, able to run, see and be fit for purpose - but as someone said here that purpose has really changed over the years. History and social shifts had a huge impact on breeds. For example during the 19th Century the Industrial Revolution and urbanisation brought a lot of breeds out of the fields and they became house pets. Also during this time Mendel and Darwin were publishing their scientific findings in genes, species, breeding etc... so breeding and producing a desired type became hugely popular in (everything- flowers, veggies, livestock etc...) dogs. So it really isn't a coincidence that dog fancying in Europe especially in France and here in the Uk exploded. Wars - The French Revolution nearly wiped out all the pack hounds being dogs kept by the aristocracy. Many breeds of hounds became extinct at this time. WW1 and WW2 also had a huge impact on dogs and many breeds had to be outcrossed to bring new blood. So nothing goes without change. And Jemima showing one picture of breeds many years ago by no means represent the whole. 
I am all for the tweaks of some of the breed standards but it has been only two years- change takes a little bit of time. And of all people the KC should know this! 
Anyway sorry for the ramble. It is a very sad time for all breeds I think.


----------



## cshellenberger

Purple said:


> It's seen some pretty big changes in that small amount of time.
> Whether that is good or bad is a matter of opinion. I can't see much, if any, benefit to the degree of change that has happened to many of the conformation lines. But they are very popular so obviously some people like them and what they have to offer.


There has been about the same amount of change in Dobermans, Boxers, and Mastiffs (since the breed was 'revived' after WW1). Show me a breed that is hugely popular that looks the same as it did 100 years ago.


----------



## sassafras

cshellenberger said:


> There has been about the same amount of change in Dobermans, Boxers, and Mastiffs (since the breed was 'revived' after WW1). Show me a breed that is hugely popular that looks the same as it did 100 years ago.


Oh god my brain is EXPLODING. Because every time the subject of crop or dock bans come up one of the inevitable arguments is that cropping or docking is necessary to preserve the integrity of the appearance of the breed. I've seen similar stuff surrounding open/closed registries. Or stuff like the LUA dalmatians. 

Why I keep coming back to this thread, I have no idea. It just irritates me. Hopefully I'll have more sense from here on out.


----------



## Xeph

> You really enjoy splitting hairs, don't you?


It's not splitting hairs.

You said:
For the record, Xeph said that a lot of vets don't know what causes HD in GSDs. I was responding to her criticism. 

Which is NOT the same thing as what I said. My point was that MANY vets still run off that ridiculous misinformation and excessive rear causes HD.

Nobody knows what causes HD. The overall point is that when it comes down to how the dog is structured, having too much rear is not what causes joint degeneration within the hip joint, or causes a dog to have no sockets at all (like some I've seen).



> You implied that vets shouldn't be trusted


No, I didn't. That's what you chose to take away from it.

My implication was that vet doesn't = all knowing. I trust my vet...doesn't mean I always think he's right. I know it's hard to believe, but there are times when somebody (particularly a breeder) knows a bit more than their general vet. 

I certainly don't talk to my internal medicine veterinarian about reproductive issues with my animals...I know more on the subject than he does (and he's told me I know more, so I'm not just blowin' it out my backside). When I talk to a repro vet, though I am informed, he does know more than I do, and I follow his advice, though I do ask a lot of questions, about other options, etc etc.


----------



## Kyllobernese

Equinox, I just saw your pictures and that is what a German Shepherd should look like. So many of the Shepherds I have seen are what I would call roached back, not the smooth look of your pictures. Just out of curiosity why are the German Shepherds the only breed that stacks up with the one leg back and not standing square like all the other breeds?


----------



## Xeph

Nobody knows. There is speculation, but nothing concrete


----------



## Purple

cshellenberger said:


> There has been about the same amount of change in Dobermans, Boxers, and Mastiffs (since the breed was 'revived' after WW1). Show me a breed that is hugely popular that looks the same as it did 100 years ago.



I guess I should clarify: When I said benefits, I was speaking to the dogs working ability and how their conformation would affect said working ability. Seeing as how I don't know a lot about the breeds you mentioned, or many other breeds, I cannot answer your question. Sorry. If you're curious, I would do some independent research on the matter.


----------



## Purple

Kyllobernese said:


> Equinox, I just saw your pictures and that is what a German Shepherd should look like. So many of the Shepherds I have seen are what I would call roached back, not the smooth look of your pictures. Just out of curiosity why are the German Shepherds the only breed that stacks up with the one leg back and not standing square like all the other breeds?


I always thought it was to accurately show off the dogs natural structure, but like Xeph said, it is something of a mystery.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Just thought I would put this up: This is the Bulldog that won Westminster in 1913. 

Ch. Strathtay Prince Albert










And this is Jenny, the bulldog that won BOB at Crufts











Various other bulldogs throughout history. 

http://www.sutusbulldogs.co.uk/wow_page.htm

This is the Parti Am Cocker Spaniel that won Westminster in 1921










Parti Am Cocker of Today


----------



## Avie

That parti American Cocker Spaniel of 1921 looks like a modern English Cocker Spaniel. Our own English Cocker looked like that when she was younger. Minus the docked tail  Can't say I like the transition of old American to modern American Cocker, but I guess that comes down to personal opinion.


----------



## cshellenberger

sassafras said:


> Oh god my brain is EXPLODING. Because every time the subject of crop or dock bans come up one of the inevitable arguments is that cropping or docking is necessary to preserve the integrity of the appearance of the breed. I've seen similar stuff surrounding open/closed registries. Or stuff like the LUA dalmatians.
> 
> Why I keep coming back to this thread, I have no idea. It just irritates me. Hopefully I'll have more sense from here on out.


I'm not talking about crop/dock, I'm talking about STRUCTURE. Dobes (particularly Am Lines) have become MUCH more refined than they were with finer heads and less bone. The Boxer has had its snout shortened and a more defined stop and the bone has increased. The mastiff has become a MUCH more massive, gaining bone, height and the head has become much wider with a more pronounced stop. The Rottweiler has also gained bone and mass. There is a huge divergence in working and show lines in MANY breeds and some breeds have lost their work drive altogether. 

Justify picking out ONLY 15 breeds any way you want, it's NOT just those 15 breeds that need help and NO ONE is doing much of anything for the others by discriminating against those 15 and HUMILIATING the breeders of winning dogs in ONLY those breeds. You want healthier show dogs, require CERF style eye clearances and OFA/PENN hip style joint clearances (which are NOT given by the examining vets, but by third party review) for every dog entered BEFORE they can take the show floor.


----------



## Willowy

cshellenberger said:


> I'm not talking about crop/dock, I'm talking about STRUCTURE.


Mm-hmm. Show breeders say "oh, we HAVE to crop/dock because it makes the dogs look like they did 100 years ago, that's how they're SUPPOSED to look" but then say "but we can change their structure so they don't look anything like they did 100 years ago because that's not important".

It makes no sense.


----------



## cshellenberger

Purple said:


> I guess I should clarify: When I said benefits, I was speaking to the dogs working ability and how their conformation would affect said working ability. Seeing as how I don't know a lot about the breeds you mentioned, or many other breeds, I cannot answer your question. Sorry. If you're curious, I would do some independent research on the matter.


I'm not curious, I know those breeds pretty well, they are some of my favorites and I've owned (or own) each. My mother raised Dobermans, GSD and Rottwielers at different times in her life (she bred dogs for police work, though a good many of her pups in all three breeds also did well in shows, something you now rarely have in the US).


----------



## cshellenberger

Willowy said:


> Mm-hmm. Show breeders say "oh, we HAVE to crop/dock because it makes the dogs look like they did 100 years ago, that's how they're SUPPOSED to look" but then say "but we can change their structure so they don't look anything like they did 100 years ago because that's not important".
> 
> It makes no sense.


Willowy, I WAS reffering to another persons comment on how the GSD has changed STRUCTURALLY, responding that the GSD is NOT the only dog that has changed in structure over the last 100 years. Crop/dock is not the subject here, STRUCTURE and HEALTH are.


----------



## juliemule

What is the reason for the changes in the breeds?


----------



## Willowy

cshellenberger said:


> Willowy, I WAS reffering to another persons comment on how the GSD has changed STRUCTURALLY, responding that the GSD is NOT the only dog that has changed in structure over the last 100 years. Crop/dock is not the subject here, STRUCTURE and HEALTH are.


You were responding to Sassafras' comment about how it doesn't make sense, and I was seconding her sentiments . It either matters how the breed looked 100 years ago or it doesn't.


----------



## cshellenberger

Mostly tastes in ring (one of the reasons I chose a Czech line Doberman, more bone and an 'older' style dog that still has working drive), also in the particular case of the Doberman, Americans wanted a 'softer' temperment and a more friendly dog, thus the Am Dobe lost its drive. Granted the Fifi, the Dobe that took working at Westminster was a bit more old style that most (I'm thinking there's some German lines in there) but when I was looking at Am lines many of the pups seemed nervous and 'flighty' to me and they lacked what I like in chest depth and bone.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Willowy said:


> Mm-hmm. Show breeders say "oh, we HAVE to crop/dock because it makes the dogs look like they did 100 years ago, that's how they're SUPPOSED to look" but then say "but we can change their structure so they don't look anything like they did 100 years ago because that's not important".
> 
> It makes no sense.


I say dock and crop because the owner wants it done......

I prefer tailed and natural prick eared breeds. But if I had a Dobe, Rottie ( have owned one of those) etc, it would be docked and or cropped. Because I want them that way....


----------



## cshellenberger

Here's a good page to show the changes, notice the 1908 Doberman and how small of a dog it was, IMO the Doberman looked best in the 1960s-late '80s then the neck started getting longer and more refined and the head stucture also became finer as the chest depth deteriorates. 

http://garjandobermans.com/index.asp?ID=16

The Mastiff Circa 1950 (ish) Friar 

http://rockportmastiffs.com/ThreebeesFriarOfCopenore.jpg

Current

Pride and Predjudice

http://rockportmastiffs.com/darcychopped.jpg

Both British Champions


----------



## Xeph

It matters how they looked so you know how you can improve.

Not going to lie...I find my own breed from 100 years ago to be pretty doggone hideous.

I do think dogs have gone too far extreme in some instances, but things like this?









Love it. He could use a slightly shorter upper thigh, but his overall harmony is lovely.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

cshellenberger said:


> Granted the Fifi, the Dobe that took working at Westminster was a bit more old style that most (I'm thinking there's some German lines in there)


Fifi is a nice dog. So was this dog when he was out showing, his name is Agador.


----------



## juliemule

Thank you Carla, I tried to look up old pics, saw some from 1920, they looked the same to me. Then I looked up current dogs and see the difference lol. I didn't realize they were so defined now. (Some) o have seen pics of your dog, and he seems larger boned. Beautiful dog.

Has there been any decline in health in dobermans due to the change in structure?


----------



## cshellenberger

Julie, my Dobe is a Female, she gets mistaken for a MALE Am line frequently though as she's as tall as one and has as much (if not more) bone. 

Chaos, Agador is nice, but (for me personally) he lacks width in the skull and I do NOT like ears that long, Med crop with more bell is much nicer looking. Fifi is the better looking of the two to me (I also think she got robbbed).


----------



## juliemule

Sorry, she is even more awesome then lol. I have never owned a Doberman but always admired their looks.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> Fifi is a nice dog. So was this dog when he was out showing, his name is Agador.


In Aus we can't crop or dock, but in a few years this is my dream dobe.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

I ended up going in right behind the GSD in Group on Saturday. (Merlin took B.O.B. both Saturday and Sunday) And regardless of what they look like, they can move out fast...


----------



## juliemule

Congrats on your win, johnnybandit! 

Yes those shepherds can sure trot fast.


----------



## Rescued

Sorry if I missed this, but has anyone been able to find the CERF for the bulldog? When I looked in the CERF database with "CH MELLOWMOOD ONE IN A MILLION" nothing came up. Am I doing this wrong or does the UKC use someone other than CERF? I just can't figure out why if she had a recent CERF that it doesnt show up in their database.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Rescued said:


> Sorry if I missed this, but has anyone been able to find the CERF for the bulldog? When I looked in the CERF database with "CH MELLOWMOOD ONE IN A MILLION" nothing came up. Am I doing this wrong or does the UKC use someone other than CERF? I just can't figure out why if she had a recent CERF that it doesnt show up in their database.


England doesn't use CERF (to my knowledge), they use their own thing.


----------



## Rescued

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> England doesn't use CERF (to my knowledge), they use their own thing.


Does anyone know what? I havent heard anything but CERF mentioned in all KC articles, and it makes no sense that she's not on the database (or that I cant find her)

EDIT:
I tried this: http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/mateselect/test/Default.aspx and MELLOWMOOD ONE IN A MILLION didn't come up.

from the kc website:


> The eye scheme currently relates to conditions involving the eye itself and not those involving the tear ducts, the eyelids or other surrounding structures. Therefore hereditary eye conditions of the lens, retina and other internal structures are listed, whilst eyelid conditions such as entropion, ectropion and distichiasis are not. These latter conditions are of importance, but because of their extremely complex nature and the paucity of scientific evidence relating to their degree of heredity, they are not included in the Scheme at present


has the bulldog ever even been declared free of entropion? or declared free of anything? I must be missing whatever website her results are on...someone help me out.


----------



## Niraya

This is from the BVA website:



> Publication of results
> 
> Eye Scheme results are only published where a specific condition is known to be inherited and certified as such.
> 
> The Kennel Club is responsible for publishing eye results for all pedigree dogs in the Kennel Club Breed Records Supplement and on progeny registration certificates.


That's all I could find


----------



## Rescued

Niraya said:


> This is from the BVA website:
> 
> 
> 
> That's all I could find


So are they saying that they don't have a database of the eye results? it just makes no sense that I cant find anywhere where the bulldog was tested for the conditions CERF tests for. Does this mean that they never tested her eyes? Their website (mellowmood) makes no mention of testing.


----------



## Rescued

Pawzk9 said:


> If the dog has a recent CERF, why would the flashlight examination be required


This is what I mean- WHERE is the bulldogs CERF or CERF equivalent?


----------



## Niraya

The way I took it was that if the dog doesn't have a specific condition known to be inherited - they don't publish it.

Kind of like no news is good news? I guess? At least that's how I understood it.


----------



## Rescued

So if I was looking into breeders in the UK...where/how would I make sure the tests had been done? I just find it weird that it was an old injury, but....where has the bulldog owner made the testing available?

If someone finds a link to it i'll retract this whole thing. I just cant find one.


----------



## Rescued

brandiw said:


> Interesting reading from the BVA stating that:
> 
> "Following the veterinary checks at Crufts some confusion has arisen regarding the BVA/KC/ISDS Eye Scheme, which we would like to address. The Scheme does not currently certify adnexal problems such as entropion and ectropion, although this information may be noted and discussed during the eye examination."
> 
> http://www.vetclick.com/news/bva-st...-following-crufts-veterinary-checks-p2046.php
> 
> 
> So, since they only look at the eye itself for certification, disease/problems with the eyelid/tear production/drainage aren't reasons to deny a clear certification. So I guess it is wholly possible to have a passing eye certification yet still have an uncomfortable problem like ectropion/entropion.


So as far as I know, CERF checks for en/ectropion. the UK system does not. Has the bulldog had a clear assessment for all of the conditions CERF tests for?


----------



## Niraya

There's a PDF on the BVA website that goes over something about the eye scheme (truthfully I'm too tired to look into it right now and am going to bed).

It says there are 11 hereditary eye conditions in over 50 breeds that the scheme now covers.

http://www.bva.co.uk/canine_health_schemes/Eye_Scheme.aspx
I will provide a link to the site. Now I am going to bed lol.


----------



## begemot

Rescued said:


> I just find it weird that it was an old injury, but....where has the bulldog owner made the testing available?
> 
> If someone finds a link to it i'll retract this whole thing. I just cant find one.


There is no evidence that she was only DQ'd for an old eye injury, that I can tell. The DQ might not have even had anything to do with her eyes. The owners have chosen not to make the results of the vet check public. And I've asked people repeatedly for evidence to support their claims that the DQ was just for an old eye injury (which seems highly unlikely, though every one makes mistakes, vet or otherwise) and no one has furnished it. At this point it's just an unsubstantiated rumor being put out by people who don't like the vet checks.

Even if there were public CERF-like test results for her, what would it prove? Only that the DQ was probably for something else.


----------



## houndies

http://www.bulldogbreedcouncil.co.uk/

Many of the owners of the DQ breeds are taking a stance that they really don't need to defend THEMSELVES as they have done nothing wrong. 

EBD do not require eye tests as they do not have inherent eye disease. BTW entropian and ectropian are a condition not a disease. Entropian when the eye rim turns in can be very painful and can cause scratching to the cornea and requires surgery. Both conditions are easily seen. Again a dog would not have multiple CCs with either of these conditions.

I wonder what the outcome would be if the thousands of dogs at Crufts had a torch shined in their eyes? Perhaps show breeders should keep their pups with potential in a plastic bubble. Keep them blemish free. My eldest dog was attacked by a cat (aptly named Madonna) when she was a pup. In a certain light and if she looks a certain way you can still see a small scratch. Does this make her unhealthy, unfit for purpose or off standard with her breed specs?

XX


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

begemot said:


> There is no evidence that she was only DQ'd for an old eye injury, that I can tell. The DQ might not have even had anything to do with her eyes. The owners have chosen not to make the results of the vet check public. And I've asked people repeatedly for evidence to support their claims that the DQ was just for an old eye injury (which seems highly unlikely, though every one makes mistakes, vet or otherwise) and no one has furnished it. At this point it's just an unsubstantiated rumor being put out by people who don't like the vet checks.
> 
> Even if there were public CERF-like test results for her, what would it prove? Only that the DQ was probably for something else.


Excellent post. I've seen and heard so much gossip, and EXTREME anger and outrage based on complete and total assumptions. Other than the Spaniel _we don't know why these dogs were DQed._ Carrying on like a pork chop wailing about conspiracy theories doesn't help public image of show breeders, which is already in trouble.

The days of self policing are well and truly over. It's been proven that the fancy refuses to self regulate. All we can do from here on out is try and influence who polices us and how.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

begemot said:


> There is no evidence that she was only DQ'd for an old eye injury, that I can tell. The DQ might not have even had anything to do with her eyes. The owners have chosen not to make the results of the vet check public. And I've asked people repeatedly for evidence to support their claims that the DQ was just for an old eye injury (which seems highly unlikely, though every one makes mistakes, vet or otherwise) and no one has furnished it. At this point it's just an unsubstantiated rumor being put out by people who don't like the vet checks.
> 
> Even if there were public CERF-like test results for her, what would it prove? Only that the DQ was probably for something else.


Statements have been released by both Dog World online and the Bulldog Council of the UK. Both very respected organizations. Links to both of these statements have been posted on here. Both have been pointed out to you previously.

These go far beyond rumors and hearsay. Both are reliable. Yet you continue to ignore them.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> The days of self policing are well and truly over. It's been proven that the fancy refuses to self regulate. All we can do from here on out is try and influence who polices us and how.


That would be an incorrect statement. This was a publicity stunt meant to pacify a mis informed public. They are not laws. They are not mandated by any government agency. They are simply policies of private organization. No one is forced to adhere to them. 

These poilicies have made the leadership and direction of the KC very questionable.

What everyone fails to realize is that the executive staff of the KC works for the breeders and exhibitors. They serve at the pleasure of the membership. If the membership is dis satisfied with a situation, there are things in place that enable them to make changes.


----------



## cshellenberger

JohnnyBandit said:


> Statements have been released by both Dog World online and the Bulldog Council of the UK. Both very respected organizations. Links to both of these statements have been posted on here. Both have been pointed out to you previously.
> 
> These go far beyond rumors and hearsay. Both are reliable. Yet you continue to ignore them.


 :Sarcasm: We ALL know that the breeders and the breed clubs can't be trusted to give true information :End sarcasm:


----------



## Rescued

JohnnyBandit said:


> Statements have been released by both Dog World online and the Bulldog Council of the UK. Both very respected organizations. Links to both of these statements have been posted on here. Both have been pointed out to you previously.
> 
> These go far beyond rumors and hearsay. Both are reliable. Yet you continue to ignore them.


That still doesn't answer my question. Where are the online, published in a database results that the bulldogs owner had her eyes CERF cleared OR the comparable UK testing?


----------



## houndies

Why the witch hunt? Supposedly it was eye related across the board with DQs. It was agreed protocol by both sides that the vets' reports would not be disclosed. Why should it be everyone's business...
I think we are all on the same page here. Loving our dogs and wanting them all to be as healthy as possible. And yes to rein in some of the over- exaggerated features across the board and not just the "dreaded 15". The problem is the way the KC has gone about it - simple. 
They are a governing body and why have such a knee jerk reaction to sensationalist journalism. It would have been great if Jemima had made BAD BREEDERS EXPOSED. Let's look at the real problems of puppy farms and BYB and why the KC continues to register the puppies. But no lets pick on those BAD ETHICAL (sarcasm) breeders.
At least the popularity of these "mutant 15" breeds will go down. Always a good thing as they won't be so popular with the truly bad unethical breeders.


----------



## spanielorbust

Rescued said:


> That still doesn't answer my question. Where are the online, published in a database results that the bulldogs owner had her eyes CERF cleared OR the comparable UK testing?


According to this page - http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...44PvPvR87W8LN_dJA&sig2=gAabN01F3_2ukRee0NgwvQ - for the Bulldog assured breeders are strongly recommended to acquire a breed council health certificate for their breeding stock, which means going through a breed council approved vet.

The screening schemes the KC accepts results for are listed here, but for the Bulldog there are no required screens to be a KC assured breeder: - http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/glossary/screening-all.aspx

This is the KC health test results finder: - http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/mateselect/test/Default.aspx

For Mellowmood One In A Million it says that 'there are no screening records for this dog' - http://services.thekennelclub.org.uk/0e8e54bd98124748a2b7b5b8e000a6c9.healthtest

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1100/abshealthreqs.pdf

http://www.mellowmoodbulldogs.com/ ---- 

SOB


----------



## spanielorbust

houndies said:


> . . . It would have been great if Jemima had made BAD BREEDERS EXPOSED. Let's look at the real problems of puppy farms and BYB and why the KC continues to register the puppies. But no lets pick on those BAD ETHICAL (sarcasm) breeders. . . . .


This is such B.S.

The show was about exposing bad breeders. The problem is the show breeders are up in arms that the bad breeders happy to continue with bad breeding practices were found amongst top breeders right in their midst.

Beverly Costello (judge and breeder) should not have been breeding Beauella Radzinski, for 140 puppies over 40 litters, with the cooperation of top influential judges and breeders who were then shipping his progeny around the world to people that did not know the risk. Many of those litters were born AFTER he was diagnosed as risky and not to be bred from (at 16 months of age if anyone wants to check litters born after).

http://services.thekennelclub.org.uk/9b2c30ed33774199a5b3f37ec9cbca30.healthtest

http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/s...0000048012F866B5679B7D13756AE1B238ACF8AD76648

http://www.caninehealthregistry.org/component/ctkpedigree/dogdetails/55173/

If that is NOT a bad breeder, and in fact a bad GROUP of breeders that needed to have a light shone on them, I don't know what is. 

I don't care that they tend to be 'nice'. I don't care that some want to chaulk this up to 'misdirected' breeders. I don't care that these same breeders compete and contribute toward health research in order to fix the problems they've captured in their breeds. These practices also harm dogs. The very bad breeding practices highlighted in PDE on that Champion Cavalier has already lead to the suffering and early death of one of his Ch progeny in the USA. Other progeny from him showing SM symptoms can also be found on line.

Don't pretend that the coverage of bad breeding practices should be JUST on puppyfarms and bybs. Don't even try to pretend that the unethical hide just there. There is room for coverage in all areas UNLESS people are of the opinion that this crap needs to be hidden. 

WHY would breeders want to hide this? Why is there a want to deny that there are unethical gits sitting right at the top of some breeds? What would be the benefit for DOGS? Answer me that.

SOB


----------



## Rescued

spanielorbust said:


> According to this page - http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...44PvPvR87W8LN_dJA&sig2=gAabN01F3_2ukRee0NgwvQ - for the Bulldog assured breeders are strongly recommended to acquire a breed council health certificate for their breeding stock, which means going through a breed council approved vet.
> 
> The screening schemes the KC accepts results for are listed here, but for the Bulldog there are no required screens to be a KC assured breeder: - http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/glossary/screening-all.aspx
> 
> This is the KC health test results finder: - http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/mateselect/test/Default.aspx
> 
> For Mellowmood One In A Million it says that 'there are no screening records for this dog' - http://services.thekennelclub.org.uk/0e8e54bd98124748a2b7b5b8e000a6c9.healthtest
> 
> http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/1100/abshealthreqs.pdf
> 
> http://www.mellowmoodbulldogs.com/ ----
> 
> SOB


Those are all the things I found as well. If this is truly the case and the bulldogs owners didn't do CERF (or applicable UK version) testing, I just lost all respect for them, and all sympathy. They were warned that there were going to be health checks at Crufts, and STILL decided not to get their dog tested and publish her results in the database?

Ridiculous. THIS is what fuels PDE and reactions by AR and mutt-fanatics.


----------



## houndies

Spanielsorbust Yes I know there are some bad breeders in the show world and never implied there were not. Of course they should be exposed along with Puppy farms and BYB. Surely it is all part of PEDIGREE DOGS EXPOSED. And why the KC registers ANY puppies that have registered parents?


----------



## spanielorbust

houndies said:


> Spanielsorbust Yes I know there are some bad breeders in the show world and never implied there were not. Of course they should be exposed along with Puppy farms and BYB. Surely it is all part of PEDIGREE DOGS EXPOSED. And why the KC registers ANY puppies that have registered parents?


I don't read this the same as you do then.



houndies said:


> . . . It would have been great if Jemima had made BAD BREEDERS EXPOSED. Let's look at the real problems of puppy farms and BYB and why the KC continues to register the puppies. But no lets pick on those BAD ETHICAL (sarcasm) breeders. . . .


Why mention that puppyfarms and bybs are 'real' problems leaving out others?

There have been lots of threads about PDE if you want to go through them. Distracting from the subject at hand by mentioning that BYBs and puppyfarms are the real problems is not an argument thay I will buy.

As a Cavalier fan and student for many years I have no qualms about admitting I am very happy about the exposure of people at the top of that breed that have brought it to its knees through their careless stewardship. Of course THEIR claim is that the puppyfarms and bybs have been the problem. Any study of any Cavalier database reveals how completely bogus that idea is. We've already had enough of that kind of deflection.

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9

begemot said:


> There is no evidence that she was only DQ'd for an old eye injury, that I can tell. The DQ might not have even had anything to do with her eyes. The owners have chosen not to make the results of the vet check public. And I've asked people repeatedly for evidence to support their claims that the DQ was just for an old eye injury (which seems highly unlikely, though every one makes mistakes, vet or otherwise) and no one has furnished it. At this point it's just an unsubstantiated rumor being put out by people who don't like the vet checks.
> 
> Even if there were public CERF-like test results for her, what would it prove? Only that the DQ was probably for something else.


So do you have proof that the eye injury was NOT the cause of the DQ?


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Pawzk9 said:


> So do you have proof that the eye injury was NOT the cause of the DQ?


Do you have proof that the 'eye injury' (which may not be an injury at all...) WAS the cause of the DQ?

No one knows.


----------



## Rescued

Pawzk9 said:


> So do you have proof that the eye injury was NOT the cause of the DQ?


Isn't that sort of a moot point considering her owners have neglected to get her eyes certified at all?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Rescued said:


> Isn't that sort of a moot point considering her owners have neglected to get her eyes certified at all?


The bulldog passed an eye cert in December 2011


----------



## Rescued

JohnnyBandit said:


> The bulldog passed an eye cert in December 2011


Could you give me a link to the results of the eye cert? I couldn't find it.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Do you have proof that the 'eye injury' (which may not be an injury at all...) WAS the cause of the DQ?
> 
> No one knows.


There are reputable statements all over the place that the eye issue in the BD was an old injury....


----------



## Pawzk9

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Do you have proof that the 'eye injury' (which may not be an injury at all...) WAS the cause of the DQ?
> 
> No one knows.


And that's a problem right there. The dog passed an eye exam less than 6 months ago. Disqualifying a dog should have some sort of responsibility and answerability involved. A judge must state the reason the dog is DQed A vet apparently doesn't need to be answerable for their decision?


----------



## Willowy

I guarantee that if those "reputable statements" were in the other direction, you guys wouldn't think they were so reputable. . ..

Until (if) the owners decide to release the eye certification, the show vet's paper, proof of the old injury (did they take her to the vet when it happened? Etc.), and all that, it looks like nobody knows anything.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Rescued said:


> Could you give me a link to the results of the eye cert? I couldn't find it.


This is about all you are going to get right now.... More will be out. But it is not being released. I said many pages ago that if my statements prove to be inaccurate in the end I would apologize.......

The reason you have not and will not see more, especially from the BD and the Peke, is that law suits are coming. 


And to those that say that there are no grounds..... Couldn't be more wrong.... When a GP fails a dog on the KC's kangaroo test AFTER the dog has been cleared by a board certified Opthamologitst, and the public embarrassment associated with it, there are plenty of grounds. 


The Bulldog Breed Council wishes to support the winning Exhibitor and the very experienced and respected Judge at Crufts 2012 .

We wish to clarify the events of the past weekend at Crufts and put an end to speculation.





We have worked with the Kennel Club over the last 8 years in a concentrated effort to focus on the points that needed urgent attention to improve the health of the Bulldog.



Long before any media attention and publicity we have had a health committee and a strategy to take the health of the breed forward , we have had many meetings and dialogue over a period of time with the Kennel Club that have not been instigated by Media frenzy but by the Breeders themselves .





The Facts ….





The top winning Bulldog in question has an old eye injury, it is not visible to the naked eye in the normal manner of being examined by the judge nor is it visible without pulling the dog’s eyelid down and a light being used.

It was a knock to the eye the dog had as a puppy and as had no ill effects and the exhibitor had not given this a second thought as a reason the dog would not be classed as healthy by the independent veterinarian on the day.

It seems the Kennel Club are assuming that any mark on the cornea of any Bulldog is due to damage caused by eye disease, in this case this is simply not true, and will be taken up with the Kennel Club by representatives of the Bulldog Breed Council at a meeting on 23rd March which we hopefully will prevent situations like this re-occurring in future



In all other areas this bulldog is healthy and passed all requirements.







This bulldog also went through this very same veterinary check as a volunteer at the trial run held by the BUBA [British Utility Breeds Association] in December 2011which was witnessed and watched by two independent Show officials of the society. With this passed obviously there was no warning that this failure was going to happen at such a high profile show in front of the world just a few months later.





We wish to add that Bulldog Breeders, Judges and Exhibitors are in a total disbelief because this bulldog has done so well not only in the UK but also in Europe.





We ask but one more point for you to ponder, this bulldog is fit for function, it’s a dog and as such has the freedom to enjoy its life with the rough and tumble that dogs at play have, we as a breed have no intention to say our dogs must be wrapped in cotton wool, they are a tough dog.

Being a dog, any dog, accidents can and do happen!


----------



## Willowy

Is there some kind of proof of prior injury that the owners can have for shows? I don't think it's realistic to expect a vet who is looking for eye injury to be able to tell the difference between eye injury caused by deformity and eye injury caused by accident.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Willowy said:


> Is there some kind of proof of prior injury that the owners can have for shows? I don't think it's realistic to expect a vet who is looking for eye injury to be able to tell the difference between eye injury caused by deformity and eye injury caused by accident.


Dang!!!!!! You HIT THE NAIL RIGHT ON THE HEAD!!!!

The thing is.... A GP is NOT going to know.... The tests are the show are are a WASTE of time.....


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.p...s_bob_winner/561ce5069c6eaac46ce7419f8cbe786f

Seems Bassets had their own vet at the show, smart idea there.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Willowy said:


> I guarantee that if those "reputable statements" were in the other direction, you guys wouldn't think they were so reputable. . ..
> 
> Until (if) the owners decide to release the eye certification, the show vet's paper, proof of the old injury (did they take her to the vet when it happened? Etc.), and all that, it looks like nobody knows anything.


Well.... If you are talking about Jemima and PDE..... I know she is not reputable.... She had a motive and an agenda..... She made it look just like she wanted. And she only told one side of the story...... She is the ONLY exposure most people have to the show world. In fact she is the only exposure some of those commenting here have..... She did not tell the entire story, only told the parts she wanted, and folks take her as gospel.....

Conversely....... Those sources I posted, are old well respected organizations with multi generations of respectability....

I have news for everyone.... "documentaries", news, etc are not about the truth.... They are about selling programs.


----------



## Willowy

JohnnyBandit said:


> Dang!!!!!! You HIT THE NAIL RIGHT ON THE HEAD!!!!
> 
> The thing is.... A GP is NOT going to know.... The tests are the show are are a WASTE of time.....


 The Kennel Club didn't want an opthalmologist, because then it would be argued that the specialist was able to see something a judge would not. They chose a GP who would be able to see obvious injury, and that's what he (she?) did. With no way of knowing what caused the injury. I don't know what else you would have them do (except, of course, go back to allowing breeders to police themselves. Which is what made unhealthy Bulldogs to begin with). If a dog has an injury that would merit disqualification if caused by a physical deformity, there should be some kind of process so the judges and vets know that it was a previous accident.


----------



## Rescued

JohnnyBandit said:


> This is about all you are going to get right now.... More will be out. But it is not being released. I said many pages ago that if my statements prove to be inaccurate in the end I would apologize.......
> 
> The reason you have not and will not see more, especially from the BD and the Peke, is that law suits are coming.
> 
> 
> And to those that say that there are no grounds..... Couldn't be more wrong.... When a GP fails a dog on the KC's kangaroo test AFTER the dog has been cleared by a board certified Opthamologitst, and the public embarrassment associated with it, there are plenty of grounds.
> 
> 
> The Bulldog Breed Council wishes to support the winning Exhibitor and the very experienced and respected Judge at Crufts 2012 .
> 
> We wish to clarify the events of the past weekend at Crufts and put an end to speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have worked with the Kennel Club over the last 8 years in a concentrated effort to focus on the points that needed urgent attention to improve the health of the Bulldog.
> 
> 
> 
> Long before any media attention and publicity we have had a health committee and a strategy to take the health of the breed forward , we have had many meetings and dialogue over a period of time with the Kennel Club that have not been instigated by Media frenzy but by the Breeders themselves .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Facts ….
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top winning Bulldog in question has an old eye injury, it is not visible to the naked eye in the normal manner of being examined by the judge nor is it visible without pulling the dog’s eyelid down and a light being used.
> 
> It was a knock to the eye the dog had as a puppy and as had no ill effects and the exhibitor had not given this a second thought as a reason the dog would not be classed as healthy by the independent veterinarian on the day.
> 
> It seems the Kennel Club are assuming that any mark on the cornea of any Bulldog is due to damage caused by eye disease, in this case this is simply not true, and will be taken up with the Kennel Club by representatives of the Bulldog Breed Council at a meeting on 23rd March which we hopefully will prevent situations like this re-occurring in future
> 
> 
> 
> In all other areas this bulldog is healthy and passed all requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This bulldog also went through this very same veterinary check as a volunteer at the trial run held by the BUBA [British Utility Breeds Association] in December 2011which was witnessed and watched by two independent Show officials of the society. With this passed obviously there was no warning that this failure was going to happen at such a high profile show in front of the world just a few months later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We wish to add that Bulldog Breeders, Judges and Exhibitors are in a total disbelief because this bulldog has done so well not only in the UK but also in Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We ask but one more point for you to ponder, this bulldog is fit for function, it’s a dog and as such has the freedom to enjoy its life with the rough and tumble that dogs at play have, we as a breed have no intention to say our dogs must be wrapped in cotton wool, they are a tough dog.
> 
> Being a dog, any dog, accidents can and do happen!


I have no doubt the dogs eyes have been examined. But as we know there's a difference between GP vet interpreted hip xrays and OFA xrays. Do we (you?) know with some certainty that the bulldogs "eye testing" was done under CERF certification, or the UK equivalent?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Willowy said:


> The Kennel Club didn't want an opthalmologist, because then it would be argued that the specialist was able to see something a judge would not. They chose a GP who would be able to see obvious injury, and that's what he (she?) did. With no way of knowing what caused the injury. I don't know what else you would have them do (except, of course, go back to allowing breeders to police themselves. Which is what made unhealthy Bulldogs to begin with). If a dog has an injury that would merit disqualification if caused by a physical deformity, there should be some kind of process so the judges and vets know that it was a previous accident.


Yes I know what the KC wanted..... Yet they had GPs making eye diagnosis that only opthamologists are qualified to do....... They really screwed the pooch on that one..... They might as well have written a blank check.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

The most entertaining part of this "epic" thread is this..... Pages and pages of folks defending the GP exams..... Then some of those same folks are talking about CERF......


----------



## Willowy

If an opthalmologist had made the determination, you'd be saying it was unfair, too. There really is no way to make show people happy with this kind of thing. They could have a full panel of board-certified specialists in every speciality, and still their determinations would be questioned.

But there has to be some kind of third-party policing going on. You can't ever take the word of competitors ("I didn't take anabolic steroids! My doctor just says I have a lot of testosterone!", etc.).


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

JohnnyBandit said:


> The most entertaining part of this "epic" thread is this..... Pages and pages of folks defending the GP exams..... Then some of those same folks are talking about CERF......


Actually I think that the most entertaining part is that this is not what the thread was about.


----------



## Willowy

JohnnyBandit said:


> The most entertaining part of this "epic" thread is this..... Pages and pages of folks defending the GP exams..... Then some of those same folks are talking about CERF......


Mainly because one argument was "how dare the GP find something after the dog has had her CERF clearances (or equivalent) done", and now it turns out she hasn't. Or at least nobody can prove she has.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...edicures--FAR-posh-walkies.html#ixzz1pOn8uaG1


----------



## spanielorbust

Vet check storm - KC chairman responds - http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/67383

_"KENNEL Club chairman Prof Steve Dean has responded to the ferocious criticism of the veterinary checks at Crufts, answering some of the questions posed by DOG WORLD but showing no signs of the KC weakening in its resolve. . ."_


SOB


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Willowy said:


> If an opthalmologist had made the determination, you'd be saying it was unfair, too. There really is no way to make show people happy with this kind of thing. They could have a full panel of board-certified specialists in every speciality, and still their determinations would be questioned.
> 
> But there has to be some kind of third-party policing going on. You can't ever take the word of competitors ("I didn't take anabolic steroids! My doctor just says I have a lot of testosterone!", etc.).


Actually you could not be more wrong about what I would think..... I am a HUGE proponent of health testing for dogs..... AS ARE MOST SHOW PEOPLE....... CHAOS, Xeph and some others can tell you, there are a few show people that do not test or haphazzardly test their dogs. Those people are not thought of well in the show world. And this is world wide.... When I have talked about importing a dog.... (a couple of years back I was seriously considering importing a Beauceron because I wanted one and did not love what I was seeing in the US. And one time I looked into importing a Rottweiler, and another time an ACD) Everyone I spoke with brought up their testing protocals very quickly. 

The reason you are not going to make show people happy with this, is that it is dog and pony show......

Let me ask you this.... Other than what you read and have seen on things like PDE what do you know about dog shows and show people? Ever competed? Been a member of a breed club? A member of a Kennel Club? etc. IF you cannot answer yes to any of those you cannot speak to what show people will or will not like or accept.....

And to counter your initial statement..... IF a board certified Opthamologist had made that diagnosis, even under the monkey court parameters of this testing protocal, you would not catch me saying a cross word in a million years....

And to show I put my money where my mouth is... Here are my dog's OFA records.... Notice the CHIC number.... Do a google on CHIC.... It is a big deal.

CALL ME WORK N SOME MAGIC 
Registration: DN18471704 (AKC) Sire: DN11920106 
No photo on file 
Breed: AUSTRALIAN CATTLE DOG Dam: DL89094201 
Sex: M *Titles: 
Color: BLUE SPECKLED CHIC #: 58655 
Birthdate: May 28 2007 Addtl. Reg. # 
DNA Profile: 


OFA Number Registry Test/Film
Date Report Date Age Final Conclusion 
ACD-PRA1244/3M-VPI-CAR PROGRESSIVE RETINAL ATROPHY Sep 11 2007 Oct 16 2007 3 GENOTYPIC CARRIER FOR prcd-PRA 
ACD-CA66/24M/P-VPI CARDIAC Jun 2 2009 Jun 16 2009 24 NORMAL - PRACTITIONER 
ACD-PA42/24M/P-VPI PATELLA Jun 2 2009 Jun 16 2009 24 NORMAL - PRACTITIONER 
ACD-2433G24M-VPI HIPS Jun 2 2009 Jun 17 2009 24 GOOD 
ACD-EL565M24-VPI ELBOW Jun 2 2009 Jun 17 2009 24 NORMAL 
ACD-1893 CERF Jun 20 2009 Jun 20 2009 25 TESTED: 09 
ACD-BR332/25M-VPI BAER HEARING TEST Jul 7 2009 Jul 8 2009 25 HEARING (NORMAL)


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Willowy said:


> Mainly because one argument was "how dare the GP find something after the dog has had her CERF clearances (or equivalent) done", and now it turns out she hasn't. Or at least nobody can prove she has.


The dog has had its clearances.... I am willing to put money on it.... In fact I already have.....


----------



## spanielorbust

JohnnyBandit said:


> Actually you could not be more wrong about what I would think..... I am a HUGE proponent of health testing for dogs..... AS ARE MOST SHOW PEOPLE....... CHAOS, Xeph and some others can tell you, there are a few show people that do not test or haphazzardly test their dogs. Those people are not thought of well in the show world. And this is world wide....


. . . and that depends on the breed. That in itself is a problem.

The BOB Cavalier stud that won Crufts just this year has sired 103 puppies from 25 litters, the majority of them before he was two and a half years old, and this in a breed where meaningful health tests for the two prevalent conditions (both late onset) cannot be done before that time.

http://services.thekennelclub.org.uk/877bc2c74a3d4194952c056d7eb16950.healthtest


SOB


----------



## Rescued

JohnnyBandit said:


> The dog has had its clearances.... I am willing to put money on it.... In fact I already have.....


I'm really not trying to argue... but it seems so strange that suddenly all records of this dogs testing are wiped off the internet. Sure they decided to sue two weeks later and all evidence was removed... but was it even there to begin with?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Rescued said:


> I'm really not trying to argue... but it seems so strange that suddenly all records of this dogs testing are wiped off the internet. Sure they decided to sue two weeks later and all evidence was removed... but was it even there to begin with?


The information other than some leaked stuff on the Clumber has not been open to public eye via the internet. 

But.....

Let me put it this way..... 
Does actually think there are not discussions going on via the internet among breeders and those involved with well bred dogs that are not open to public? 

There are discussions going on constantly. I am participating in one as we speak. But once all this went down......The well bred dog community closed up tighter than ****'s hat band. At the very least, Chaos has knowledge of these discussion boards that are closed door. In fact I invited her to join one. 

If there was not good strong information available, do you actually think that folks involved with well bred dogs would be sending large amounts of dollars to assist in legal battles that will take place in the UK? 

The general public only has access to a very limited amount as to what is out there. As for the decision to bring suits being decided so quickly..... There were plans in place by some organizations to begin suits IF any of the dogs failed and there was valid reason to believe that there was any sort of mishandling of this..... So the decisions were not made instantly. This has been three years in the works by the KC.... 
This is just the first round and it is going to be a long boxing match.

BTW... The exchange rate from US dollars to British Pounds sucks right now...


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Willowy said:


> I guarantee that if those "reputable statements" were in the other direction, you guys wouldn't think they were so reputable. . .


Bingo. The arguments are just irrational. Looking forward to all these law suits, actually expecting to win is delusional (this is the UK, yeah?) The fancy does nothing but complain that people go to BYBs..Why wouldn't they with the attitudes of supposedly the 'best' breeders in the world proving the stereotype they think they're superior, they have more information that us lower mortals can't know, vets are biased and liars, these dogs are perfect the way they are, a team of specialists should be on hand for vet checks, no wait judges know everything and never make mistakes; forget the vets all together. They're starting a new kennel club, only certain vets 'truly' understand...Talk about tantrum throwing.

Puppy buyers are essential to the show fancy, and they are being treated like fools. Even I am completely disillusioned in show breeders by this thread.

Show breeders will be policed by outside sources. I didn't realise just how insular and stubborn the fancy was until now, no wonder someone has to step in for the sake of the dogs that are waxed and bred with ridiculous amounts of wrinkles. (Did you see that poor Neo?) 

Also SpanielorBurst posted a reputable statement from the vet at CRUFTS but obviously that doesn't fall under reputable..Nor do the dog informed but not breeding public's opinions count..Only breeders statements are reputable.


----------



## Willowy

JohnnyBandit said:


> There were plans in place by some organizations to begin suits IF any of the dogs failed and there was valid reason to believe that there was any sort of mishandling of this.


I suspect the latter part of this is entirely irrelevant.


----------



## Xeph

> Puppy buyers are essential to the show fancy


While many puppy buyers are pet buyers, there is an equal amount, if not MORE selling of puppies to others within the fancy.

Wesson is her breeder's keeper puppy. However, due to her personal numbers, keeping Wesson on her property really wasn't an option for her. Wes was originally sent up as a client dog....and now she's my dog. The breeder didn't want to risk selling this particular puppy to a "maybe" show home, nor did she want to sell her to a pet only home.

This is the breeder's only litter...she does not want any more. She DOES want to get the ROM for the mother of this litter. All puppies except for two are in show homes. The remaining two are residing with her. One will never leave her property (health issue that is being managed), the other is working through some temperament troubles (nothing severe, but concerning enough to her she kept him back for more extensive socialization) and he'll likely stay with her forever (she's fallen in love with him).

I've got Wesson for keeps on an extremely agreeable agreement. She will be shown for sure, may never be bred (the breeder wants no litters or puppies back, so there is no pressure on me for that), and will hopefully pick up points towards her mom's ROM.

CHIC, unfortunately, means jack crap for GSDs. Requirements for the CHIC # were lessened, so now almost every dog and his brother can get a CHIC # without much meaningful testing.

Conversely. now there are people testing for a BUNCH of health issues that really are NOT common enough to be tested for (like vWD, heart issues, eye issues, and thyroid issues). My personal belief is that GSDs should be tested for HD, ED, and DM, as well as a temperament test (if available....they're really not held frequently enough or in reachable locales for many).


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Bingo. The arguments are just irrational. Looking forward to all these law suits, actually expecting to win is delusional (this is the UK, yeah?) The fancy does nothing but complain that people go to BYBs..Why wouldn't they with the attitudes of supposedly the 'best' breeders in the world proving the stereotype they think they're superior, they have more information that us lower mortals can't know, vets are biased and liars, these dogs are perfect the way they are, a team of specialists should be on hand for vet checks, no wait judges know everything and never make mistakes; forget the vets all together. They're starting a new kennel club, only certain vets 'truly' understand...Talk about tantrum throwing.
> 
> Puppy buyers are essential to the show fancy, and they are being treated like fools. Even I am completely disillusioned in show breeders by this thread.
> 
> Show breeders will be policed by outside sources. I didn't realise just how insular and stubborn the fancy was until now, no wonder someone has to step in for the sake of the dogs that are waxed and bred with ridiculous amounts of wrinkles. (Did you see that poor Neo?)
> 
> Also SpanielorBurst posted a reputable statement from the vet at CRUFTS but obviously that doesn't fall under reputable..Nor do the dog informed but not breeding public's opinions count..Only breeders statements are reputable.


Actually given the number of attorneys (they seem to call them solicitors over there) I think the odds are good... Just take the bulldog...Or the Peke.... If those dogs are found to be sound and the vet was in error, the public embarrassment the breeders, owners,etc faced having their dogs kicked out of the largest dog show in the world amounts to a HUGE libel judgement. Their good names have been drug through the mud world wide... How do you put a price on that? 

As for your other statements.... 

Let me break something down to you.
The show breeders are the ones that paid for the development of the testing and the research behind it. 
The show breeders are the ones that utilize those tests.

And yes if they are going to examine dogs for genetic issues, there should be a team of specialists..... If not can you answer how come people with well bred dogs spend an average of 1500 to 2 grand to have their dogs cleared of genetic issues by specialists? 

And.... As for being policed from the outside..... That is beyond a lost statement... This ain't policing... It is a media stunt.... Inneffective and not binding.... The KC has just made themselves irrelevent. 

Whatever issues the KC had prior to this were minute compared to now.... If an organization such at that loses the trust and support of its membership, it is doomed to fail....


----------



## Rescued

JohnnyBandit said:


> Does actually think there are not discussions going on via the internet among breeders and those involved with well bred dogs that are not open to public?
> 
> There are discussions going on constantly. I am participating in one as we speak. But once all this went down......The well bred dog community closed up tighter than ****'s hat band. At the very least, Chaos has knowledge of these discussion boards that are closed door. In fact I invited her to join one.
> 
> If there was not good strong information available, do you actually think that folks involved with well bred dogs would be sending large amounts of dollars to assist in legal battles that will take place in the UK?
> 
> The general public only has access to a very limited amount as to what is out there. As for the decision to bring suits being decided so quickly..... There were plans in place by some organizations to begin suits IF any of the dogs failed and there was valid reason to believe that there was any sort of mishandling of this..... So the decisions were not made instantly. This has been three years in the works by the KC....
> This is just the first round and it is going to be a long boxing match.
> .


Would the KC chair count as general public? From the link SOB posted:

" It is clear that eye problems dominated the findings of the vets. Follow-up veterinary checks have been suggested to refute the findings of the Crufts examinations. This is understandable, as in many cases the clinical aspect may change over time. However, no certificates of examination have been presented to the KC and when they are we will investigate their findings further."

Do we (as the general public) have any right to be suspicious of this statement? Or would you say that a) the statement is untrue or b)the statement was true, but significant findings have been submitted in the four days since this statement was made.

(I'll say it once more for posterity, as I'm scared of getting banned...none of this is meant to be accusatory, just wondering. not yelling!)


----------



## cshellenberger

If certificates have not been presented it's becasue the breeders are putting together a case. When building a case you don't give your evidence to the other side until time for the trial.


----------



## Rescued

cshellenberger said:


> If certificates have not been presented it's becasue the breeders are putting together a case. When building a case you don't give your evidence to the other side until time for the trial.


So do we (as the public) have reason to believe that the results of prior, adequate testing WERE available to the public in a database (or something similar) and that they were removed from public access pending the lawsuit?

It's certainly easier to believe that they never existed, hence this question.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Rescued said:


> So do we (as the public) have reason to believe that the results of prior, adequate testing WERE available to the public in a database (or something similar) and that they were removed from public access pending the lawsuit?
> 
> It's certainly easier to believe that they never existed, hence this question.


They have never been public. But I am confident they exist. Very confident. Enough to look at the situation and donate money to the cause.....


----------



## cshellenberger

Rescued said:


> So do we (as the public) have reason to believe that the results of prior, adequate testing WERE available to the public in a database (or something similar) and that they were removed from public access pending the lawsuit?
> 
> It's certainly easier to believe that they never existed, hence this question.


Seeing as the Euro data base only make results public if there is a PROBLEM, they most likely have never been made public. Even with the American CERF, OFA and PENNhip results a breeder has to sign a release to make the results public. This is why it's important to ASK a breeder if the test and to ask to see the results on the parent BEFORE purchasing a pup.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

And here is the thing..... Aussie, Rescued, Willowy, Etc...... 

Here is something to think about...... And this is not a dig... But it is what it is.....

The well bred dog world is gearing up for a fight.... Meaning building of funds.... 
Most dog people, most dog clubs, etc have funds for this and funds for that......Most breed clubs, breeders, etc donate to or financially support a rescue organization or two...... 

Now there is a finite amount of money to go around.... Where do you think money gets diverted from when there is a need for funds? From money that would go to rescue.... The money is not coming from expenses associated with showing or trialing. Or hosting shows or trials, or money for health research, etc. It gets diverted from rescue. It always happens that way. Two years ago when there were a bunch of bills in our state legislature that would be restrictive to dog ownership. Mandatory Spay and Neuter statutes, BSL, etc..... Money was diverted and flowed straight from rescue into political action.....

Meanwhile...... The puppy mills keep cranking out puppies... The mis informed public still feeds those puppy mills.....And the majority of show breeders and all the decent ones, test and clear their dogs, pay for research etc..... 

And who pays the price for this big pissing match? The rescues and rescue dogs.... 

And why? All because of a sensationalized "documentary" by someone looking to build a name for herself and her production studio......

It is a shame......


----------



## hast

What Euro database are you talking about?


----------



## sassafras

Well that is some pretty weak tea. Breed clubs and breeders are responsible for their own choices about how they choose to spend their money, just like any other adult.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sassafras said:


> Breed clubs and breeders are responsible for their own choices about how they choose to spend their money, just like any other adult.


Exactly..... and it goes like this..... There are X number of funds available..... Normally they get spread around through Y...... But then Z comes along and now there is not enough funds...... 

You may think it is weak tea as it were...... But it happens..... And the more divided the dog world becomes more and more divided, it is going to happen more....


----------



## Rescued

JohnnyBandit said:


> And here is the thing..... Aussie, Rescued, Willowy, Etc......
> 
> Here is something to think about...... And this is not a dig... But it is what it is.....
> 
> And who pays the price for this big pissing match? The rescues and rescue dogs....
> 
> And why? All because of a sensationalized "documentary" by someone looking to build a name for herself and her production studio......
> 
> It is a shame......


I never meant to imply that I agree with the way the KC handled this. And they did choose to "implement" and "enforce" this in the completely wrong fashion.

Its going to be a h*ll of a lot easier to tweak the rules to prevent the 5% of bad KC breeders from continuing with their policies regarding health testing (not Johnny, Chaos, Pawz, ect who are doing the RIGHT thing) than it is to just "wipe out puppy mills.

Trust me, crazy rescue fanatics AND good breeders have been trying to do that one for years.

But the failure of the puppy mill movement DOES NOT negate what bad KC breeders are doing. Yes, it sucks that money is being taken away from rescue dogs. I hate coming into the shelter on a Monday and seeing half the pens that were full on friday, now empty. it sucks. But if we're talking in terms of dogs- I'd almost say that if 3 or 4 million mutts are killed because funding is going elsewhere, and that funding will CHANGE the way ALL KC breeders do health testing- then do it.

But EVERYONE needs to work towards changing how the 5% of bad KC breeders are operating. Yes, all the good breeders are being drug alongside them. That happens with anything controversial- I get associated with PETA all the time (because you love animals!!!) and I can't stand the group. Its just the nature of society. But I assure you that it's not you that makes (sensible) rescue/ AR activists mad. its that 5%.


----------



## begemot

Regarding the claims that it was just an old eye injury in the EB, from the kennel club's chairman statement posted by spanielorbust: "A consistent finding in several breeds was the presence of eyelid defects (either entropion or ectropion) but in all cases signs of current inflammation or chronic damage was observed and linked to these conformational defects before a dog failed the veterinary check."

Just to be clear, this means that defects weren't enough. There also had to be "signs of current inflammation or chronic damage." So the argument that it was just an old eye injury is moot, because even if the vet mistook it for a sign of eye disease, inflammation or chronic damage would not have been present, and the vet would have passed the dog.



JohnnyBandit said:


> Statements have been released by both Dog World online and the Bulldog Council of the UK. Both very respected organizations. Links to both of these statements have been posted on here. Both have been pointed out to you previously.
> 
> These go far beyond rumors and hearsay. Both are reliable. Yet you continue to ignore them.


Yeah, that's not "evidence." I have followed every single link posted in this thread, including the Bulldog Council of the UK. The link gives their opinion, but it does not supply evidence to support it. In cases like this, assertions that this is a "reliable" source just doesn't cut it. They need to support their statements with actual evidence for it to hold water. Perhaps you are operating on a personal, nonstandard definition of what constitutes evidence?

And what about the other five dogs? Does the silence on them equal a quiet acquiescence? Are you guys admitting that the vet failures on them were valid? Specifically, do you acknowledge that the clumber spaniel's failure was accurate? Given that we have the vet check's findings, a video of the owner lying about the results of those findings, and photographs supporting those findings, I'm interested to hear how people might attempt to defend her.


----------



## begemot

Willowy said:


> Is there some kind of proof of prior injury that the owners can have for shows? I don't think it's realistic to expect a vet who is looking for eye injury to be able to tell the difference between eye injury caused by deformity and eye injury caused by accident.


See the last post. I think a vet usually can tell the difference, but even if they couldn't in this case, it wouldn't matter. There had to also be current inflammation or chronic damage for the vet to fail the dog.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Rescued said:


> I never meant to imply that I agree with the way the KC handled this. And they did choose to "implement" and "enforce" this in the completely wrong fashion.
> 
> Its going to be a h*ll of a lot easier to tweak the rules to prevent the 5% of bad KC breeders from continuing with their policies regarding health testing (not Johnny, Chaos, Pawz, ect who are doing the RIGHT thing) than it is to just "wipe out puppy mills.
> 
> Trust me, crazy rescue fanatics AND good breeders have been trying to do that one for years.
> 
> But the failure of the puppy mill movement DOES NOT negate what bad KC breeders are doing. Yes, it sucks that money is being taken away from rescue dogs. I hate coming into the shelter on a Monday and seeing half the pens that were full on friday, now empty. it sucks. But if we're talking in terms of dogs- I'd almost say that if 3 or 4 million mutts are killed because funding is going elsewhere, and that funding will CHANGE the way ALL KC breeders do health testing- then do it.
> 
> But EVERYONE needs to work towards changing how the 5% of bad KC breeders are operating. Yes, all the good breeders are being drug alongside them. That happens with anything controversial- I get associated with PETA all the time (because you love animals!!!) and I can't stand the group. Its just the nature of society. But I assure you that it's not you that makes (sensible) rescue/ AR activists mad. its that 5%.


The thing is.... This is NOT the way to do it.... To subject breeders and exhibitors to possible public ridicule at the hand of some vet they know nothing about. Some vet that volunteered.... Just because they are a vet does not mean they are competent to go over the dogs and check for the things they are charged with checking for.....

It is EXTREMELY disturbing that, at least in the case of the Bulldog, that such an obviously sound bulldog, produced by a breeder that is doing everything right would be failed. 

All anyone wants.... If fairness and sensible protocols. None of the suits that I know of. The new organization that was started in the UK to combat this, etc are saying they do not want any testing. Heck the breeders are not even saying they don't want to pay for it. All anyone is saying is it has to be fair and sensible. It needs to be planned, age appropriate, etc. Dogs can show at six months of age. Some issues cannot be cleared that young. 

Impromptu testing at the shows by a single vet is so wrong it is beyond belief.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

begemot said:


> Regarding the claims that it was just an old eye injury in the EB, from the kennel club's chairman statement posted by spanielorbust: "A consistent finding in several breeds was the presence of eyelid defects (either entropion or ectropion) but in all cases signs of current inflammation or chronic damage was observed and linked to these conformational defects before a dog failed the veterinary check."
> 
> Just to be clear, this means that defects weren't enough. There also had to be "signs of current inflammation or chronic damage." So the argument that it was just an old eye injury is moot, because even if the vet mistook it for a sign of eye disease, inflammation or chronic damage would not have been present, and the vet would have passed the dog.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's not "evidence." I have followed every single link posted in this thread, including the Bulldog Council of the UK. The link gives their opinion, but it does not supply evidence to support it. In cases like this, assertions that this is a "reliable" source just doesn't cut it. They need to support their statements with actual evidence for it to hold water. Perhaps you are operating on a personal, nonstandard definition of what constitutes evidence?
> 
> And what about the other five dogs? Does the silence on them equal a quiet acquiescence? Are you guys admitting that the vet failures on them were valid? Specifically, do you acknowledge that the clumber spaniel's failure was accurate? Given that we have the vet check's findings, a video of the owner lying about the results of those findings, and photographs supporting those findings, I'm interested to hear how people might attempt to defend her.


The President of the KC's statement is CERTAINLY NOT EVIDENCE...... It is merely a statement. He is attempting to defend the KC's actions......That is not a release of information. 

as for the other dogs that failed..... No one is defending them. You certainly have not me mention the mastiff, the Neo, etc. I have mentioned the Clumber.... But you have not see me defend that dog in any way.

And if they got four right and two wrong.... The system is still flawed severely. If they get one dog wrong, the system does not work. 

No one should be wrongly subjected to the public ridicule.....


----------



## JohnnyBandit

begemot said:


> See the last post. I think a vet usually can tell the difference, but even if they couldn't in this case, it wouldn't matter. There had to also be current inflammation or chronic damage for the vet to fail the dog.


You have ZERO evidence to support your statement that there was current inflamation or chronic damage. And have you ever used a vet opthamologist? You think? a vet can usually tell the difference. A GP vet has ZERO business.... None.... Making potentially damning examinations and rendering opinions on what is and is not eye disease in a dog. I think an aweful lot of my vet. I trust him a lot. If I did not, he would not touch my dogs. But if he said he saw something going on in one of my dogs eyes, it would stop there and further examination would be done by an opthamologist.


----------



## Rescued

JohnnyBandit said:


> The thing is.... This is NOT the way to do it.... To subject breeders and exhibitors to possible public ridicule at the hand of some vet they know nothing about. Some vet that volunteered.... Just because they are a vet does not mean they are competent to go over the dogs and check for the things they are charged with checking for.....
> 
> It is EXTREMELY disturbing that, at least in the case of the Bulldog, that such an obviously sound bulldog, produced by a breeder that is doing everything right would be failed.
> 
> All anyone wants.... If fairness and sensible protocols. None of the suits that I know of. The new organization that was started in the UK to combat this, etc are saying they do not want any testing. Heck the breeders are not even saying they don't want to pay for it. All anyone is saying is it has to be fair and sensible. It needs to be planned, age appropriate, etc. Dogs can show at six months of age. Some issues cannot be cleared that young.
> 
> Impromptu testing at the shows by a single vet is so wrong it is beyond belief.


I'm honestly wondering-what would be the right way to deal with breeders of CH dogs that have health problems. Feel free to point me to another thread if youve already explained. We know this is the wrong way, so whats the right one?


----------



## spanielorbust

JohnnyBandit said:


> The thing is.... This is NOT the way to do it.....


Every proposal put forth by breeders on this thread which indicated ways they would have preferred this done have already been mulled over in the UK by breeds clubs and the KC and been rejected in the lead up to settling on these vet inspections.

So, if this is not the right way tell me what you think would be accepted.

To be clear I'm not asking what would be right, I'm asking what would be accepted, because as far as I can see the answer is that NOTHING would have been or will be as far as many breeders are concerned. Therefore I see all of this as a smokescreen to say 'we want to continue to self police.' 

Frankly I don't find THAT acceptable as I've now seen two of my breeds bred into the ground by those that have been at the helm.

Until someone comes up with an idea or plan that would be acceptable I'll stand behind the KC on this one.

SOB


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Rescued said:


> I'm honestly wondering-what would be the right way to deal with breeders of CH dogs that have health problems. Feel free to point me to another thread if youve already explained. We know this is the wrong way, so whats the right one?


I have been thinking a lot about this..... And have thrown out some things........ But.... I thought of an idea that would work.......

1) Set a criteria for the breeds. All Breeds.....This criteria would be different for different breeds. 

2) allow the dogs to compete......

3) The last clearances need to be done at two years of age, hips, elbows, patellas. But you can prelim a dog much younger than that. Sometimes things change.... But not often. And if the dog is close, it would be up to the owner as to whether to keep the dog moving forward. 

4) By 30 months all clearances have to be turned in, all passed based on criteria set forth. by qualified vets or organizations such as the UK equivalent version of OFA, CERF, etc. ( I would not oppose this if done here either. In fact I would support it. ) 

5) Failure of any clearance OR failure to turn in clearances would result in the dog being stripped of its conformation titles and wins. 

This would work..... And work quickly.... Breeders and owners would only bring forth quality sound animals to show. Why? Because it costs THOUSANDS to finish a dog to its championship. People are not going to spend that kind of money on dogs that are not going to pass in the end.



spanielorbust said:


> Every proposal put forth by breeders on this thread which indicated ways they would have preferred this done have already been mulled over in the UK by breeds clubs and the KC and been rejected in the lead up to settling on these vet inspections.
> 
> So, if this is not the right way tell me what you think would be accepted.
> 
> To be clear I'm not asking what would be right, I'm asking what would be accepted, because as far as I can see the answer is that NOTHING would have been or will be as far as many breeders are concerned. Therefore I see all of this as a smokescreen to say 'we want to continue to self police.' Frankly I don't find THAT acceptable as I've now seen two of my breeds ruined by those that have been at the helm.
> 
> SOB


Just did....


----------



## JohnnyBandit

JohnnyBandit said:


> I have been thinking a lot about this..... And have thrown out some things........ But.... I thought of an idea that would work.......
> 
> 1) Set a criteria for the breeds. All Breeds.....This criteria would be different for different breeds.
> 
> 2) allow the dogs to compete......
> 
> 3) The last clearances need to be done at two years of age, hips, elbows, patellas. But you can prelim a dog much younger than that. Sometimes things change.... But not often. And if the dog is close, it would be up to the owner as to whether to keep the dog moving forward.
> 
> 4) By 30 months all clearances have to be turned in, all passed based on criteria set forth. by qualified vets or organizations such as the UK equivalent version of OFA, CERF, etc. ( I would not oppose this if done here either. In fact I would support it. )
> 
> 5) Failure of any clearance OR failure to turn in clearances would result in the dog being stripped of its conformation titles and wins.
> 
> This would work..... And work quickly.... Breeders and owners would only bring forth quality sound animals to show. Why? Because it costs THOUSANDS to finish a dog to its championship. People are not going to spend that kind of money on dogs that are not going to pass in the end.
> 
> 
> 
> Just did....


And to put even more teeth into it.... Offspring of stripped or failed dogs cannot be registered with the KC.


----------



## spanielorbust

JohnnyBandit said:


> I have been thinking a lot about this..... And have thrown out some things........ But.... I thought of an idea that would work.......
> 
> 1) Set a criteria for the breeds. All Breeds.....This criteria would be different for different breeds.
> 
> 2) allow the dogs to compete......
> 
> 3) The last clearances need to be done at two years of age, hips, elbows, patellas. But you can prelim a dog much younger than that. Sometimes things change.... But not often. And if the dog is close, it would be up to the owner as to whether to keep the dog moving forward.
> 
> 4) By 30 months all clearances have to be turned in, all passed based on criteria set forth. by qualified vets or organizations such as the UK equivalent version of OFA, CERF, etc. ( I would not oppose this if done here either. In fact I would support it. )
> 
> 5) Failure of any clearance OR failure to turn in clearances would result in the dog being stripped of its conformation titles and wins.
> 
> This would work..... And work quickly.... Breeders and owners would only bring forth quality sound animals to show. Why? Because it costs THOUSANDS to finish a dog to its championship. People are not going to spend that kind of money on dogs that are not going to pass in the end.
> 
> 
> 
> Just did....


And you know that that won't happen until pigs fly. We know this because in negotiations with the clubs prior to deciding on the vet checks these types of proposals were discussed and taken off the table because of breeder objections.

The requirement of ANY health tests prior to the shows were rejected, let alone a proposal as dogmatic as what you just suggested.

So again I ask for a solution that you believe would be accepted by breeders as a group.

SOB


----------



## JohnnyBandit

spanielorbust said:


> And you know that that won't happen until pigs fly. We know this because in negotiations with the clubs prior to deciding on the vet checks these types of proposals were discussed and taken off the table because of breeder objections.
> 
> The requirement of ANY health tests prior to the shows were rejected, let alone a proposal as dogmatic as what you just suggested.
> 
> So again I ask for a solution that you believe would be accepted by breeders as a group.
> 
> SOB


This is not asking for testing prior to showing. This is simply asking for testing by a certain age in order to maintain the titles and move the dog forward into the breeding program. 

I never saw anything similar. And given the testing fiasco, I do not think this would look too bad to breeders. 

I could see this being objected to in the past.... But look where they found themselves.... Now peopel on both sides just want to move forward. This is pretty painless in comparison to a long fight...


----------



## JohnnyBandit

BTW.... I posted my dogs tests a couple pages back. If you look at the dates of those results, I did most of it right around his second birthday. I got a shot of his hips and looked at them with a vet I trusted when he was younger. But I did not send them in for an official prelim. I saw no point. I knew he had good hips. I did almost everything right around when he turned two. He finished his championship about that time as well.

The majority of breeders are already testing..... So now all they would have to do is turn them in.


----------



## Rescued

JohnnyBandit said:


> And to put even more teeth into it.... Offspring of stripped or failed dogs cannot be registered with the KC.


who sets the criteria and who enforces it? And at what level is acceptable- OFA fair hips not okay but OFA good is? And who would set the levels for acceptable and unacceptable.


----------



## Crantastic

Rescued said:


> who sets the criteria and who enforces it? And at what level is acceptable- OFA fair hips not okay but OFA good is? And who would set the levels for acceptable and unacceptable.


I think something like that would work best if each breed club came up with a list of which things really should be tested for in their breed, and then the KC had a team of specialists evaluate that list and suggest any changes or additions. The agreed-upon list would become "law," so to speak, and any dogs that hadn't been properly tested wouldn't even be allowed to compete.

Co-operation is really key. Like I've said before in this thread, I definitely think there is a problem in some breeds and something needs to be done. I just think that that something should involve co-operation rather than publicly humiliating breeders by stripping their dogs of their wins in such a public way. Involve people in your decision instead of putting them on the defensive and making it more difficult for you to work with them in the future.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

Another tidbit from the KC chairman's recent statement:

"it is important to realise that 15 high-profile breeds do have conformational exaggerations that have led to avoidable conditions causing pain or discomfort and this has to be unacceptable to all of us."

That a high-ranking administrator within the KC is admitting to this is absolutely groundbreaking. I wish I could get up and applaud him. It's a shame that they're only willing to admit to problems within 15 breeds, but it's a start anyway.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

spanielorbust said:


> Every proposal put forth by breeders on this thread which indicated ways they would have preferred this done have already been mulled over in the UK by breeds clubs and the KC and been rejected in the lead up to settling on these vet inspections.
> 
> So, if this is not the right way tell me what you think would be accepted.
> 
> To be clear I'm not asking what would be right, I'm asking what would be accepted, because as far as I can see the answer is that NOTHING would have been or will be as far as many breeders are concerned. *Therefore I see all of this as a smokescreen to say 'we want to continue to self police.'*
> 
> Frankly I don't find THAT acceptable as I've now seen two of my breeds bred into the ground by those that have been at the helm.
> 
> Until someone comes up with an idea or plan that would be acceptable I'll stand behind the KC on this one.
> 
> SOB


I completely agree with the bolded. There's this arrogance that only showers know absolutely everything about dogs, better than anyone. Even vets apparently fall short to the superior knowledge of a show judge. Whether people want to believe it or not, they're not going to be calling the shots any more, whether they believe it or not. Not saying it'll happen overnight, but it will.



GottaLuvMutts said:


> Another tidbit from the KC chairman's recent statement:
> 
> "it is important to realise that 15 high-profile breeds do have conformational exaggerations that have led to avoidable conditions causing pain or discomfort and this has to be unacceptable to all of us."
> 
> That a high-ranking administrator within the KC is admitting to this is absolutely groundbreaking. I wish I could get up and applaud him. It's a shame that they're only willing to admit to problems within 15 breeds, but it's a start anyway.


So do I. This probably was a political move but frankly it doesn't matter. Something is finally being DONE and there may be a chance to salvage my breed.

Looking forward to these frivolous lawsuits and how they turn out, all it'll do is cause more damage to the stereotype of show breeders..Make it much worse IMO. You can't prove libel because the vet didn't tell WHY the dog was DQed.

I find it sad some people believe puppy buyers are not that important...What happens to all the non show puppies in a litter?

The fancy has gone from shooting itself in the foot to the heart.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

JohnnyBandit said:


> And here is the thing..... Aussie, Rescued, Willowy, Etc......
> 
> Here is something to think about...... And this is not a dig... But it is what it is.....
> 
> The well bred dog world is gearing up for a fight.... Meaning building of funds....
> Most dog people, most dog clubs, etc have funds for this and funds for that......Most breed clubs, breeders, etc donate to or financially support a rescue organization or two......
> 
> Now there is a finite amount of money to go around.... Where do you think money gets diverted from when there is a need for funds? From money that would go to rescue.... The money is not coming from expenses associated with showing or trialing. Or hosting shows or trials, or money for health research, etc. It gets diverted from rescue. It always happens that way. Two years ago when there were a bunch of bills in our state legislature that would be restrictive to dog ownership. Mandatory Spay and Neuter statutes, BSL, etc..... Money was diverted and flowed straight from rescue into political action.....
> 
> Meanwhile...... The puppy mills keep cranking out puppies... The mis informed public still feeds those puppy mills.....And the majority of show breeders and all the decent ones, test and clear their dogs, pay for research etc.....
> 
> And who pays the price for this big pissing match? The rescues and rescue dogs....
> 
> And why? All because of a sensationalized "documentary" by someone looking to build a name for herself and her production studio......
> 
> It is a shame......


...and most of the rest of the world is gearing up to write off the well bred dog world. It's already happening: AKC registrations have fallen drastically over the last 15 years, and continue to fall (see graph below). Frankly, if this whole thing sheds light on the fact that show bred dogs are not necessarily as healthy as their breeders would have you believe, I think that's a boon for rescues.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

GottaLuvMutts said:


> ...and most of the rest of the world is gearing up to write off the well bred dog world. It's already happening: AKC registrations have fallen drastically over the last 15 years, and continue to fall (see graph below). Frankly, if this whole thing sheds light on the fact that show bred dogs are not necessarily as healthy as their breeders would have you believe, I think that's a boon for rescues.


I agree, puppy buyers can be dismissed as not important, but in Australia we only have 4,000 registered breeders. Each year it's dropping and more and more people are sick and tired of being treated rudely and mocked (another forum) because they're learning. The more there is such an enormous carry on and the fancy remains insular, refusing to mentor new breeders or sell on main register, the fancy will die completely. I REALLY don't want that but the attitude of some breeders suggest they're quite happy to shut out anyone who isn't a breeder or a judge.


----------



## houndies

spanielorbust said:


> . . . and that depends on the breed. That in itself is a problem.
> 
> The BOB Cavalier stud that won Crufts just this year has sired 103 puppies from 25 litters, the majority of them before he was two and a half years old, and this in a breed where meaningful health tests for the two prevalent conditions (both late onset) cannot be done before that time.
> 
> http://services.thekennelclub.org.uk/877bc2c74a3d4194952c056d7eb16950.healthtest
> 
> 
> SOB


The KC should have DQ'ed the dog. The KC should make rules at what age CKCS can be bred.


----------



## cshellenberger

begemot said:


> Just to be clear, this means that defects weren't enough. There also had to be "signs of current inflammation or chronic damage." So the argument that it was just an old eye injury is moot, because even if the vet mistook it for a sign of eye disease, inflammation or chronic damage would not have been present, and the vet would have passed the dog.


 
Yet the dog that took BOS has tear staining (shown in the pics with her hair pulled out of her eyes) a sign that there is eye irritation of some sort, oh, that's right her breed wasn't checked for eye problems so it's OK.


----------



## hast

GottaLuvMutts said:


> <snip>
> That a high-ranking administrator within the KC is admitting to this is absolutely groundbreaking. I wish I could get up and applaud him. It's a shame that they're only willing to admit to problems within 15 breeds, but it's a start anyway.


Yep, me too!



GottaLuvMutts said:


> ...and most of the rest of the world is gearing up to write off the well bred dog world. It's already happening: AKC registrations have fallen drastically over the last 15 years, and continue to fall (see graph below). Frankly, if this whole thing sheds light on the fact that show bred dogs are not necessarily as healthy as their breeders would have you believe, I think that's a boon for rescues.


But once again, this is AMERICAN data ... In (mainland, because I don't know much about UK) Western Europe around 80% of dogs are KC registered and the kennel clubs have very strict rules about following set standards ... like hips etc. (ie, puppies cannot be registered in the KC if the bitch or stud have less than accepted (D, I believe) hip ratings) The problem is that there aren't any standards about how "open" an eye can be, or how much excess skin a dog can have. If the breed clubs had set a standard the KC wouldn't have had to police them.


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> who sets the criteria and who enforces it? And at what level is acceptable- OFA fair hips not okay but OFA good is? And who would set the levels for acceptable and unacceptable.


It's not rocket science. OFA certitifies hips as non-dyspastic (fair or better) or dysplastic (mild to severe with borderline needing another look). I find it odd that the people in favor of this testing are in favor or meaningless testing but don't support testing that actually tells us somethig. Then there are also issues . Then again,there are diseases we can not eliminate by breeding a single generartion. But we sure can eliminate a healthy gene pool, and bottle neck the breed by looking at only one thing. The level that is appropriate is generlly set by tests offered.


----------



## Pawzk9

GottaLuvMutts said:


> ...and most of the rest of the world is gearing up to write off the well bred dog world. It's already happening: AKC registrations have fallen drastically over the last 15 years, and continue to fall (see graph below). Frankly, if this whole thing sheds light on the fact that show bred dogs are not necessarily as healthy as their breeders would have you believe, I think that's a boon for rescues.


AKC registrations continue to fall because there are now many other options for high volume commecial breeders to register their puppies, and general public is too clueless to care.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

GottaLuvMutts said:


> ...and most of the rest of the world is gearing up to write off the well bred dog world. It's already happening: AKC registrations have fallen drastically over the last 15 years, and continue to fall (see graph below). Frankly, if this whole thing sheds light on the fact that show bred dogs are not necessarily as healthy as their breeders would have you believe, I think that's a boon for rescues.


If someone just looks at this nice graph, they could make the same assumptions you have made. 

The falling numbers are directly impacted by some factors you notably failed to mention.

1) the decline starts and continues with the addition of several new registries in this country. Notably the ACA in 1984 and the CKC in 1991. Both of which register significant numbers of dogs

2) the trend towards less common breeds. Many of these are breeds not registered by the AKC. The dog world has gotten bigger, there is more information out there and it has become a global market place in dogs just as it is everywhere else. While 25 years ago, it was very difficult to research, find and purchase a rare breed. It is now quite easy. 

3) The trend in designer dogs. These did not even exist 25 years ago. IF you take just a couple of the most common ones, the Labradoodle and the Goldendoodle, they have a very significant impact on AKC registration numbers. Heavily affecting registration numbers for some of the AKC's most heavily registered breeds. Labs, Poodles and Goldens. 


So nice graph but it does not prove what you say it does. All it shows is there are more registries, more breeds available, and that some consumers are gullible enough to shell out big bucks for high price designer dogs.


----------



## brandiw

I've been doing some reading about the Canine Alliance that has formed in the UK. Their spokesperson, Andrew Brace, has an interview on YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP3RHhUaJqQ. In it, he states, "Our wish is to have a KC that fosters the interests of the breeders, the exhibitors and the judges".

I noticed that he didn't mention the interests of dogs. Honestly, I'm not surprised. There are some "respected" breeders that I know of that have covered up issues in their lines because their dogs happened to be winning ribbons, and I'm certain there are far more than those I have knowledge of. I don't buy that ALL breeders are doing it for the well-being of their dogs; I think there is a sizable number that are simply interested in winning.


----------



## Rescued

Pawzk9 said:


> It's not rocket science. OFA certitifies hips as non-dyspastic (fair or better) or dysplastic (mild to severe with borderline needing another look). I find it odd that the people in favor of this testing are in favor or meaningless testing but don't support testing that actually tells us somethig. Then there are also issues . Then again,there are diseases we can not eliminate by breeding a single generartion. But we sure can eliminate a healthy gene pool, and bottle neck the breed by looking at only one thing. The level that is appropriate is generlly set by tests offered.


Okay, so yes, HD is one of the easier ones to "rank." For a more complicated example- SM in the CKCS.

http://sm.cavaliertalk.com/breeding/breeding/breeding.html

Near the bottom of the page is a chart to show what breedings they recommend depending on the diagnosis. Who is going to monitor this?


----------



## spanielorbust

JohnnyBandit said:


> BTW.... I posted my dogs tests a couple pages back. If you look at the dates of those results, I did most of it right around his second birthday. I got a shot of his hips and looked at them with a vet I trusted when he was younger. But I did not send them in for an official prelim. I saw no point. I knew he had good hips. I did almost everything right around when he turned two. He finished his championship about that time as well.
> 
> The majority of breeders are already testing..... So now all they would have to do is turn them in.


Again, you are not speaking about the majority of breeders in all breeds . . . just some. In other breeds the majority of breeders are not, and many that are doing so are testing long after the horse is out of the barn and affected progeny from the tested dog are already on the ground and exported 'round the world.



Rescued said:


> Okay, so yes, HD is one of the easier ones to "rank." For a more complicated example- SM in the CKCS.
> 
> http://sm.cavaliertalk.com/breeding/breeding/breeding.html
> 
> Near the bottom of the page is a chart to show what breedings they recommend depending on the diagnosis. Who is going to monitor this?


That is a 2006 page. You'll notice on that page - _"A salient fact is that 93% of top stud dogs in the UK are closely related to 1 or more dogs with SM and the pedigrees of these dogs are similar to Champions worldwide". _

The grades have been made more inclusive, this year, so that the amount of central canal dilation is taken into account. The grades given also have a number that represents the degree of CM (0 is none, 1 is mild, 2 is full on) and a letter to indicate the SM grade (a is no SM, b is SM, c is no SM but underage so will need a repeat scan).










http://www.cavalierhealth.org/smprotocol.htm

Both the Cavalier clubs in the USA do not mention this protocol or the MVD protocol which was agreed as the best way forward in 1998. I know some breeders would like to see test stipulations for show dogs, but not enough. As a group breeders world wide object to any stipulations regarding testing for show dogs. They insist they police themselves just fine, TYVM. 

SOB


----------



## JohnnyBandit

spanielorbust said:


> Again, you are not speaking about the majority of breeders in all breeds . . . just some. In other breeds the majority of breeders are not, and many that are doing so are testing long after the horse is out of the barn and affected progeny from the tested dog are already on the ground and exported 'round the world.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a 2006 page. You'll notice on that page - _"A salient fact is that 93% of top stud dogs in the UK are closely related to 1 or more dogs with SM and the pedigrees of these dogs are similar to Champions worldwide". _
> 
> The grades have been made more inclusive, this year, so that the amount of central canal dilation is taken into account.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.cavalierhealth.org/smprotocol.htm
> 
> Both the Cavalier clubs in the USA do not mention this protocol or the MVD protocol which was agreed as the best way forward in 1998. I know some breeders would like to see test stipulations for show dogs, but not enough. As a group breeders world wide object to any stipulations regarding testing for show dogs. They insist they police themselves just fine, TYVM.
> 
> SOB


You are transferring some very specific situations and resistance in CKCs to the entire dog world. 

Frankly, I do not know what the deal is with CKC breeders. their resistence is not unknown.


----------



## spanielorbust

JohnnyBandit said:


> You are transferring some very specific situations and resistance in CKCs to the entire dog world.
> 
> Frankly, I do not know what the deal is with CKC breeders. their resistence is not unknown.


Johnny, you are transferring your knowledge from breeds you are familiar with to the entire dog world. The CKCS world is the one I am most familiar with now, but I was involved in the American Cocker world 25 years ago and know well the atmosphere in many of the toy and small (miscellaneous) breed clubs. 

The Cavalier clubs and breeders involved across the USA are responsible for putting on a huge percentage of health clinics. .... The issue is not willingness to test. The issue is willingness to test in a timely manner and the willingness to use those results when that would interfere with their breeding plans.

The situation in Cavaliers is easiest to highlight as they've put themselves in a visible bind, but the attitude of breeders within are not a hellofalot different than those in some other breeds.

Try to tell the Pomeranian breeding world (as an example) to hold off on use of dogs until they are 30 months old, or the Chihuahua breeding world, and you'd get the same reaction from the majority. BTW these two breeds are both short-listed as having reported cases of SM in show lines.

http://www.friends-of-lola.com/11.html

http://chihuahuaclubofamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=136&Itemid=133

http://clarerusbridge-news.blogspot.ca/2011/08/story-of-lady-chin-uma-thurman.html

http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/pomsyringomylia/?yguid=440031976 --- http://www.fujitsupoms.com/Leo.htm

SOB


----------



## Willowy

I don't think the biggest problem is individual breeders not doing all the right testing. It's when an entire breed is generally unhealthy and it becomes "normal". Like EBDs, for instance, at one point nearly every EBD litter was delivered by c-section, breathing problems were normal, so was dropping dead of a heart attack at age 5 (and not from a congenital heart defect, but from undue stress on the heart caused by respiratory issues and bad conformation). Those aren't really things that can be tested for, so how would a breed club control that kind of thing?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Willowy said:


> I don't think the biggest problem is individual breeders not doing all the right testing. It's when an entire breed is generally unhealthy and it becomes "normal". Like EBDs, for instance, at one point nearly every EBD litter was delivered by c-section, breathing problems were normal, so was dropping dead of a heart attack at age 5 (and not from a congenital heart defect, but from undue stress on the heart caused by respiratory issues and bad conformation). Those aren't really things that can be tested for, so how would a breed club control that kind of thing?


You make some really good points here... I knew it was only a matter of time before you and I agreed on something.... 


But you resolve this by breeding to the standard. And in some cases the standard needs to be changed to a more moderate dog. 

I will tell you an issue in my breed. 
The length to width should be 9/10. There are breeders out there producing 1/1 dogs in my breed. While my dog is a very nice 9/10. I have gone in the ring with all 1/1 dogs and lost. Simply because he looks different.....


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

brandiw said:


> I've been doing some reading about the Canine Alliance that has formed in the UK. Their spokesperson, Andrew Brace, has an interview on YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP3RHhUaJqQ. In it, he states, "Our wish is to have a KC that fosters the interests of the breeders, the exhibitors and the judges".
> 
> I noticed that he didn't mention the interests of dogs. Honestly, I'm not surprised. There are some "respected" breeders that I know of that have covered up issues in their lines because their dogs happened to be winning ribbons, and I'm certain there are far more than those I have knowledge of. I don't buy that ALL breeders are doing it for the well-being of their dogs; I think there is a sizable number that are simply interested in winning.


That video made my blood boil. There aren't many of us left who actually CARE about the health of breeds. (and I'm a showie..Rabbits at the moment, dogs when I'm more financially stable.) This "me, me, me, my feelings, what I want' societal" attitude is what led to this IMO. Some breeders wanted extra tiny Chihuahuas, some wanted extra wrinkly Neos etc. It's not about the breed, it's about their interpretation of the standard. Maybe if the standards were more clear cut with less subjectivity, that could be a solution without being policed? Otherwise I'll be doing obedience and agility, and I'm training Winnie to be a Delta dog. It'a just not worth the hassle and nastiness to become a showie (which was a life long dream too )



Willowy said:


> *I don't think the biggest problem is individual breeders not doing all the right testing. It's when an entire breed is generally unhealthy and it becomes "normal". Like EBDs, for instance, at one point nearly every EBD litter was delivered by c-section, breathing problems were normal, so was dropping dead of a heart attack at age 5 (and not from a congenital heart defect, but from undue stress on the heart caused by respiratory issues and bad conformation). Those aren't really things that can be tested for, so how would a breed club control that kind of thing?*


I bolded this entire quote for awesome.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

JohnnyBandit said:


> You make some really good points here... I knew it was only a matter of time before you and I agreed on something....
> 
> 
> But you resolve this by breeding to the standard. And in some cases the standard needs to be changed to a more moderate dog.
> 
> I will tell you an issue in my breed.
> The length to width should be 9/10. There are breeders out there producing 1/1 dogs in my breed. While my dog is a very nice 9/10. I have gone in the ring with all 1/1 dogs and lost. Simply because he looks different.....


I _really_ like this solution. Now the question is how do we fix these breeds? Serious question Johnny as you seem to know more about breeds such as bulldogs, how do we stop the minority? Do we change the standard?


----------



## Crantastic

AussieNerdQueen said:


> There aren't many of us left who actually CARE about the health of breeds.


What are you basing this belief on? I won't claim I know a ton about the show world, but I do have several breeder friends and attend a lot of shows with them, and I know more about dog showing than most people who aren't actively involved in it. While some breeds are worse off than others, and there are some breeders in _every_ breed who care more about winning than they do about their actual dogs, they are in the minority as far as I've seen. Dog breeding and showing is a hobby for a lot of people, and they care about the dogs, above all, very much.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Crantastic said:


> What are you basing this belief on? I won't claim I know a ton about the show world, but I do have several breeder friends and attend a lot of shows with them, and I know more about dog showing than most people who aren't actively involved in it. While some breeds are worse off than others, and there are some breeders in _every_ breed who care more about winning than they do about their actual dogs, they are in the minority as far as I've seen. Dog breeding and showing is a hobby for a lot of people, and they care about the dogs, above all, very much.


I'm basing it on the breeders I know in Australia. Of course we still have good apples, but with a mere 4,000 rego breeders and some of them being extremely unethical, I worry for the showies in Aus.

Not aimed at you, but I base my opinions off of what is happening in my own country, please remember that guys.


----------



## spanielorbust

Crantastic said:


> What are you basing this belief on? I won't claim I know a ton about the show world, but I do have several breeder friends and attend a lot of shows with them, and I know more about dog showing than most people who aren't actively involved in it. While some breeds are worse off than others, and there are some breeders in _every_ breed who care more about winning than they do about their actual dogs, they are in the minority as far as I've seen. Dog breeding and showing is a hobby for a lot of people, and they care about the dogs, above all, very much.


When I read what you say here Crantastic I understand, completely, what it is like to go to a show with people that love their dogs and openly demonstrate that in the care and handling they give them.

What I have to ask, however, is what you have looked at behind the scenes to make the decision that the majority of breeders you see at shows are caring for the breed, truly?

I know breeders who I like - personally - but I would not touch a dog of their breeding with a barge pole BECAUSE of breeding practices that become apparent only after you have a closer look. I believe they are selling out the breed, health wise, sometimes through not knowing, sometimes through not caring to know, and sometimes through sheer wilfullness to do as they please. I know of breed club health representatives I could say this about.

So, when I speak of breeders who care about the health of their breeds I'm including a lot, not just the fact that breeders love their dogs and are good to them. I can state that by these condtions my observation is the same as AussieNerdQueens.

SOB


----------



## Rescued

Willowy said:


> I don't think the biggest problem is individual breeders not doing all the right testing. It's when an entire breed is generally unhealthy and it becomes "normal". Like EBDs, for instance, at one point nearly every EBD litter was delivered by c-section, breathing problems were normal, so was dropping dead of a heart attack at age 5 (and not from a congenital heart defect, but from undue stress on the heart caused by respiratory issues and bad conformation). Those aren't really things that can be tested for, so how would a breed club control that kind of thing?


THIS. It's much easier to talk about ways that would successfully make health testing a top priority, but I still have absolutely no idea how to fix the above. And I know this could be read as demeaning as the GSD "frog dog" comments... but when an EBD cannot be bred (female), breed (male), or give birth naturally, with little to no assistance.... I don't feel as though they SHOULD be bred.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

And as I already stated in this thread. Bulldogs can and do breed and whelp naturally. It is becoming more common than it was 20-30 years ago or so. It is very much common in the UK, and there are breeders in the US that do it. And it can be done without losing puppies, but with any natural birthing in any breed accidents can happen. Unfortunately, Anasarca is prevalent and is very much dangerous to not only the other puppies stuck behind the anasarca pup but the mother. A lot of breeders don't want to risk it, and would rather trust the vet to do a c-section, as to lots of breeders losing a puppy is unacceptable to them, and losing the mother is even more unacceptable. At this time, vets do not know what exactly causes anasarca, there are theories but nothing definitive. There is a test in motion to find the cause, funded by the Bulldog Club Of America, but nothing conclusive has been found as of yet.


----------



## Rescued

I have no problem with responsible EBD breeders, and if a c-section is necessary to save the life of the mother or puppies than by all means it should be done. I was referring more to the "acceptance" of such births as something that doesn't need to be worked on. It's important IMO for breeders to continue to work towards the goal of natural birth when possible- when not possible a c-section should be done. As it has a lot to do with structure, its not a problem that can be fixed overnight. But it is good to hear the EBD breeders are continuing to work towards that goal.

And Chaos- I heard you mention earlier in the thread a recent show in the Raleigh area. Has that show already happened, and if it hasn't are the public allowed in? I live in that area and would love to see some of the show.


----------



## Crantastic

spanielorbust said:


> When I read what you say here Crantastic I understand, completely, what it is like to go to a show with people that love their dogs and openly demonstrate that in the care and handling they give them.
> 
> What I have to ask, however, is what you have looked at behind the scenes to make the decision that the majority of breeders you see at shows are caring for the breed, truly?


We don't only hang out at shows, and have had discussions about structure, health, temperament, and how they choose complementary mates for their dogs (on more than one occasion we've looked through books on structure and gone through pedigrees for potential sires, discussing what's good and what's bad in the lines). I've also been to puppy evaluations. I'm very interested in the breeding side of things, even though I have no desire to breed dogs myself.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Rescued said:


> And Chaos- I heard you mention earlier in the thread a recent show in the Raleigh area. Has that show already happened, and if it hasn't are the public allowed in? I live in that area and would love to see some of the show.


Raleigh is this weekend, I am only bringing my weim as we were afraid their could be conflicts and its just me an my dad going (dad doesn't show lol). Yes it is open to public, as all shows generally are, I have never been to a show where the public isn't allowed in. I believe there is a fee, not sure if it is parking or admittance, but it is generally just a couple dollars, but if you want a catalog it will be more. 

Bulldogs are always on early, but the show will be going on all day long. Starts at 8:00 AM I believe. Actually it has started today, but its a 5 day show. So you can go any day. I will be there on Saturday and Sunday. It's at the NC state fairgrounds. 

If you go to infodog and click on show information then search by state you can find info about the Raleigh show, including judging programs with have the times different breeds are on. I now on saturday weims are 12:30 pm with puppy/vet sweeps, and 1:15 for regular show.


----------



## Niraya

Good luck this weekend Chaos !


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

spanielorbust said:


> When I read what you say here Crantastic I understand, completely, what it is like to go to a show with people that love their dogs and openly demonstrate that in the care and handling they give them.
> 
> What I have to ask, however, is what you have looked at behind the scenes to make the decision that the majority of breeders you see at shows are caring for the breed, truly?
> 
> I know breeders who I like - personally - but I would not touch a dog of their breeding with a barge pole BECAUSE of breeding practices that become apparent only after you have a closer look. I believe they are selling out the breed, health wise, sometimes through not knowing, sometimes through not caring to know, and sometimes through sheer wilfullness to do as they please. I know of breed club health representatives I could say this about.
> 
> So, when I speak of breeders who care about the health of their breeds I'm including a lot, not just the fact that breeders love their dogs and are good to them. I can state that by these condtions my observation is the same as AussieNerdQueens.
> 
> SOB


This is what I meant, and said far more eloquently than I could! You have cavvies yeah?


----------



## spanielorbust

I have one here commonly, but he belongs to a friend. I dogsit.

I would have Cavaliers IF the breeding community that I walked into 10 years ago was open to people who didn't want to just keep on doin' what they were doin'.

SOB


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

spanielorbust said:


> I have one here commonly, but he belongs to a friend. I dogsit.
> 
> I would have Cavaliers IF the breeding community that I walked into 10 years ago was open to people who didn't want to just keep on doin' what they were doin'.
> 
> SOB


I always wanted a cav but for the same reasons I do not have one.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Niraya said:


> Good luck this weekend Chaos !


Thanks hope to pick up some grand points. There is a dog there that I was not expecting to be there.


----------



## Niraya

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> Thanks hope to pick up some grand points. There is a dog there that I was not expecting to be there.


I was gonna ask you if she had any points towards it.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Niraya said:


> I was gonna ask you if she had any points towards it.


6 points (out of 25) and 2 majors (out of three majors needed), still needs to beat another champion.


----------



## Niraya

That's exciting!  maybe in a couple years I'll start seeing you at shows! lol


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Niraya said:


> That's exciting!  maybe in a couple years I'll start seeing you at shows! lol


Yeah I hope I will have more client dogs in the next coming years. 

BB can potentially pick up some grand points Sat and Sun in Raliegh. Then I think the next show is Harrisonburg, VA (but not sure if there will be another weim there), and I am showing a friends bulldog too. Then its a week off, and then Timonium MD specialty and AB show. Then I hope to be going to the WV show the weekend after that, which if I go will be taking the Springer Spaniel along with BB. I am going to RI for a specialty and BB's Maturity in June I believe then will be stopping at the Charlottesville shows for just one day. And I know I will be at the Bel Alton MD shows late June early July. At some point I think I will be going out to Ohio, to celebrate with BB's breeder and see puppies, probably the Troy shows. And the last show of the summer will be the Salem, VA shows. And at those shows I will be showing quite a few breeds.


----------



## Niraya

Quite a busy schedule! Until I get my puppy I probably won't be attending any shows that aren't within like 1-2 hours. I would LOVE to get out to Ohio this summer mainly to go see the breeder I'm potentially getting my puppy from but that is far from a day trip - but I have family around Pittsburgh I could stay with. I have a couple other breeders that are right around here who I'm going to go see this summer too.

I might be able to swing a Maryland show also. That's not too too far.


----------



## cshellenberger

Willowy said:


> I don't think the biggest problem is individual breeders not doing all the right testing. It's when an entire breed is generally unhealthy and it becomes "normal". Like EBDs, for instance, at one point nearly every EBD litter was delivered by c-section, breathing problems were normal, so was dropping dead of a heart attack at age 5 (and not from a congenital heart defect, but from undue stress on the heart caused by respiratory issues and bad conformation). Those aren't really things that can be tested for, so how would a breed club control that kind of thing?


I can speak to the EBD world, the trend now is that TRULY reputable breeders are encouraging natural breeding and whelping. I don't know of a SINGLE WELL BRED EBD that has dropped dead of heart problems (though I do know of many from Euro puppy mills) that young. In fact I've met EBDs well into their teens that are still walking a mile or two a day. You want ot know what the well bred EB people are doing? It's all here...http://bcahealth.homestead.com/ 

ALL of these EBs are CHIC certified: http://bcahealth.homestead.com/chicgallery.html


----------



## JohnnyBandit

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> Yeah I hope I will have more client dogs in the next coming years.
> 
> BB can potentially pick up some grand points Sat and Sun in Raliegh. Then I think the next show is Harrisonburg, VA (but not sure if there will be another weim there), and I am showing a friends bulldog too. Then its a week off, and then Timonium MD specialty and AB show. Then I hope to be going to the WV show the weekend after that, which if I go will be taking the Springer Spaniel along with BB. I am going to RI for a specialty and BB's Maturity in June I believe then will be stopping at the Charlottesville shows for just one day. And I know I will be at the Bel Alton MD shows late June early July. At some point I think I will be going out to Ohio, to celebrate with BB's breeder and see puppies, probably the Troy shows. And the last show of the summer will be the Salem, VA shows. And at those shows I will be showing quite a few breeds.




Go get em!!!! 

BTW Merlin is now 12 grand championship points away from his Bronze Achievement Level. 

He Swept last weekend in Ft Lauderdale.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

JohnnyBandit said:


> Go get em!!!!
> 
> BTW Merlin is now 12 grand championship points away from his Bronze Achievement Level.
> 
> He Swept last weekend in Ft Lauderdale.


Wow, congrats to you and Merlin mate!


----------



## Niraya

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Wow, congrats to you and Merlin mate!


I'd like to echo this sentiment! Included with the Australian accent and everything !


----------



## cshellenberger

That's AWESOME JB! You truly make me wish ACDs were my breed (no way I could handle the drive in my current situation)


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Niraya said:


> I'd like to echo this sentiment! Included with the Australian accent and everything !


Oi! Yanks are the ones with the accent thank you very much hehe.


----------



## Niraya

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Oi! Yanks are the ones with the accent thank you very much hehe.


Maybe... !


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Niraya said:


> Maybe... !


Well we can ALL agree that the best accents are Scottish and Irish..Yummy!


----------



## Niraya

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Well we can ALL agree that the best accents are Scottish and Irish..Yummy!


I can agree with this. I'm also fond of Italians.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> I _really_ like this solution. Now the question is how do we fix these breeds? Serious question Johnny as you seem to know more about breeds such as bulldogs, how do we stop the minority? Do we change the standard?



'
Well truth be told most of the breeds in trouble are heading in the right direction. 

And if folks here really want to know the ins and outs of how to handle this.....

1) They have to understand that jut changing the standards does not make everything perfect.
2) It takes years and years to bring significant change.
3) You are going to HAVE to use dogs with some issues.
4) Breeding is never a cut and dried thing.

And what you ABSOLUTELY do not do is penalize someone that is breeding for moderation AND WINNING AT IT! Trends in purebred dogs tend to follow what is winning. And especially what is winning the big shows. It happens all the time. IF there is a hot dog out for a couple of years.... A BUNCH OF BREEDERS are scrambling to that dog. So IF you get a moderate dog on a hot streak, you don't want to mess up that streak. THIS IS HOW YOU GET THE BREEDERS THAT ONLY CARE ABOUT WINNING IN LINE!!! Get them to chase moderation......


And there is EXACTLY why the type of testing that started at Crufts will not work, is a failure and did MUCH MORE HARM than good. 

Take the bulldog... That dog is a throwback at least fifty years in the breed. And IF you look at the breeder's site, they have a kennel and program FULL of throwbacks. VERY VERY moderate. AND THEY WERE WINNING!!!! 
And there lies the harm. You can forget the issue with eye.... FORGET the ten plus pages of it was an injury, it was a genetic issue, yada yada yada..... 

THERE IS NO WAY THIS DOG SHOULD HAVE BEEN DQ'd! Eye issue or not..... The bitch Jenny.... is the mother of the breed's future and could take us where the breed needs to go.... 

But now.... Instead of continuing her domination and staying out in the circuit...... The breeders/owners, have been embarrassed and dejected....FOR DOING THE RIGHT THING!


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

JohnnyBandit said:


> If someone just looks at this nice graph, they could make the same assumptions you have made.
> 
> The falling numbers are directly impacted by some factors you notably failed to mention.
> 
> 1) the decline starts and continues with the addition of several new registries in this country. Notably the ACA in 1984 and the CKC in 1991. Both of which register significant numbers of dogs
> 
> 2) the trend towards less common breeds. Many of these are breeds not registered by the AKC. The dog world has gotten bigger, there is more information out there and it has become a global market place in dogs just as it is everywhere else. While 25 years ago, it was very difficult to research, find and purchase a rare breed. It is now quite easy.
> 
> 3) The trend in designer dogs. These did not even exist 25 years ago. IF you take just a couple of the most common ones, the Labradoodle and the Goldendoodle, they have a very significant impact on AKC registration numbers. Heavily affecting registration numbers for some of the AKC's most heavily registered breeds. Labs, Poodles and Goldens.
> 
> 
> So nice graph but it does not prove what you say it does. All it shows is there are more registries, more breeds available, and that some consumers are gullible enough to shell out big bucks for high price designer dogs.


Sorry, but what did I say that this graph shows? Only that AKC registrations are falling. Yes, some people are obtaining dogs through other registries. Yes, there are more rare breeds. Yes, designer dogs have taken a piece of the pie. But that doesn't change the fact that attitudes are changing, and year by year fewer people are buying AKC registered dogs. If you listen to the message heralded by Jemima and her "ilk", you'll see that they advocate for rescue. If the public is willing to listen to her decry a system that does not work (the KC), I'm willing to bet they'll take her advice on where to obtain their next dog.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Sorry, but what did I say that this graph shows? Only that AKC registrations are falling. Yes, some people are obtaining dogs through other registries. Yes, there are more rare breeds. Yes, designer dogs have taken a piece of the pie. But that doesn't change the fact that attitudes are changing, and year by year fewer people are buying AKC registered dogs. If you listen to the message heralded by Jemima and her "ilk", you'll see that they advocate for rescue. If the public is willing to listen to her decry a system that does not work (the KC), I'm willing to bet they'll take her advice on where to obtain their next dog.


Nice backstep..... But you did attempt to use the graph to say that the trend is away from purebred to shelter dogs.


GottaLuvMutts said:


> ...*and most of the rest of the world is gearing up to write off the well bred dog world. **It's already happening: AKC registrations have fallen drastically over the last 15 years, and continue to fall *(see graph below).


AKC numbers are falling not because people are moving away from purebred dogs. But because there are more registries and more choices.... Plain and simple.....

And you have way too much faith in the amount of thought the general public puts into getting a dog. If significant thought was always given, there would be no puppy mills and no pet store dog sales.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Thanks for all the well wishes all!!!!!

Once the points from the last two weekends are tabulated he should end up ranked around 14th in the United States in his breed. 

These last three BOBs with the strong fall he had, plus the fact that he will be a Bronze Grand Champion soon, makes him a virtual lock to be invited to the AKC/Eukanuba National Championship a second year in a row... And we will make an appearance the again...

Funny thing is..... I was not looking for a conformation dog when I got Merlin. I wanted a DRIVEY buddy to maybe do some performance stuff with... Just the way it turned out.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

cshellenberger said:


> I can speak to the EBD world, the trend now is that TRULY reputable breeders are encouraging natural breeding and whelping. I don't know of a SINGLE WELL BRED EBD that has dropped dead of heart problems (though I do know of many from Euro puppy mills) that young. In fact I've met EBDs well into their teens that are still walking a mile or two a day. You want ot know what the well bred EB people are doing? It's all here...http://bcahealth.homestead.com/
> 
> ALL of these EBs are CHIC certified: http://bcahealth.homestead.com/chicgallery.html


Exactly, and the only line I know of that produces a ton of heart problems is the UGA line. But that line is heavily and I mean heavily inbred, and they also bred a dog with a genetic heart condition at the beginning and throughout the line.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

JohnnyBandit said:


> Go get em!!!!
> 
> BTW Merlin is now 12 grand championship points away from his Bronze Achievement Level.
> 
> He Swept last weekend in Ft Lauderdale.


Congrats JB


----------



## Willowy

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> Exactly, and the only line I know of that produces a ton of heart problems is the UGA line. But that line is heavily and I mean heavily inbred, and they also bred a dog with a genetic heart condition at the beginning and throughout the line.


Is that the line the Marines get their dogs from, maybe? I know that TWICE when I was a kid (growing up on a Navy base), the Marines' bulldogs dropped dead at young ages, and they always said "oh, well, that's Bulldogs for ya--it always happens to our dogs".


----------



## JohnnyBandit

I have to say.... My cousin... The daughter of my Aunt that passed in the Cat thread.... Has Bulldogs. Her husband grew up with them..... And while they are by no means athletes in comparison to my type of dog..... Theirs do pretty good. I have no idea what breeder they get them from, but I am pretty sure they have had several from the same breeder. They had one that passed a couple years back that nearly 13. They have a 9 year old and a 7 year old now.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Willowy said:


> Is that the line the Marines get their dogs from, maybe? I know that TWICE when I was a kid (growing up on a Navy base), the Marines' bulldogs dropped dead at young ages, and they always said "oh, well, that's Bulldogs for ya--it always happens to our dogs".


I don't know, I do know that the dog they have now is from my friends, who are very good breeders. Whether or not they have more than one I don't know, but the one I have seen is from my friends. They brought him to nationals one day last year (nationals was in DC though), not only for the breeder's to see him but for them to do the national anthem.

They only thing the UGA line breeds is white dogs, white dogs to white dogs, or they may breed a color but its mainly whites. They will only keep white dogs, and that is a problem, you get a dog lacking pigment you quite possibly have a deaf dog. And I don't think they health test the line, although I don't know that for sure. The line is two closely related, and lacking of good dogs.

They are not the only bad line, there is a guy out in Cali that has been on the BCAs radar for years. He's been indited in a few different states for selling duds knowingly and not producing paperwork and various other issues. If you know the skateboarder Rob Dydrek those dogs come from him.


----------



## cshellenberger

Willowy said:


> Is that the line the Marines get their dogs from, maybe? I know that TWICE when I was a kid (growing up on a Navy base), the Marines' bulldogs dropped dead at young ages, and they always said "oh, well, that's Bulldogs for ya--it always happens to our dogs".


Yes, it was the UGA line, a damn shame too as it gave EBs in general a bad name (I think this was the line that Georgia adopted their team mascots from as well). The Marines have since found better breeders.


----------



## Willowy

Oh, I didn't mean THE Marine's Bulldog. Every Marine installment has a Bulldog. Or they did on the bases I lived on. I suppose they might get them from local breeders instead of it being a national thing. One of them was named Gust. He rode a skateboard. I was around 11 and I was traumatized by his death .


----------



## cshellenberger

Which base was it? I know the Pendelton and San Diego Boot camp (and I believe the LeJune and PI dogs) were UGA line.


----------



## Willowy

Sasebo and Atsugi in Japan. Probably not from local breeders, LOL. Probably imported from the U.S.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Willowy said:


> Sasebo and Atsugi in Japan. Probably not from local breeders, LOL. Probably imported from the U.S.


Yeah I don't know of any bulldog breeders in Japan, not to say there aren't any. I do know of one in Thailand.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

JohnnyBandit said:


> Nice backstep..... But you did attempt to use the graph to say that the trend is away from purebred to shelter dogs.


Nice try, but you're still not reading what I wrote. I absolutely did not say that people are moving away from purebred dogs to shelter dogs, only that people are moving away from AKC-registered dogs.

"...and most of the rest of the world is gearing up to write off the well bred dog world. It's already happening: AKC registrations have fallen drastically over the last 15 years, and continue to fall (see graph below)."
Where does this say anything about shelter dogs?

Regarding the thought that people put into getting a dog: yes, obviously the average prospective owner doesn't put enough thought into their decision - I think we can all agree on that. However, I think with time, as more people become educated about puppy mills, BYBs, and various health issues with even the best bred dogs, people are putting more thought into their decision.


----------



## Rescued

GottaLuvMutts said:


> "...and most of the rest of the world is gearing up to write off the *well bred dog world*. It's already happening: AKC registrations have fallen drastically over the last 15 years, and continue to fall (see graph below)."


My rare Hunting Border Hound is *WELL BRED*, thank you very much. Such quality is obvious, and rarely achieved outside of the prestigious "Lab-mix" bloodline.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

In response to Johnny: I'll be perfectly honest, I know you're correct about needing generations of dogs do undo damage. I don't think anyone disagrees with that, it's just extremely frustrating to think 30 YEARS ago the exact same solution was offered with classes for judges and alternations to breed standards, and the fancy just completely ignored it.
It makes it difficult for me to hear what I interpret as whining and carrying on about how unfair what is happening now when there's been generations to fix some of the more extreme/nervy/whatever breeds. It's hard for me to feel empathy for these 'poor breeders' who are 'so humiliated' they're going to file lawsuits, because Joe Blow is just sick and tired of the carry on and want healthy pets. For example, I wanted a Cavvie but how could I find a breeder? I was too afraid of my dog dying young. How do we say 'go to a registered breeder, they're reputable' when some of this is going on? Like I said, there were only 4,000 rego breeders in 2011 and of course some of them were dodgy. How do you go to a registered breeder when even on this thread, multiple times it's been stated we're not needed? 

I guess for me I find the CRUFTS carry on so disrespectful because it was bought completely on themselves, and now they want to crucify some poor vet and scapegoat her. The public put political pressure to make this happen, and the response has been 'why aren't you thinking about our feelings?'

Since this has been a bit heated, i thought I'd just be frank so you may understand why i feel the way I do, even if you don't agree.


----------



## Pawzk9

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Sorry, but what did I say that this graph shows? Only that AKC registrations are falling. Yes, some people are obtaining dogs through other registries. Yes, there are more rare breeds. Yes, designer dogs have taken a piece of the pie. But that doesn't change the fact that attitudes are changing, and year by year fewer people are buying AKC registered dogs. If you listen to the message heralded by Jemima and her "ilk", you'll see that they advocate for rescue. If the public is willing to listen to her decry a system that does not work (the KC), I'm willing to bet they'll take her advice on where to obtain their next dog.


The fact is, people are better off buying a purebred from an AKC (and probably from a KC) breeder than from a paper mill registry. And if you want a healthy, well bred dog without too many issues, a dog from a breeder is a better bet than a rescue from unknown circumstance. Not that I am against rescues or non-purebreds. Just suggesting that rescue is not the safest (or always best) way to attain a dog. It's nonsense to suggest it is so.


----------



## Pawzk9

AussieNerdQueen said:


> I guess for me I find the CRUFTS carry on so disrespectful because it was bought completely on themselves, and now they want to crucify some poor vet and scapegoat her. The public put political pressure to make this happen, and the response has been 'why aren't you thinking about our feelings?'
> 
> Since this has been a bit heated, i thought I'd just be frank so you may understand why i feel the way I do, even if you don't agree.


It's not the vet. It's just that it is a very stupid bandaid on the problem. An insignificant eye injury (not hereditary) is a stupid reason to disqualify a dog who is otherwise a more than moderate and healthy representative of the breed. THAT'S the point


----------



## Rescued

Pawzk9 said:


> It's not the vet. It's just that it is a very stupid bandaid on the problem. An insignificant eye injury (not hereditary) is a stupid reason to disqualify a dog who is otherwise a more than moderate and healthy representative of the breed. THAT'S the point


So if the KC was going to do the vet checks regardless, which they were, would it have been better for someone (who?) to look at the bulldog and deem her moderate and therefore acceptable, despite the eye injury?

and not "they never should have seen the eye because they used a flashlight" or anything else...they did. the bulldogs owners did not have proof right then and there. Would it have been in any way fair for someone to deem her "moderate" and therefore her eye injury should be excused?


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> So if the KC was going to do the vet checks regardless, which they were, would it have been better for someone (who?) to look at the bulldog and deem her moderate and therefore acceptable, despite the eye injury?
> 
> and not "they never should have seen the eye because they used a flashlight" or anything else...they did. the bulldogs owners did not have proof right then and there. Would it have been in any way fair for someone to deem her "moderate" and therefore her eye injury should be excused?


If it was an enviromentally acquired old scratch on the cornea, I fail to see what it would have to do with the dog's breed worthiness. It's not like it's a trait she can pass on to offspring. Dogs are dogs. Sometimes they injure themselves, and the active ones tend to get hurt more often than dogs who are kept in a plastic bubble for life. My dog broke his leg. He has a limp. He can't be shown in many sports, but if I decided to breed him, it wouldn't effect my decision one way or the other. Hips are fine but I might have a problem with clearing one elbow because of damage done. The list given was of specific traits (excess folds which looked recently infected, too short a snout to breathe properly. Etc.) Traits a dog WOULD likely pass on to offspring. I still don't think the vet idea is a useful one. Most vets aren't really trained to judge show dogs, and that's exactly what it is. Not only are they judging the show dogs, they are superceding the decisions of people who are trained to judge show dogs. And really, if they want to do something potentially useful, they would require health clearances on ALL dogs in the show (depending on what issues are of major concern in that breed. Not just 15 breeds that Jemmy decided to "hit" on. Unless the dog is symptomatic, a quick vet exam isn't going to, for instance, uncover PRA or SM. It is stupid to try to convince the public that because a dog wins at the dog show that proves it's disease free. It is stupid to try to convince the public that because a dog is a rescue or a mixed breed it will have fewer issues than an intentionally bred purebred. Dogs are dogs. They are organic beings with glitches and mutations in their genes, just as we are. Personally, I would like to put the emphasis on people doing their homework and asking breeders the right questions about health testing and temperament. This puts pressure on breeders to look beyond show wins. It's not as if this information wasn't readily available to anyone with computer access (and most people who can afford a dog have that.)
As to dog shows - they are really just a sport. A sport with a purpose but they are never going to be the means by which a breeder can totally evaluate breeding stock. The breeder has to care about health and functionality. Despite claims to the contrary here by mostly people with limited experience, I think the majority of good breeders are trying to breed the best dogs they can. They need to better use some of the tools available. And if judges aren't judging to the standard, they need better education, overseeing. But not by a GP vet. Rant ended.


----------



## Rescued

I understand. My question was more in the direction of "Who is qualified to say that the EBD was moderate and therefore she shouldn't be DQ'ed?" Can you imagine being the owner of the Clumber/ Peke/ other dogs and having someone DQ your dog but pass another because she was a good moderate breed example?


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> I understand. My question was more in the direction of "Who is qualified to say that the EBD was moderate and therefore she shouldn't be DQ'ed?" Can you imagine being the owner of the Clumber/ Peke/ other dogs and having someone DQ your dog but pass another because she was a good moderate breed example?


The supposed PURPOSE of the vet exam (though it's an under half-baked idea) was to select dogs which did not have extreme features. I.E. A moderate dog. That's the only possible reason for the vet exam except to make the general public think they were doing something useful (which it is not). As to who is qualified to say? I would say certainly the vet who DQed the dog for having an old eye injury is not. A good qualified judge who rewards a functional animal should be. You enter a dog show for the judge's opinion on your dog that day.


----------



## begemot

Pawzk9 said:


> If it was an enviromentally acquired old scratch on the cornea, I fail to see what it would have to do with the dog's breed worthiness. It's not like it's a trait she can pass on to offspring. Dogs are dogs. Sometimes they injure themselves, and the active ones tend to get hurt more often than dogs who are kept in a plastic bubble for life. My dog broke his leg. He has a limp. He can't be shown in many sports, but if I decided to breed him, it wouldn't effect my decision one way or the other. Hips are fine but I might have a problem with clearing one elbow because of damage done. The list given was of specific traits (excess folds which looked recently infected, too short a snout to breathe properly. Etc.) Traits a dog WOULD likely pass on to offspring. I still don't think the vet idea is a useful one. Most vets aren't really trained to judge show dogs, and that's exactly what it is. Not only are they judging the show dogs, they are superceding the decisions of people who are trained to judge show dogs. And really, if they want to do something potentially useful, they would require health clearances on ALL dogs in the show (depending on what issues are of major concern in that breed. Not just 15 breeds that Jemmy decided to "hit" on. Unless the dog is symptomatic, a quick vet exam isn't going to, for instance, uncover PRA or SM. It is stupid to try to convince the public that because a dog wins at the dog show that proves it's disease free. It is stupid to try to convince the public that because a dog is a rescue or a mixed breed it will have fewer issues than an intentionally bred purebred. Dogs are dogs. They are organic beings with glitches and mutations in their genes, just as we are. Personally, I would like to put the emphasis on people doing their homework and asking breeders the right questions about health testing and temperament. This puts pressure on breeders to look beyond show wins. It's not as if this information wasn't readily available to anyone with computer access (and most people who can afford a dog have that.)





Pawzk9 said:


> The supposed PURPOSE of the vet exam (though it's an under half-baked idea) was to select dogs which did not have extreme features. I.E. A moderate dog. That's the only possible reason for the vet exam except to make the general public think they were doing something useful (which it is not). As to who is qualified to say? I would say certainly the vet who DQed the dog for having an old eye injury is not. A good qualified judge who rewards a functional animal should be. You enter a dog show for the judge's opinion on your dog that day.


No, as has been stated here repeatedly, that wasn't the purpose of the exams. The vets were given specific _clinical signs of pathology_ to look for. They were not judging conformation or how "extreme" the dog was. From the kennel club chairman: "They were informed that they are not intended to judge the dogs in the manner of the show ring. Their examination is intended to be identification of the *clinical signs* leading to concerns about health or welfare and no diagnosis is required." (Bold added.) As I think Rescued is pointing out, it would have been entirely inappropriate if the vet examining the EB had seen clinical signs of pathology but then decided to pass the dog anyway because she's moderate in conformation.

And still, no one has produced any evidence that an old eye injury was the cause of the DQ. Saying it over and over again doesn't somehow make it true.

How the vets were chosen, from the chairman: "The past BVA president and the KC chairman selected the vets jointly using a brief curriculum vitae submitted by each applicant and agreed on the selections made. No suitable vet was able to attend on all four days and so two were selected to cover Crufts. Both are general practitioners with background experience of either veterinary duties at championship dog shows or with some historical experience of breeding and showing dogs."

"Jemmy" did not design the vet checks or decide which breeds were "High Profile Breeds." Jemima Harrison is a reporter. She does not work for the KC.

Re PRA or SM, the vet checks were not meant to solve every problem in dog breeding. They are just one fork of a multi-pronged attempt to make the less ethically-minded breeders start paying more attention to health and fitness. I can't imagine a single reason for _good, _ethical breeders to be concerned about these vet checks.


----------



## Pepy311

These cruft dogs are the 1%. 

What about the purina add getting dropped because it showed shelter dogs mutts.


----------



## Pawzk9

begemot said:


> No, as has been stated here repeatedly, that wasn't the purpose of the exams. The vets were given specific _clinical signs of pathology_ to look for. They were not judging conformation or how "extreme" the dog was. From the kennel club chairman: "They were informed that they are not intended to judge the dogs in the manner of the show ring. Their examination is intended to be identification of the *clinical signs* leading to concerns about health or welfare and no diagnosis is required." (Bold added.) As I think Rescued is pointing out, it would have been entirely inappropriate if the vet examining the EB had seen clinical signs of pathology but then decided to pass the dog anyway because she's moderate in conformation.
> 
> And still, no one has produced any evidence that an old eye injury was the cause of the DQ. Saying it over and over again doesn't somehow make it true.
> 
> "Jemmy" did not design the vet checks or decide which breeds were "High Profile Breeds." Jemima Harrison is a reporter. She does not work for the KC.
> 
> Re PRA or SM, the vet checks were not meant to solve every problem in dog breeding. They are just one fork of a multi-pronged attempt to make the less ethically-minded breeders start paying more attention to health and fitness. I can't imagine a single reason for _good, _ethical breeders to be concerned about these vet checks.


No one has provided any evidence that the problem with the Bull Dog was NOT an old eye injury. And plenty of information about what was found, plus how it was found. If there's a question, the KC should disclose the information and not leave it to rumors and guessing. If it was about an old eye injury, the decision made was incomprehensible to anyone who knows anything about dog breeding. The "pathologies" listed were all about "extreme" conformation factors. Jemima Harrison certainly doesn't work for the KC, but IMO, she's largely responsible for them making some very silly decisions.


----------



## Pawzk9

Pepy311 said:


> These cruft dogs are the 1%.
> 
> What about the purina add getting dropped because it showed shelter dogs mutts.


It was Pedigree, not Purina (not that I'd feed either diet) A show, a television program, whatever, should be able to decide whether they want a specific sponsor, and whether that sponsor is on the same page. It's called free enterprise. Pedigree did not share the same vision. Their old values did. Their new values are fine for them to have, but they no longer support dog breeding (which dogs shows do) Food quality or not, Purina has shown themselves to be a reasonable sponsor of the purebred dog. Pedigree has changed their message to the point that they are not.


----------



## houndies

Pawzk9 said:


> No one has provided any evidence that the problem with the Bull Dog was NOT an old eye injury. And plenty of information about what was found, plus how it was found. If there's a question, the KC should disclose the information and not leave it to rumors and guessing. If it was about an old eye injury, the decision made was incomprehensible to anyone who knows anything about dog breeding. The "pathologies" listed were all about "extreme" conformation factors. Jemima Harrison certainly doesn't work for the KC, but IMO, she's largely responsible for them making some very silly decisions.


Exactly! Such an old organisation -looking after the dogs - should have such a half cocked response is insulting! If such an organisation, the oldest dog registration in the world, is going to turn up the policing , do it properly. cross the board and with real problems with our beloved dogs!


----------



## houndies

spanielorbust said:


> This is such B.S.
> 
> The show was about exposing bad breeders. The problem is the show breeders are up in arms that the bad breeders happy to continue with bad breeding practices were found amongst top breeders right in their midst.
> 
> Beverly Costello (judge and breeder) should not have been breeding Beauella Radzinski, for 140 puppies over 40 litters, with the cooperation of top influential judges and breeders who were then shipping his progeny around the world to people that did not know the risk. Many of those litters were born AFTER he was diagnosed as risky and not to be bred from (at 16 months of age if anyone wants to check litters born after).
> 
> http://services.thekennelclub.org.uk/9b2c30ed33774199a5b3f37ec9cbca30.healthtest
> 
> http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/s...0000048012F866B5679B7D13756AE1B238ACF8AD76648
> 
> http://www.caninehealthregistry.org/component/ctkpedigree/dogdetails/55173/
> 
> If that is NOT a bad breeder, and in fact a bad GROUP of breeders that needed to have a light shone on them, I don't know what is.
> 
> I don't care that they tend to be 'nice'. I don't care that some want to chaulk this up to 'misdirected' breeders. I don't care that these same breeders compete and contribute toward health research in order to fix the problems they've captured in their breeds. These practices also harm dogs. The very bad breeding practices highlighted in PDE on that Champion Cavalier has already lead to the suffering and early death of one of his Ch progeny in the USA. Other progeny from him showing SM symptoms can also be found on line.
> 
> Don't pretend that the coverage of bad breeding practices should be JUST on puppyfarms and bybs. Don't even try to pretend that the unethical hide just there. There is room for coverage in all areas UNLESS people are of the opinion that this crap needs to be hidden.
> 
> WHY would breeders want to hide this? Why is there a want to deny that there are unethical gits sitting right at the top of some breeds? What would be the benefit for DOGS? Answer me that.
> 
> SOB


SOB why did it take a tv program to point this out?? What does your breed club do?? Why not ask your club to make some rules? I think it is a huge shame Cavs were filmed like this!!! And this is where real policing should be...


----------



## Rescued

Pawzk9 said:


> The "pathologies" listed were all about "extreme" conformation factors. Jemima Harrison certainly doesn't work for the KC, but IMO, she's largely responsible for them making some very silly decisions.


https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=...ownload/12708/SH102HPvetsurgeoninfo.pdf&pli=1

I'm sorry- please tell me which of the listed conditions have to do with "extreme" conformation- lameness? hair loss? entropion?

"Extreme" conformation and health problems are related. But the fact remains that you can have one without the other.


----------



## Rescued

houndies said:


> SOB why did it take a tv program to point this out?? What does your breed club do?? Why not ask your club to make some rules? I think it is a huge shame Cavs were filmed like this!!! And this is where real policing should be...


To my knowledge, both of the CKCS breed clubs mention SM in their bylaws, and both mention health testing in their code of ethics. The problem IMO is when people who are being trusted to self police fail to do so.


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=...ownload/12708/SH102HPvetsurgeoninfo.pdf&pli=1
> 
> I'm sorry- please tell me which of the listed conditions have to do with "extreme" conformation- lameness? hair loss? entropion?
> 
> "Extreme" conformation and health problems are related. But the fact remains that you can have one without the other.


excessive folds and skin conditions are related to extreme conformation. So are entropion, suspected breathing issues due to flat faces, and rear ends which are not lame but do not appear to be stable. With better education and enforcement of a reasonable breed standard, a judge should be able to spot these things at least as well as a GP vet. A dog show is about showing dogs. It's really not advisable to try to reassure the public about dog health just because you have a vet second guessing the judges. If the Bull dog's problem was an old eye injury, the decision to disqualify her is remarkably stupid and needs to be addressed. I have to say I am glad AKC is not stupid enough to go along with such a ridiculous idea. I hope they stick to their guns. I would not mind seeing more required emphasis on health clearances. Most of the serious problems aren't going to be noticable by a cursory vet examination anyway, and to suggest that they are is not realistic and gives the public false sense of security. But for gods' sake people. Don't be dumb enough to think that because a dog wins at a sport, it's the gene pool you need. Ask questions. Do research. Understand that anyone who tells you their lines carry no health issues is kennel blind or lying. And understand that there is no way to breed perfect dogs. Sometimes you have to select a little bad with a lot of good things about a dog. If a breeder is not breeding for overall health and temperment, don't buy from them. People need to be responsible enough to take some credit and blame for their own choices.


----------



## cshellenberger

Pepy311 said:


> These cruft dogs are the 1%.
> 
> What about the purina add getting dropped because it showed shelter dogs mutts.


It wasn't Purina that got dropped, it was Pedigree, and it wasn't Crufts, it was Westminster...


----------



## Pai

Rescued said:


> https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=...ownload/12708/SH102HPvetsurgeoninfo.pdf&pli=1
> 
> I'm sorry- please tell me which of the listed conditions have to do with "extreme" conformation- lameness? hair loss? entropion?


The reason Cresteds are on there is because Nairing dogs' entire bodies to appear hairless is endemic in the breed. In order to get the heavy, flashy 'furnishings' and crests most show Cresteds have been bred to have a nearly complete single coat nowadays which has to be artificially removed to appear correct in the ring. 

So in that case it's not because of extreme conformation, per se, but because breeders are faking their dogs with chemicals and screen shavers because correctly-hairless dogs aren't 'glamorous' enough. It started as a trend in the early 1990s and has gotten out of control, in my opinion.


----------



## Rescued

Pai said:


> The reason Cresteds are on there is because Nairing dogs' entire bodies to appear hairless is endemic in the breed. In order to get the *heavy, flashy 'furnishings'* and crests most *show* Cresteds *have been bred* to have a nearly complete single coat nowadays *which has to be artificially removed* to appear* correct *in the ring.
> 
> So in that case it's not because of extreme conformation, per se, but because breeders are faking their dogs with chemicals and screen shavers because *correctly-hairless dogs aren't 'glamorous' enough*. It started as a trend in the early 1990s and has gotten out of control, in my opinion.



"that the breeds...enter free of signs of discomfort or suffering associated with exaggerated conformation..."

IMO, the bolded portions of your statement are a good example of discomfort (applying Nair) associated with exaggerated conformation (the dogs need it because thats the only way they win in conformation).


----------



## Pai

Rescued said:


> "that the breeds...enter free of signs of discomfort or suffering associated with exaggerated conformation..."
> 
> IMO, the bolded portions of your statement are a good example of discomfort (applying Nair) associated with exaggerated conformation (the dogs need it because thats the only way they win in conformation).


It's a fashion that's not supported by the breed standard, is what I mean (unlike Clumbers or Bassets where droopy eyes are a specific breed feature). They win in the ring because a dog being 'naturally correct' is a loser compared to a fancier-looking fake. And it's obviously the judges' faults for enabling this sort of stupidity. Faking dogs is a natural result for putting aesthetics above all else -- lots of breeds are guilty of this sort of practice nowadays. Wigs and coat dye in Poodles is another example I can think of off the top of my head.

Regardless, the Crested passed the exam (and was most likely Naired) so the usefulness of even having them on the list is debatable.


----------



## Willowy

Dang, I tried Nair once and I thought I burned my legs off. Poor doggies .


----------



## Rescued

Pawzk9 said:


> excessive folds and skin conditions are related to extreme conformation. So are entropion, suspected breathing issues due to flat faces, and rear ends which are not lame but do not appear to be stable.


yes, the statement by the KC said that part of the goal was to have dogs "enter free of signs of discomfort or suffering associated with exaggerated conformation." I think I'm missing the point of this portion of your statement.



Pawzk9 said:


> enforcement of a reasonable breed standard, a judge should be able to spot these things at least as well as a GP vet.


I would agree. The question is not "can the judge see that a dog has entropion," the question is "Will the judge hesitate to award a dog that has entropion." 



Pawzk9 said:


> It's really not advisable to try to reassure the public about dog health just because you have a vet second guessing the judges.


I'm missing the "general public" part of this. It's well known that most good breeders have far more applications than puppies. I would place a good bet on the likelyhood of Jenny's waiting list having people that are somewhat knowledgeable about the breed- which is why they've been considered by the breeder. If you went into a pet store (the general public) and polled ten people, asking "Do you think that the recent veterinary checks at Crufts gave you false hope and assurance in relation to purebred dogs" ... 9 of those 10 wouldn't even know what Crufts is. I'm pretty sure nobody saw this on TV and went "Wow! Vets at Crufts to check on health problems? That means that purebred dogs are always healthy!"



Pawzk9 said:


> People need to be responsible enough to take some credit and blame for their own choices.


I agree. That's exactly why we have people that buy dogs from Petland, and people that buy dogs from knowledgeable breeders. And that's also why one of those groups is going to have significantly higher vet bills.


----------



## Rescued

Pai said:


> the usefulness of even having them on the list is debatable.


for your breed, possibly. But almost all of the other listed "conditions" have a genetic aspect. IMO, the nair argument cannot be applied to the other 14 breeds.


----------



## Pai

Willowy said:


> Dang, I tried Nair once and I thought I burned my legs off. Poor doggies .


Not to mention the smell.

But then, I am in the minority of people who has a problem with the practice. It's so normalized now that most in the breed are outraged that anyone would think there was something wrong about it. Nevermind that it obviously began as a dishonest way to 'fix' dogs that didn't meet the standard, 'everyone does it now' so that makes it okay. Personally I have no sympathy for them whatsoever now that the public knows what they're doing and thinks it's crazy.


----------



## Rescued

Pai said:


> Not to mention the smell.
> 
> But then, I am in the minority of people who has a problem with the practice. It's so normalized now that most in the breed are outraged that anyone would think there was something wrong about it. Nevermind that it obviously began as a dishonest way to 'fix' dogs that didn't meet the standard, 'everyone does it now' so that makes it okay. Personally I have no sympathy for them whatsoever now that the public knows what they're doing and thinks it's crazy.


I mean honestly, my dog would probably rather be covered in Nair than left out in the backyard on a chain, but I think it's just the principle of it. We need to (try?) to stop the idea of natural being unacceptable in dog conformation, for the same reasons EB should whelp naturally and poodles shouldn't be dyed.


----------



## Pawzk9

Pai said:


> The reason Cresteds are on there is because Nairing dogs' entire bodies to appear hairless is endemic in the breed. In order to get the heavy, flashy 'furnishings' and crests most show Cresteds have been bred to have a nearly complete single coat nowadays which has to be artificially removed to appear correct in the ring.
> 
> So in that case it's not because of extreme conformation, per se, but because breeders are faking their dogs with chemicals and screen shavers because correctly-hairless dogs aren't 'glamorous' enough. It started as a trend in the early 1990s and has gotten out of control, in my opinion.


Cosmetically altering a dog's appearance is not uncommon in many breeds. It is unacceptable in most cases, and dogs who are clearly dyed or shaved should be excused. Things are often overlooked which shouldn't be. But the KC's "fix" isn't anything that will help


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> yes, the statement by the KC said that part of the goal was to have dogs "enter free of signs of discomfort or suffering associated with exaggerated conformation." I think I'm missing the point of this portion of your statement.
> 
> .


Clearly you are missing my point. Which is that the list the vets are asked to judge are about exaggerated or extreme conformation. While I agree that less extreme conformation is more desirable, the concept of having vets rejudge show dogs is not really a decent or intelligent solution,.


----------



## Rescued

I don't think I ever said I agreed with the KC decision to do vet checks in the manner that they did. But honestly, it brought talk about health testing and conditions into the media, and I can't see how that aspect of it is bad.

And if it takes something like that to get a BOB Clumber dq'ed for entropion- IMO the judge wasn't doing their job in the first place.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Here is a statement from the Peke's owner..... This is how the KC supports those that support them....


It is difficult to choose the words that best describe how I feel about Crufts 2012. I feel a combination of emotions including anger, sadness, disappointment, sympathy and frustration, I feel that the 15 breeds that the Kennel Club consider to be at risk, have been dreadfully let down by the Kennel Club in the way in which they have implemented the health checks on these breeds. 

I have always supported the health initiatives that the Kennel Club has introduced during the past three years, but it is time that the Kennel Club stopped 

pandering to animal extremists, whose sole intention is to discredit and destroy the sport of exhibiting pedigree dogs. The Kennel Club needs to become more supportive of the people who are at the very grass roots of the sport. There needs to be a level playing field for all those involved in the sport, with clear direction of how examinations are to be conducted. Having attended a judges meeting, I am of the clear impression that no instruments would be used in the examination of a dog. Yet I am advised that this has not been the case. 

I would like to share with you an email that I received from Mrs Jean Smith of the Palacegarden Pekingese, whose exhibit was not allowed to 

represent the breed in the group. Mrs Smith eloquently expresses herself and conveys the sense of fear, humiliation and distress that she was subjected to during the examination.

Vet test

Jean told me: 'Having been awarded BOB and standing for photographs for about 15 minutes I was told by the steward that the KC representative 

(waiting for us outside the ring) would take me for the vet-test. As I met him we were surrounded by photographers and journalists shouting for a photo of us together. The KC Rep told them 'No photos' and 'I am not the vet.' A journalist shouted 'Are you 

escorting her to the vet?' He replied 'I am not escorting her, I am accompanying her'. And at this subtle difference in choice of words I felt my first sense of apprehension. The journalists followed us all the way to the vet office and as we reached the door were calling 'Can we have a photo of the Peke with the vet?' 'Certainly not' said the KC rep. He was pleasant but firm with them. But it hit me then that this wasn't just a visit to the vet, it was a new ruling for the 'High profile breeds' and the journalists were looking for sensation.

'We entered the room which was brightly lit, walls and ceiling all white, green carpet. It was much brighter in the room than the Hall. First, I asked for a drink of water for the dog. I did this automatically because she had walked a large circle, a triangle and and down in the Limit Bitch class and the same 

distance in the unbeaten bitches line-up and again she was walked to secure BOB. We used the full ring to demonstrate her movement and didn't cut corners. She then spent 15 minutes under the lights for the photographers. The temperature was higher than desirable. If she had been taken back to her bench my first thought would have been to offer her a drink of water. I was told, curtly, 'no' to my request for water.

Brusque

'The KC rep stayed by the door throughout the examination and was silent until it was over. I was asked to fill my name, address etc on the form and I was surprised to find my hand was shaking as I filled it in. The vet's manner was curt, brusque. I was told to walk the dog. It was only about three metres to the end of the room and then back. Nothing to the 

walking she had just finished in the ring. I wondered if he knew that a Pekingese should walk with a roll (as in the standard) or would he consider it a fault. What if she panted, she must be tired. My anxiety was growing. Would he think a pant was a breathing problem? She didn't pant.

'He said to put her on the table. He parted her hair on the back and peered at it. I wondered if he was looking for lacquer or powders. We never use them. Or was he examining the skin. I've never known a peke with a skin problem. I expected him to go over her body, checking joints for soundness' but he didn't.

'A few years ago we had our Pekes vet-checked by Crufts Vet Dr Schemel and he was very thorough in his examination of joints. The vet went straight for the head. He tried to open her mouth, not to look at the teeth (they are perfect) and a judge would just raise the lips to see the teeth but he tried to prise the jaws open to look inside the mouth. He gave up after an unsuccessful struggle. Next, the eyes. With one hand on the upper eyelid and the other hand on the lower eyelid he pulled both eyelids back from the eyeball so that the eye bulged and all the white of eye was exposed (a clear white, not pink or red). He then exerted pressure on the pulled-back lids so that the eyeball became more and more prominent. I thought 'He's testing for a shallow eye socket - he wants to see if the eye will pop out of its socket.'

This procedure must have been very uncomfortable for the dog. It was uncomfortable just to watch. The eyelids were released and he produced a 'torch' to shine into the eyes. It looked like a small torch, I thought it must be some kind of professional light. He didn't explain or ask permission.

Then he suddenly said 'look at this - this is a corneal lesion' I was unfamiliar with the term but assumed he meant ulceration. I looked over his shoulder into the illuminated eye. I couldn't see anything wrong. I couldn't understand how this could have happened and I could be completely unaware of it but he was a vet and I believed him. I was now in a complete state of shock but worse was to come. He pointed to the lower eyelid , continuing to shine the light on the eye and told me it was turning inwards instead of outwards. I couldn't see anything unusual. He finally finished his poking and fiddling with the eyes and a tiny tear appeared at the corner of her eye, conspicuous only because the area around her eyes was (and always is) completely dry. 'See' the vet said 'that proves what I'm saying'.

'He started writing on the form and he said 'I'm failing her'. Words can't describe the full horror of those words. I was in a living nightmare. I said 

something like 'do you realise what you are doing? Reporters are waiting outside that door' Very coldly and sternly he said 'I am doing my DUTY. The Kennel Club have asked me to do this'

'The KC representative said he would explain to me what would now happen. I would keep the CC. This was not affected. I could enter her at shows and she could still be awarded CCs. I would not have BOB and I would not go into the Group. I asked if the RBOB could go into the Group. He said 'No. There is no BOB for Pekingese'

'I knew that this was not just my own complete public humiliation but the worst possible outcome for the breed. I was in shock. The KC representative asked me if I would like him to take me back to my bench. This was kind because I was in a daze and would never have been able to find my way. I was whimpering like an idiot, saying 'what will I say - what will I say'. The KC rep spoke calmly to me. He said 'You don't have to say anything. Everything that

happened in that room is completely private and confidential. You don't have to tell anyone'

'We had passed the ring and I saw that Mr Easdon was judging another breed. A little while later I saw Mr Martin who is Mr Easdon's partner and I told him she'd failed. He asked why and I said he saw something on the eye. I held her eye open for him to look. He looked into her eye and said 'I can't see anything' I said 'Neither can I'. I asked him to tell Mr Easdon for me. As he left he said 'Don't say anything to anyone'

'My husband, co-owner of Bianca, was at the bench with our other dog. We decided to tell no-one at the show. The effect and consequences would have been unbearable.'

Building bridges

The following day, the Smiths took the dog for a full health check, and she was given a clean bill of health. The health certificate does not confirm the findings of the Crufts vet.

I hope that we can guard against divisions being created between the 15 at risk breeds and the Kennel Club. It is understandable that the supporters of the 15 at risk breeds feel victimised and threatened and there is a danger that these feelings will lead to emotional and irrational behaviour that will be harmful to the sport. There is no doubt whatsoever that a lot of grey areas exist in health testing, and corrective action is needed to eliminate these shortcomings. It is important that we start to build bridges between the Kennel Club and those who have been so badly treated.

http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/News/2011/news.php


----------



## spanielorbust

houndies said:


> SOB why did it take a tv program to point this out?? What does your breed club do?? Why not ask your club to make some rules? I think it is a huge shame Cavs were filmed like this!!! And this is where real policing should be...


When the foxes are guarding the hen house do you believe those foxes are going to police themselves?

That is why it takes a T.V. program. Some breed clubs have very negative influences at the top creating huge problems for anyone that wants to make positive changes. The club in the UK (one of a few) kicked Margaret Carter off their health committee for speaking up. They had a gag order right in their code of ethics. They then effectively gagged the next health representative, Maggie Ford, not allowing her to attend crucial KC meetings, and she quit in 2011. 

_"Margaret Carter stepped forward and revealed what was happening to her much loved breed. An avid Cavalier health campaigner, Margaret’s words should have stirred support from within the Cavalier breed community and galvanised a fight to help the breed out of its current predicament.

But, alas, no.

Instead the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club voted to EXPEL Margaret from their committee. Inexplicable behaviour which drew condemnation from the Kennel Club and the dog loving community at large.

So, no getting away from it – a breed in trouble and much of the blame lies with those who don’t know the difference between doing what’s right for the breed and what’s right for their own ludicrous egos."_

http://mydogmagazine.com/dog-health...-cavaliers-its-not-for-health-btw-its-for-pr/

Cavaliers - more denial and dissent - http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.ca/2011/02/cavaliers-dont-you-bloody-dare.html ---http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/54659/News/06-Cavalier​
The US clubs are not any better.

CKCSC,USA dumps MVD breeding protocol - http://www.cavalierhealth.org/editorial.htm#CKCSC,USA_Dumps_MVD_Breeding_Protocol

What Do the Two USA CKCS Clubs Have Against Breeding Healthy Cavalier King Charles Spaniels? - http://www.cavalierhealth.org/editorial.htm#October_14,_2011

AKC's CHIC program is a farce for cavaliers - http://www.cavalierhealth.org/editorial.htm#March_14,_2012​
Have you not run into this in other breeds? I happen to know others with the same so I find it AMAZING that this type of stronghold over a club by influential breeders and judges is not recognized. These are the words of a commentor on a blog, but they are a good fit.

_". . .This is exactly the situation in Scotties, which is dominated by two factions of what some people call “show millers,” breeders who have a lot to lose if the status quo shifts. These folks, like powerful breeders in other breeds, have a long reach and dominate because they can, in essence, control the futures of so many others with aspirations. . ."_

http://www.honestdog.com/2012/03/06/dont-change-breeds-change-the-breeding/​
So if you'd like to explain how to get past these powerful breeders in the breed who have it in their best interest NOT to allow policing, please do so. I've watched too many heads roll to believe it can be done in any kind of timely manner without outside influence.

I'd like to also mention that there are many Cavalier clubs. Secondly, I don't belong to any of them. The ones here require sponsorships to join. I'd not fit the criteria.

SOB


----------



## cshellenberger

JB, Thank you for the information and the statement on the Peke, clearly the dog was targeted and the exam was against the* rules stated by the KC*. Intentional targeting and humiliation like this is dishonerable and I hope the KC pays dearly for it!


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> I don't think I ever said I agreed with the KC decision to do vet checks in the manner that they did. But honestly, it brought talk about health testing and conditions into the media, and I can't see how that aspect of it is bad.
> 
> And if it takes something like that to get a BOB Clumber dq'ed for entropion- IMO the judge wasn't doing their job in the first place.


Health testing and a cursory exam by a GP vet are two different things. If you want to address health testing, address health testing. If you want to address the judge's choice make the judge accountable. The aspect which is bad is called "fault judging" where focus is put on one part of the dog to the point of eliminating the dog from the gene pool, when there may be other important things the dog can contribute. For instance, say the Clumber has good hips (a major problem in Clumbers is CHD, this is a for instance - I have no idea what the dog's actual health clearances might be) Would you eliminate the dog for entropion? While there are reasons to eliminate a dog, narrowing the gene pool to dogs that only have perfect and moderate conformation, and carry no identifiable defective genes causes more problems than it provides solutions. There are certainly people who ignore important health clearances and those who breed to their idea of aesthetics at a cost to health, but in general most breeders work very hard. And I don't think the general public has any idea how complicated breeding good dogs actually is. .They see hysterical spin like PDE and think it generalizes to all breeds and all breeders. IF you have dogs eliminated for an old environmental (not hereditary) injury (as is probably the case with the bull dog) these decisions become even more harmful to breeds.


----------



## Pawzk9

spanielorbust said:


> When the foxes are guarding the hen house do you believe those foxes are going to police themselves?


I think it is slanderous to refer to all breeders as foxes based on your experience in a single breed that was recently developed and has more than its share of health issues. I would like to see certain health tests required (depending on the breed) in order to show. Just as a dog with a misaligned bite is disqualified from conformation shows in many breeds, so should a dog with, say, clinical SM or moderate to severe hip or elbow dysplasia or PRA affected.


----------



## Pawzk9

cshellenberger said:


> JB, Thank you for the information and the statement on the Peke, clearly the dog was targeted and the exam was against the* rules stated by the KC*. Intentional targeting and humiliation like this is dishonerable and I hope the KC pays dearly for it!


I hope they sue the britches off the KC and win. Even though the exam was obviously a farce, it is sure to do harm to the dog's and the breeder's reputation.


----------



## juliemule

Pawzk9 said:


> Health testing and a cursory exam by a GP vet are two different things. If you want to address health testing, address health testing. If you want to address the judge's choice make the judge accountable. The aspect which is bad is called "fault judging" where focus is put on one part of the dog to the point of eliminating the dog from the gene pool, when there may be other important things the dog can contribute. For instance, say the Clumber has good hips (a major problem in Clumbers is CHD, this is a for instance - I have no idea what the dog's actual health clearances might be) Would you eliminate the dog for entropion? While there are reasons to eliminate a dog, narrowing the gene pool to dogs that only have perfect and moderate conformation, and carry no identifiable defective genes causes more problems than it provides solutions. There are certainly people who ignore important health clearances and those who breed to their idea of aesthetics at a cost to health, but in general most breeders work very hard. And I don't think the general public has any idea how complicated breeding good dogs actually is. .They see hysterical spin like PDE and think it generalizes to all breeds and all breeders. IF you have dogs eliminated for an old environmental (not hereditary) injury (as is probably the case with the bull dog) these decisions become even more harmful to breeds.


Why would you overlook one fault just because the dog has other good qualities? If it has a fault, then pass on breeding that dog. Find one with good hips, without entropian as well. I understand things can't be changed overnight, but breeding practices can be. 
For instance, malinois tend to be a very healthy breed. I choose to look at the entire picture, when deciding if the dog is breeding quality. I have an old male I chose to neuter. He has awesome work ethic, great temperament, no health issues, good structure, but two issues were the deciding factors. He is a Tad lazy, and he is large boned. Meaning he could pass this on to pups, a heavy malinois will not be as agile and could have problems later in life doing the jobs they are meant to do. The lazy side (though not lazy by any means for most dog standards) is also not what a malinois should be. 

Breeders should strive for perfection in all aspects of the breed. There is no such thing as a perfect dog, but trying to create one without faults should be the goal. IMO, if you have to settle for breeding a dog that has major faults, it should not be bred.


----------



## Pawzk9

juliemule said:


> Breeders should strive for perfection in all aspects of the breed. There is no such thing as a perfect dog, but trying to create one without faults should be the goal. IMO, if you have to settle for breeding a dog that has major faults, it should not be bred.


If there is so such thing as a perfect dog, breeders can't be expected to produce them. Breeders should surely be selective, but no dog is without faults in everyone's estimation. One of the best dogs I've ever owned (exceptional pedigree, nice structure, typy, beautiful head, great work ethic, lovely temperament) has a disqualifying fault (bite) and so was never bred. Sometimes I think that was a mistake, as she had much good to contribute. But I didn't. Still, she is working on her 20th title in a wide variety of pursuits - from stock trials to obedience, rally and freestyle. We are also playing at Treibball. It is nice that you have a generally healthy breed. So do I. And lines with a fairly wide gene pool. Dogs bred to work tend (IMO) to be healthier because non-functionality in any area is likely to wash the dog out. In some breeds it makes a lot more sense to breed a dog who is without a major, damaging issue (say SM, CHD, PRA, MVD, etc.) in that breed who has less damaging faults but is clear in that major area of concern. In breeds with very tight gene pools, one may need to be somewhat less picky about perfection. By the way, I've seldom met a "lazy" dog, though I've met many who didn't have the right motivator for that dog.


----------



## spanielorbust

Pawzk9 said:


> I think it is slanderous to refer to all breeders as foxes based on your experience in a single breed that was recently developed and has more than its share of health issues. I would like to see certain health tests required (depending on the breed) in order to show. Just as a dog with a misaligned bite is disqualified from conformation shows in many breeds, so should a dog with, say, clinical SM or moderate to severe hip or elbow dysplasia or PRA affected.


It is slanderous to refer to ALL breeders as foxes. I, however, did not do that.

I said _"When the foxes are guarding the hen house do you believe those foxes are going to police themselves?"_ and then explained further.

That statement specifically points out there are those that are less than ethical, the foxes, that are in position to be making decisions of influence. THAT is NOT a reference to all breeders being foxes or unethical. 

SOB


----------



## cshellenberger

juliemule said:


> Why would you overlook one fault just because the dog has other good qualities? If it has a fault, then pass on breeding that dog. Find one with good hips, without entropian as well. I understand things can't be changed overnight, but breeding practices can be...
> 
> There is no such thing as a perfect dog, but trying to create one without faults should be the goal. IMO, if you have to settle for breeding a dog that has major faults, it should not be bred.


 When you narrow a gene pool too much you get MORE health problems and you CONCENTRATE them, eliminating a dog with a mild condition that can be countered with the right breeding is counter productive.


----------



## juliemule

cshellenberger said:


> When you narrow a gene pool too much you get MORE health problems and you CONCENTRATE them, eliminating a dog with a mild condition that can be countered with the right breeding is counter productive.


 There are so many choices now for popular breeds there isn't much need to concentrate anything. Even with my breed who isn't very popular, there is a vast selection. It just involves finding those dogs and lines. Even importing, or using shipped semen. Not just choosing the top winning line.


----------



## Niraya

The way my breeder explained everything to me was there is no perfect dog -every dog has faults. When you breed you try to look for a dog that has attributes that compliment your dogs faults. Obviously you'll get pairings where one attribute isn't the most ideal - but you're hoping that the other dog you're breeding to with that better attribute will be enough to start to fix the problem through the pups. It doesn't always work out that way but thats what you hope for in the litter. You don't eliminate the faults because they're faults - you find dogs that compliment the weaker points of the other to help improve on them through the next generation.

(sorry if none of that makes sense I'm half asleep and on my phone)


----------



## Pawzk9

juliemule said:


> There are so many choices now for popular breeds there isn't much need to concentrate anything. Even with my breed who isn't very popular, there is a vast selection. It just involves finding those dogs and lines. Even importing, or using shipped semen. Not just choosing the top winning line.


Your breed is not all breeds. Most people are not looking for Malinois (you couldn't pay me to have another one.)


----------



## Pawzk9

Niraya said:


> The way my breeder explained everything to me was there is no perfect dog -every dog has faults. When you breed you try to look for a dog that has attributes that compliment your dogs faults. Obviously you'll get pairings where one attribute isn't the most ideal - but you're hoping that the other dog you're breeding to with that better attribute will be enough to start to fix the problem through the pups. It doesn't always work out that way but thats what you hope for in the litter. You don't eliminate the faults because they're faults - you find dogs that compliment the weaker points of the other to help improve on them through the next generation.
> 
> (sorry if none of that makes sense I'm half asleep and on my phone)


Makes plenty of sense. There are, of course, dogs with faults severe enough that they shouldn't be bred. But many dogs with minor faults and major virtues can be part of a good breeding program. Particularly in breeds with a lot of problems and a limited gene pool. I know a bit about breeding, and more about breeding my breed which is a basically healthy breed with many options available. I don't kid myself that is the case in all breeds.


----------



## Niraya

Pawzk9 said:


> Makes plenty of sense. There are, of course, dogs with faults severe enough that they shouldn't be bred. But many dogs with minor faults and major virtues can be part of a good breeding program. Particularly in breeds with a lot of problems and a limited gene pool. I know a bit about breeding, and more about breeding my breed which is a basically healthy breed with many options available. I don't kid myself that is the case in all breeds.


Thank you for pointing that out! I don't mean major faults - meant minor entirely. Thank you for pointing that out


----------



## juliemule

Pawzk9 said:


> Your breed is not all breeds. Most people are not looking for Malinois (you couldn't pay me to have another one.)


Pawz, I used mine as an example. So surely, as popular breeds (which mine isn't) , there are so many more choices in lines. Agreed, not everyone is cut out to own a malinois.

Look at the popular breeds, there is no reason to breed major faults. Minor things, working to improve issues are one thing. As I stated I don't feel there is a perfect dog, but so much can be improved on crufts "selected" breeds.


----------



## Pawzk9

juliemule said:


> Pawz, I used mine as an example. So surely, as popular breeds (which mine isn't) , there are so many more choices in lines. Agreed, not everyone is cut out to own a malinois.
> 
> Look at the popular breeds, there is no reason to breed major faults. Minor things, working to improve issues are one thing. As I stated I don't feel there is a perfect dog, but so much can be improved on crufts "selected" breeds.


Being "popular" doesn't mean having a great many options. Sometimes less popular breeds actually have wider options.


----------



## juliemule

Ok. Regardless, we can argue small points all day. There is still a need to improve. Obviously some breeders have not been practicing this, or certain breeds would not be in the shape they are in now.

It sucks that someone has to step in to correct things that breeders and judges overlook.


----------



## Pawzk9

juliemule said:


> Ok. Regardless, we can argue small points all day. There is still a need to improve. Obviously some breeders have not been practicing this, or certain breeds would not be in the shape they are in now.
> 
> It sucks that someone has to step in to correct things that breeders and judges overlook.


Limitations in gene pools is not a small point. When looking at recently created breeds like the CKCS the gene pool is limited and the basic health issues probably came with the few original founding dogs. I'm lucky to have a breed which was basically a landrace that was discovered and developed. Still, show line is pretty much based on a couple of (full brother) dogs and there is at least one working line I won't touch despite incredible talent. Interestingly, the problems in that line may be more prevalent because of going outside the breed. Can't be proven though.


----------



## houndies

THEY should step in properly and look at real health issues. Not old eye injuries and what is considered too much furniture btw does not make a dog unhealthy or unfit for purpose.
Another irony here is that Jemima PDE has a flatcoat. A breed that has been riddled with cancer and really suffered wartime. The average life expectancy has been brought up to 10 years. This was done by good breeding and by these breeders that show and do field trials. And as Niraya pointed out it is quite a complex thing and takes dedication. To tar all breeders who show with the same brush as a few bad apples really is ridiculous. And SOB the woman who bred her ill Cav should have been charged with animal cruelty. You are saying exactly what I am!


----------



## spanielorbust

houndies said:


> THEY should step in properly and look at real health issues. Not old eye injuries and what is considered too much furniture btw does not make a dog unhealthy or unfit for purpose.
> Another irony here is that Jemima PDE has a flatcoat. A breed that has been riddled with cancer and really suffered wartime. The average life expectancy has been brought up to 10 years. This was done by good breeding and by these breeders that show and do field trials. And as Niraya pointed out it is quite a complex thing and takes dedication. To tar all breeders who show with the same brush as a few bad apples really is ridiculous. And SOB the woman who bred her ill Cav should have been charged with animal cruelty. You are saying exactly what I am!


We agree on some things.

We don't on others. I see no irony in Jemima owning Flatcoats. I've known her a long time on genetics lists and from the start she has praised those that are making improvements. I did not see PDE tar all breeders with the same brush and following many discussions will not agree that it has. I paid for and own a copy because I am such a fan, but if you'd like to further discuss this there are threads you can pull up from a search where we can continue instead of derailing this one. I also have no problem agreeing to disagree.

In regards to the Cavalier breeder I believe what she did was wrong. Unfortunately she was mentored by those top in the breed. Many of the bitches he was bred with were theirs. His progeny were exported around the world. These breeders are judges and so was she. Charges of cruelty would have to go across the board if they were to be laid, and I can't see that happening.

Similarly that would open the door to breeders of dogs with very high hip scores or 'fails' being charged - as the inheritance pattern appears to be similar. Can you see that ever happening? I don't think so. I don't think I believe that door should be opened.

SOB


----------



## juliemule

Pawzk9 said:


> Limitations in gene pools is not a small point. When looking at recently created breeds like the CKCS the gene pool is limited and the basic health issues probably came with the few original founding dogs. I'm lucky to have a breed which was basically a landrace that was discovered and developed. Still, show line is pretty much based on a couple of (full brother) dogs and there is at least one working line I won't touch despite incredible talent. Interestingly, the problems in that line may be more prevalent because of going outside the breed. Can't be proven though.


Looking at two of the breeds on the list, gsd and ebd, there are many lines to improve from. 

Houndies, a I agree if something is not genetic then it shouldn't be counted against the dog.

Yet none of this changes the obvious need for someone to step in since the breeds are become more exaggerated rather than improving the dogs.


----------



## houndies

SOB Jemima did tar breeders (show) just alone in the title - Pedigree Dogs Exposed. Why is this only show breeders? As I said before why not take the opportunity to EXPOSE all BAD breeders. And why not take the golden opportunity to EXPOSE how the rescues here are bursting - especially with Staffies - from BAD breeders. The Dog's Trust is building a new facility to cope and Battersea has launched a huge campaign to "Adopt a Staff". This is happening from BAD BREEDING - simple. It is hugely irresponsible journalism to not include these other REAL problems! She went for sensationalism and the KC followed like whimps not addressing the real baddies and real health problems.


----------



## houndies

And what message does PDE and Crufts give out to Jo blow public looking for their puppy??? Wouldn't it have been great to have put across responsible breeding and rescues??? Complete lost opportunity...


----------



## Pai

The PDE Blog has an interesting clip from a recent Canine Alliance meeting.


----------



## Rescued

houndies said:


> SOB Jemima did tar breeders (show) just alone in the title - Pedigree Dogs Exposed. Why is this only show breeders? As I said before why not take the opportunity to *EXPOSE all BAD breeders*. And why not take the golden opportunity to* EXPOSE how the rescues here are bursting *- especially with Staffies - from BAD breeders. The Dog's Trust is building a new facility to cope and Battersea has launched a huge campaign to "Adopt a Staff". This is happening from BAD BREEDING - simple. It is hugely irresponsible journalism to not include these other REAL problems! She went for sensationalism and the KC followed like whimps not addressing the real baddies and real health problems.


Because it's already been done. Google "puppy mill." Then google "pit bull" (or Staffy in UK i guess) - There are SO MANY videos, websites, threads, everything about those. Nobody is denying they are a problem- but that doesn't lessen other problems that exist. You don't watch a puppy mill documentary and go "Well they didn't mention the pit bull problem."


----------



## cshellenberger

juliemule said:


> Looking at two of the breeds on the list, gsd and ebd, there are many lines to improve from.
> 
> Houndies, a I agree if something is not genetic then it shouldn't be counted against the dog.
> 
> Yet none of this changes the obvious need for someone to step in since the breeds are become more exaggerated rather than improving the dogs.


The EBD that was penalized was FROM one of the lines that would improve the breed, in that case and possibly in the case of the peke the KC shot itself in the foot.


----------



## juliemule

cshellenberger said:


> The EBD that was penalized was FROM one of the lines that would improve the breed, in that case and possibly in the case of the peke the KC shot itself in the foot.


 What was the official report of the ebd, why he was penalized?


----------



## spanielorbust

cshellenberger said:


> The EBD that was penalized was FROM one of the lines that would improve the breed, in that case and possibly in the case of the peke the KC shot itself in the foot.


Carla do you believe that because these dogs didn't get to go forward as BOBs on that one day at Crufts they won't be bred from?

I wouldn't expect that to be the case myself. Why would breeders be like that? 

SOB


----------



## cshellenberger

I would hope they'd be bred from as they were already champions and GrCh dogs (as were ALL the dogs DQ'd, crappy dogs don't make it to that show) however it tells those with similar dogs they might be DQ'd even when the dogs are MODERATE. It sends the message that even moderate dogs in those breeds have no chance of winning group or BOS when a potentially cosmetically altered or unhealthy dog that's NOT of a breed on the list COULD (because it's only a limited number of breeds being examined). That's why Myself, Pawz and others feel if they're going to require health clearances, it should be clearances done PRE SHOW on ALL BREEDS, not just the 12 'problem' breeds or don't require them AT ALL.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

cshellenberger said:


> That's why Myself, Pawz and others feel if they're going to require health clearances, it should be clearances done PRE SHOW on ALL BREEDS, not just the 12 'problem' breeds or don't require them AT ALL.


15, but that is not even close to the full list of "at risk" breeds, they just chose to drop it down to those few.


----------



## Crantastic

In the case of the dogs that failed, why wouldn't the reserve best of breed be examined as well and allowed to take the BOB title if it passed? That's the point of a RBOB -- if for some reason the BOB doesn't actually qualify, the RBOB becomes the BOB. This goes back to what I was saying earlier -- whether they meant to or not, it _seems_ like the KC wanted to publicly humiliate a few people and make it appear that they were doing something to improve the health of dogs. What makes more of a splash, publicity-wise -- "we're going to replace this peke that failed with the runner-up," or "NO PEKES will compete for best in group this year!"? 

Again, I think that something needs to be done, but that this was handled very badly -- humiliating people and putting them on the defensive is not the way to effect change in their breed clubs.


----------



## Pawzk9

Pai said:


> The PDE Blog has an interesting clip from a recent Canine Alliance meeting.


And I think the person owning the basset presented some VERY good points. Breed standards may need to be tightened. But if the dog is not in line with the breed standard, what's the point of showing dogs?


----------



## Pawzk9

spanielorbust said:


> Carla do you believe that because these dogs didn't get to go forward as BOBs on that one day at Crufts they won't be bred from?
> 
> I wouldn't expect that to be the case myself. Why would breeders be like that?
> 
> SOB


I believe it will certainly affect that dog's reputation. If it's a good dog with an old injury who could actually contribute to more moderate and functional dogs,. do you really think that's desirable? Note that this is a bitch, so her impression on the breed will not be as penetrating as a male. Do you think targeting 15 breeds and having vets who think their job is to look for any reason to disqualify a dog is a good thing? Really???????? There are things which need improving. Why not do that instead of stupid and useless bandaids?


----------



## Pawzk9

Crantastic said:


> In the case of the dogs that failed, why wouldn't the reserve best of breed be examined as well and allowed to take the BOB title if it passed? That's the point of a RBOB -- if for some reason the BOB doesn't actually qualify, the RBOB becomes the BOB. This goes back to what I was saying earlier -- whether they meant to or not, it _seems_ like the KC wanted to publicly humiliate a few people and make it appear that they were doing something to improve the health of dogs. What makes more of a splash, publicity-wise -- "we're going to replace this peke that failed with the runner-up," or "NO PEKES will compete for best in group this year!"?
> 
> Again, I think that something needs to be done, but that this was handled very badly -- humiliating people and putting them on the defensive is not the way to effect change in their breed clubs.


^ This......


----------



## spanielorbust

Pawzk9 said:


> And I think the person owning the basset presented some VERY good points. Breed standards may need to be tightened. But if the dog is not in line with the breed standard, what's the point of showing dogs?


This is the UK Basset Breed Standard. - http://www.bassethoundclub.co.uk/documents/Breed Standard.pdf - http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/breed/standard.aspx?id=1003

General Appearance: Short-legged hound of considerable substance, well balanced, full of quality. It is important to bear in mind that this is a working hound and must be fit for purpose, therefore should be strong, active and capable of great endurance in the field. 

Characteristics: Tenacious hound of ancient lineage which hunts by scent, possessing a pack instinct and a deep melodious voice. 

Temperament: Placid, never aggressive or timid. Affectionate. 

Head and Skull: Domed with some stop and occipital bone prominent; of medium width at brow and tapering slightly to muzzle; general appearance of foreface lean not snipy. Top of muzzle nearly parallel with line from stop to occiput and not much longer than head from stop to occiput. *There may be a small amount of wrinkle at brow and beside eyes. In any event skin of head supple enough as to wrinkle slightly when drawn forward or when head is lowered.* Flews of upper lip overlap lower substantially. Nose entirely black except in light-coloured hounds when it may be brown or liver. Large and well opened nostrils may protrude a little beyond lips. 

Eyes: *Lozenge-shaped neither prominent nor deep-set*, dark but may shade to mid-brown in light coloured hounds. Expression calm and serious. Light or yellow eye highly undesirable. 

Ears: Set on low, just below line of eye. Long; reaching only slightly beyond end of muzzle of correct length, but not excessively so. Narrow throughout their length and curling well inwards; very supple, fine and velvety in texture. 

Mouth: Jaws strong, with a perfect, regular and complete scissor bite, i.e. upper teeth closely overlapping lower teeth and set square to the jaws. 

Neck: Muscular, well arched and fairly long with pronounced but not exaggerated dewlap. 

Forequarters: Shoulder blades well laid back; shoulders not heavy. Forelegs short, powerful and with great bone; elbows turning neither in nor out but fitting neatly against side. Upper forearm inclined slightly inwards, but not to such an extent as to prevent free action or to result in legs touching each other when standing or in action; forechest fitting neatly into crook when viewed from front. Knuckling-over highly undesirable. Some wrinkles of skin may appear on lower legs, but this must on no account be excessive. 

Body: Long and deep throughout length, breast bone prominent but chest neither narrow nor unduly deep. There should be adequate clearance between the lowest part of the chest and the ground to allow the hound to move freely over all types of terrain. Ribs well rounded and sprung, without flange, extending well back. Back rather broad and level; withers and quarters of approximately same height, though loins may arch slightly. Back from withers to onset of quarters not unduly long. 

Hindquarters: Full of muscle and standing out well, giving an almost spherical effect when viewed from rear. Stifles well bent. Hocks well let down and slightly bent under but turn neither in nor out and just under body when standing naturally. Some wrinkles of skin may appear between hock and foot, and at rear of joint a slight pouch of skin may be present, but on no account should any of these be excessive. 

Feet: Large well knuckled up and padded. Forefeet may point straight ahead or be turned slightly outwards but in every case hound always stands perfectly true, weight being borne equally by toes with pads together so that feet would leave an imprint of a large hound and no unpadded areas in contact with ground. 

Tail: (Stern) well set on, rather long, strong at base, tapering, with moderate amount of coarse hair underneath. When moving, stern carried well up and curving gently, sabre-fashion, never curling or gay. 

Gait/Movement: Most important to ensure that the hound is fit for purpose. Smooth, powerful and effortless action with forelegs reaching well forward and hind legs showing powerful thrust, hound moving true both front and rear. Hocks and stifles never stiff in movement, nor must any toes be dragged. 

Coat: Smooth, short and close without being too fine. Whole outline clean and free from feathering. Long hair, soft coat or feathering highly undesirable. *Skin is supple and elastic without any exaggeration. *

Colour: Generally black, white and tan (tri-colour); lemon and white (bi-colour); but any recognised hound colour acceptable. 

Size: Height: 33-38 cms (13-15 ins) at withers. 

Faults: Any departure from the foregoing points should be considered a fault and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion to its degree and its effect upon the health and welfare of the dog and on the dog’s ability to perform its traditional work. 

Note: Male animals should have two apparently normal testicles fully descended into the scrotum​
Why would those breeding and showing Basset Hounds not be capable of breeding in line with this standard and also getting veterinary approval on the dogs? What are the vets asking for that won't fit this standard? 

SOB


----------



## JohnnyBandit

cshellenberger said:


> JB, Thank you for the information and the statement on the Peke, clearly the dog was targeted and the exam was against the* rules stated by the KC*. Intentional targeting and humiliation like this is dishonerable and I hope the KC pays dearly for it!


The Peke's owners description of what she had to endure was pretty much what I had imagined. 

This is not the way to treat someone that has dedicated a lot of time to dogs and has just won a very high honor.......

Some things that really eat at me. The hounding (no pun intended) by the press, the refusal to allow her dog a drink, the temperament of the vet, the expectation that the owners just accept the vets qualifications to do the assigned exam....

And something that is bothering me. I know that at least four of the failed dogs were owned/handled by women. And I am definately not trying to sound sexest here. But I would have reacted much differently. It would have not gone so well. And I am not talking about being nasty or even violent. I am saying that it sounded like at least some of the owners were bullied a little. 

The whole thing has the feel of a high profile criminal case that is tried in the media. 

What I think people with the top dogs in these breeds need to do is this. Make sure their dogs are cleared by well credentialed, well respected vets. Then compete with their dogs. And when they win, Forfeit the BOB right at ringside and refuse the vet exam. Then toss copies of their dogs clearances on the ground in the ring. Then walk out.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

Pawzk9 said:


> And I think the person owning the basset presented some VERY good points.


I agree. I agree that the dog failed because the breed standard calls for something that generally won't sit well with vets - in this case, the lozenge-shaped eye. I agree that few, if any show bassets could pass the vet check. I agree that asking a breeder to produce something that fits the standard AND will pass the vet check is unfair. I agree that the basset that failed probably had "a good eye FOR A BASSET". I agree that the dog was judged by the vet as a DOG, not as a basset (in other words, that the breed standard was ignored), which is precisely as the vet was instructed. I agree that a greater percentage of "mongrels" would pass the vet check than show dogs. In other words, I agree with this owner on every point that she raised. But I still think that the vet checks are a necessary first step towards reforming health standards in purebred dogs. If this leads to changes in the breed standard, so much the better.



Pawzk9 said:


> what's the point of showing dogs?


You said it, not me.


----------



## begemot

GottaLuvMutts said:


> I agree. I agree that the dog failed because the breed standard calls for something that generally won't sit well with vets - in this case, the lozenge-shaped eye. I agree that few, if any show bassets could pass the vet check. I agree that asking a breeder to produce something that fits the standard AND will pass the vet check is unfair. I agree that the basset that failed probably had "a good eye FOR A BASSET". I agree that the dog was judged by the vet as a DOG, not as a basset (in other words, that the breed standard was ignored), which is precisely as the vet was instructed. I agree that a greater percentage of "mongrels" would pass the vet check than show dogs. In other words, I agree with this owner on every point that she raised. But I still think that the vet checks are a necessary first step towards reforming health standards in purebred dogs. If this leads to changes in the breed standard, so much the better.


I agree too, which made watching that clip so interesting. It's so strange that she (and the other people there) can come to such different conclusions from those same facts. Though, from spanielorbust's post, it does seem that the show bassets are more extreme than the standard calls for, lozenge excepted.

It's genuinely weird that people are justifying the heavy wrinkling and loose connective tissue by saying that it makes the dog less likely to get snagged in brush. That is so patently irrational and untrue, I don't know how anyone can say it with a straight face.

I think it's a good step too. How else, other than an impartial vet failing a champion, are the people deeply involved in breeding these dogs going to get the message, and make changes? That's a question for all those who think things need to change, but don't want outside interference in the form of vet checks.



cshellenberger said:


> I would hope they'd be bred from as they were already champions and GrCh dogs (as were ALL the dogs DQ'd, crappy dogs don't make it to that show)...


Failing basic vet checks kind of calls that into question, doesn't it? I guess we have different definitions of what makes a crappy dog. I would have thought that crippling deformity equals crappy. My dachshund would never win anything because he's far less extreme than show dachshunds, yet he's healthier and fitter because of it. If he's a crappy dog because he wouldn't win, then I'll take crappy.

I don't think these dogs should be bred from, and I hope these results have an impact there. It's immoral to breed genetically unhealthy dogs. We're talking about issues that impact the offspring's quality of life. Just like MM breedings are wrong because they come with an unacceptable risk of harm to the offspring, this is wrong too.



> That's why Myself, Pawz and others feel if they're going to require health clearances, it should be clearances done PRE SHOW on ALL BREEDS, not just the 12 'problem' breeds or don't require them AT ALL.


I would go for this. But if every single clumber, peke, basset, etc. was failed and disqualified, would you accept that? Would you say that it was fair? So many people complaining about the health checks then turn around and say they support something much more thorough, and I'm not sure whether I believe their response would actually be any different if they got their way. I think they would be just as outraged. But maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Pawzk9

spanielorbust said:


> This is the UK Basset Breed Standard. - http://www.bassethoundclub.co.uk/documents/Breed Standard.pdf - http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/breed/standard.aspx?id=1003
> 
> Why would those breeding and showing Basset Hounds not be capable of breeding in line with this standard and also getting veterinary approval on the dogs? What are the vets asking for that won't fit this standard?
> 
> 
> SOB


So? Who says the basset does not fit the standard? Have you seen pictures of the dog? A general practitioner vet who has no training as a show judge or in understanding breed standards. I think the vets (and this is surmise, based on what I have read) is that the vets at least assumed they were expected to fail some dogs, if not told outright. It's a traversty


----------



## Pawzk9

JohnnyBandit said:


> The Peke's owners description of what she had to endure was pretty much what I had imagined.
> 
> This is not the way to treat someone that has dedicated a lot of time to dogs and has just won a very high honor.......
> 
> Some things that really eat at me. The hounding (no pun intended) by the press, the refusal to allow her dog a drink, the temperament of the vet, the expectation that the owners just accept the vets qualifications to do the assigned exam....
> 
> And something that is bothering me. I know that at least four of the failed dogs were owned/handled by women. And I am definately not trying to sound sexest here. But I would have reacted much differently. It would have not gone so well. And I am not talking about being nasty or even violent. I am saying that it sounded like at least some of the owners were bullied a little.
> 
> The whole thing has the feel of a high profile criminal case that is tried in the media.
> 
> What I think people with the top dogs in these breeds need to do is this. Make sure their dogs are cleared by well credentialed, well respected vets. Then compete with their dogs. And when they win, Forfeit the BOB right at ringside and refuse the vet exam. Then toss copies of their dogs clearances on the ground in the ring. Then walk out.


Excellent post.


----------



## juliemule

cshellenberger said:


> I would hope they'd be bred from as they were already champions and GrCh dogs (as were ALL the dogs DQ'd, crappy dogs don't make it to that show) however it tells those with similar dogs they might be DQ'd even when the dogs are MODERATE. It sends the message that even moderate dogs in those breeds have no chance of winning group or BOS when a potentially cosmetically altered or unhealthy dog that's NOT of a breed on the list COULD (because it's only a limited number of breeds being examined). That's why Myself, Pawz and others feel if they're going to require health clearances, it should be clearances done PRE SHOW on ALL BREEDS, not just the 12 'problem' breeds or don't require them AT ALL.


Crappy dogs are apparently what are winning the show! That is why there is a need for the vet checks on only certain breeds. The others are not being bred for extremes.

The more moderate dogs, as you mentioned, should be bred, and maybe next year a more moderate dog without a problem can win best of breed. Just because one is not "as exreme" doesn't not mean it is free from the health issues that they are checking for. If the dog had entropian, or whatever they are specifically looking for in each breed, then it should not win.

This reminds me so much of Tennessee walking horse shows. They were sored to the point of extreme exaggeration. (Couldn't be completely bred with conformation for extremes, unlike dogs, because a horse couldn't stand). Anyway, when they announced health checks by a vet prior to each class, they packed up and left. Out of a couple hundred, only about TEN horses stayed!
This was several years ago. Guess what happened? The show lost popularity for a little bit, but its back, with healthy, moderate horses that were not being sored. Best thing that could have happened.


----------



## Pawzk9

begemot said:


> It's genuinely weird that people are justifying the heavy wrinkling and loose connective tissue by saying that it makes the dog less likely to get snagged in brush. That is so patently irrational and untrue, I don't know how anyone can say it with a straight face.
> 
> Failing basic vet checks kind of calls that into question, doesn't it? I guess we have different definitions of what makes a crappy dog. I would have thought that crippling deformity equals crappy. My dachshund would never win anything because he's far less extreme than show dachshunds, yet he's healthier and fitter because of it. If he's a crappy dog because he wouldn't win, then I'll take crappy.
> 
> I don't think these dogs should be bred from, and I hope these results have an impact there. It's immoral to breed genetically unhealthy dogs. We're talking about issues that impact the offspring's quality of life. Just like MM breedings are wrong because they come with an unacceptable risk of harm to the offspring, this is wrong too.
> 
> 
> 
> I would go for this. But if every single clumber, peke, basset, etc. was failed and disqualified, would you accept that? Would you say that it was fair? So many people complaining about the health checks then turn around and say they support something much more thorough, and I'm not sure whether I believe their response would actually be any different if they got their way. I think they would be just as outraged. But maybe I'm wrong.


I've seen nothing that says these dogs had a "crippling deformity" Just an old eye injury or loose skin which is part of some breeds. Apparently the owner of the Peke wasn't even told why her dog was disqualified, and it does sound like the owners were treated badly.
If loose skin isn't functional for certain purposes, what do you have to say about WORKING bloodhounds? I've never heard the "justification" you give, by the way.
As one of the people here who is very uncomfortable with the KC picking out a few breeds to intentionally persecute, I think asking ALL entered dogs to provide health clearances recommended for their breed would do more to assure that affected dogs weren't sought after than a cursory vet check giving an opinion of whether the dog fit their definition of a perfect mutt. If all dogs were required to submit health clearances before being allowed in conformation shows, no dogs would be failed or disqualified from the show. They simply wouldn't be shown. I am sure there are plenty of dogs in the targeted breeds that HAVE those health clearances, including dogs which were failed. I believe the Bulldog's eyes had been cleared by an opthalmologist. If not, they shouldn't be bred. But I don't honestly understand how you can make a judgement that these dogs are crippled, diseased or unsound. I bet you haven't even seen a picture of them.


----------



## sassafras

It's funny to see how



Pawzk9 said:


> A general practitioner vet who has no training as a show judge or in understanding breed standards.


The vet SHOULDN'T have any training as a show judge or an understanding of breed standards, the whole point is that the "oh trust us we know what we are doing breed X is SUPPOSED to be that way la la la!" isn't working for some breeds.

SOB _posted_ the show standard - is it really impossible to breed a basset to that standard and produce a dog that wouldn't fail the health check? It absolutely disgusts me when health problems are waved away as "well, that's the breed standard, whaddya gonna do?!?!" 

God forbid that a bunch of show breeders with no perspective acting like spoiled brats should have to change the way THEY think - no, it's EVERYONE ELSE who is wrong and isn't thinking of the breed/dogs.


----------



## juliemule

Sasafrass, wish there were a "like " button!!!


----------



## Pawzk9

GottaLuvMutts said:


> You said it, not me.


Well, dog showing is a SPORT. It is a sport that many people enjoy. And like many sports, it's more fun to come in first than last. You don't have to show. You don't have to own a purebred. But do you really think you have the right to tell other people what sports they need to enjoy or refrain from. Are you that omnipotent?


----------



## Pawzk9

sassafras said:


> It's funny to see how
> 
> 
> 
> The vet SHOULDN'T have any training as a show judge or an understanding of breed standards, the whole point is that the "oh trust us we know what we are doing breed X is SUPPOSED to be that way la la la!" isn't working for some breeds.
> 
> SOB _posted_ the show standard - is it really impossible to breed a basset to that standard and produce a dog that wouldn't fail the health check? It absolutely disgusts me when health problems are waved away as "well, that's the breed standard, whaddya gonna do?!?!"
> 
> God forbid that a bunch of show breeders with no perspective acting like spoiled brats should have to change the way THEY think - no, it's EVERYONE ELSE who is wrong and isn't thinking of the breed/dogs.


Well, I do see a whole lot of people here who are jumping to conclusions that dogs are crippled or genetically unsound (health clearances not withstanding) without even seeing a PICTURE of the dogs. I know some very good vets and some pitifully poor vets. I don't think that the good vets I know would even take part in this farce. And I think that the vets who were hired (from everything I've read) knew they were expected to disqualify dogs and were looking for reason to do so.


----------



## spanielorbust

Replacement of original post -- Should have read forward first. Sassafras covered it.

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9

juliemule said:


> Crappy dogs are apparently what are winning the show! That is why there is a need for the vet checks on only certain breeds. The others are not being bred for extremes.
> 
> The more moderate dogs, as you mentioned, should be bred, and maybe next year a more moderate dog without a problem can win best of breed. Just because one is not "as exreme" doesn't not mean it is free from the health issues that they are checking for. If the dog had entropian, or whatever they are specifically looking for in each breed, then it should not win.
> 
> This reminds me so much of Tennessee walking horse shows. They were sored to the point of extreme exaggeration. (Couldn't be completely bred with conformation for extremes, unlike dogs, because a horse couldn't stand). Anyway, when they announced health checks by a vet prior to each class, they packed up and left. Out of a couple hundred, only about TEN horses stayed!
> This was several years ago. Guess what happened? The show lost popularity for a little bit, but its back, with healthy, moderate horses that were not being sored. Best thing that could have happened.


Shame a moderate dog with an old non-genetic eye injury couldn't win. Do you think show people are "soring dogs"? Do you really? If not, your example doesn't make much sense.


----------



## juliemule

Pawzk9 said:


> Shame a moderate dog with an old non-genetic eye injury couldn't win. Do you think show people are "soring dogs"? Do you really? If not, your example doesn't make much sense.


If it were non genetic, fine. And read my post I explained the difference in horses being sored, and dogs bred with exaggeration. Yes its similar. Just as cruel. To knowingly breed for unhealthy, painful traits just to win a title is selfish, cruel abuse. Might as well cut off their toes and prance them around the ring.

If dogs are being bred for health and shown, then more power to you. I have nothing against conformation showing, as long as the dogs are healthy and happy. To breed dogs with eye problems, back problems, breathing problems, any specific issue the vets are looking for in those selected breeds is shameful. It is really sad that you are fine with the issues that have gotten so out of hand.
As far as those handlers being humiliated, yes that sucks. Though, a handler/breeder/judge should be more humiliated to show a dog that is not healthy! If the dogs that were choosen and DQ'd did not have a reason to he pulled, then of course it isn't right. But do you honestly believe the breeds on that selected list are showing healthy examples? Really? Lol. Its really pitiful that breeding and accepting the faults that are being overlooked is ok with anyone.


----------



## Pawzk9

juliemule said:


> If it were non genetic, fine. And read my post I explained the difference in horses being sored, and dogs bred with exaggeration. Yes its similar. Just as cruel. To knowingly breed for unhealthy, painful traits just to win a title is selfish, cruel abuse. Might as well cut off their toes and prance them around the ring.
> 
> If dogs are being bred for health and shown, then more power to you. I have nothing against conformation showing, as long as the dogs are healthy and happy. To breed dogs with eye problems, back problems, breathing problems, any specific issue the vets are looking for in those selected breeds is shameful. It is really sad that you are fine with the issues that have gotten so out of hand.
> As far as those handlers being humiliated, yes that sucks. Though, a handler/breeder/judge should be more humiliated to show a dog that is not healthy! If the dogs that were choosen and DQ'd did not have a reason to he pulled, then of course it isn't right. But do you honestly believe the breeds on that selected list are showing healthy examples? Really? Lol. Its really pitiful that breeding and accepting the faults that are being overlooked is ok with anyone.


I have suggested that it would be fairer and more effective to tighten up on judgihg (includinhg educatioh to NOT put up the most extreme dogs - to look for moderation) THe organization approves a judge or not. I also suggested that it would be fairer and more effective to require recommended health clearances for ALL dogs, not just specific breeds, and not by examination by non specialized vets who have been given an ajenda. I hardly see how that is being "fine" with the issues that are out of hand. Great spin though. The fact is, we don't know that ANY of these dogs were unhealthy or in pain. I bet you haven't even seen pictures of them, let alone actually seen them. Yet you and several others here are willing to believe the worst based on absolutely no evidence.


----------



## sassafras

Pawzk9 said:


> I bet you haven't even seen pictures of them, let alone actually seen them. Yet you and several others here are willing to believe the worst based on absolutely no evidence.


You continue to deflect and make strawman arguments. I am not talking about the specific dog that was disqualified, I am arguing against the argument that "well it's NORMAL for breed xyz to have abc problem" which is ridiculous and disgusting. 

Arguments like "find a breed that hasn't changed in the last 100 years", and "well the breed standard hasn't changed that's not the problem judges rewarding trends or fashions and that's what leads to extremes" have been made in this thread and yet there's NO WAY to breed a basset to standard (as per the remarks in the link) without giving it a problem that it can't pass a health check because that's what the breed is and it can't change? Really, I'm supposed to buy that?

Before this whole Crufts debacle, I actually didn't really have anything against showing or breeding for show. But the kind of responses I'm reading (not just here, all over the place) are really changing my mind about that. Blame AR, blame PDE, blame the inhuman monster vet who wouldn't give a thirsty Peke a drink of water, blame whoever your usual suspects are -- but in all honesty it's the RESPONSES of bad apple breeders who have chosen to dig in their heels and throw their dogs under the wheels of the circled wagons for the sake of ribbons and attention that are changing my mind. Sad and angering, really.


----------



## Moxie

sassafras said:


> You continue to deflect and make strawman arguments. I am not talking about the specific dog that was disqualified, I am arguing against the argument that "well it's NORMAL for breed xyz to have abc problem" which is ridiculous and disgusting.
> 
> Arguments like "find a breed that hasn't changed in the last 100 years", and "well the breed standard hasn't changed that's not the problem judges rewarding trends or fashions and that's what leads to extremes" have been made in this thread and yet there's NO WAY to breed a basset to standard (as per the remarks in the link) without giving it a problem that it can't pass a health check because that's what the breed is and it can't change? Really, I'm supposed to buy that?
> 
> *Before this whole Crufts debacle, I actually didn't really have anything against showing or breeding for show. But the kind of responses I'm reading (not just here, all over the place) are really changing my mind about that. Blame AR, blame PDE, blame the inhuman monster vet who wouldn't give a thirsty Peke a drink of water, blame whoever your usual suspects are -- but in all honesty it's the RESPONSES of bad apple breeders who have chosen to dig in their heels and throw their dogs under the wheels of the circled wagons for the sake of ribbons and attention that are changing my mind. Sad and angering, really.*


BBM. This. Exactly this. The behavior and statements made by people defending the status quo are hurting the fancy more than any vet check could. I honestly don't see how anyone can reasonably complain that disqualifications are ruining public perception of the show circle, they're doing just fine ruining it themselves! It's the response to a simple vet check that's shaping perception; it certainly has shaped mine.


----------



## juliemule

Pawzk9 said:


> I have suggested that it would be fairer and more effective to tighten up on judgihg (includinhg educatioh to NOT put up the most extreme dogs - to look for moderation) THe organization approves a judge or not. I also suggested that it would be fairer and more effective to require recommended health clearances for ALL dogs, not just specific breeds, and not by examination by non specialized vets who have been given an ajenda. I hardly see how that is being "fine" with the issues that are out of hand. Great spin though. The fact is, we don't know that ANY of these dogs were unhealthy or in pain. I bet you haven't even seen pictures of them, let alone actually seen them. Yet you and several others here are willing to believe the worst based on absolutely no evidence.


then I really don't understand why you keep defending it. I don't need to see any one dog. Look St the breeds in general pawz, do you honestly think we are bettering the breed with the examples of let's say the gsd or Pekingese, or any other breed on that list? ?

Hell I won't even become involved in conformation showing of malinois, not because of any exaggeration. (This is a breed that is basically unchanged since the beginning) and not because of any health issues, for the simple fact that many involved take NO consideration to the fact that the breed needs more than just looks, and I will not support breeders who will in any way let this beaded decline in ability, nerve, or quality, which I see happening in many breeds!


----------



## Pawzk9

sassafras said:


> You continue to deflect and make strawman arguments. I am not talking about the specific dog that was disqualified, I am arguing against the argument that "well it's NORMAL for breed xyz to have abc problem" which is ridiculous and disgusting.
> 
> Arguments like "find a breed that hasn't changed in the last 100 years", and "well the breed standard hasn't changed that's not the problem judges rewarding trends or fashions and that's what leads to extremes" have been made in this thread and yet there's NO WAY to breed a basset to standard (as per the remarks in the link) without giving it a problem that it can't pass a health check because that's what the breed is and it can't change? Really, I'm supposed to buy that?
> 
> Before this whole Crufts debacle, I actually didn't really have anything against showing or breeding for show. But the kind of responses I'm reading (not just here, all over the place) are really changing my mind about that. Blame AR, blame PDE, blame the inhuman monster vet who wouldn't give a thirsty Peke a drink of water, blame whoever your usual suspects are -- but in all honesty it's the RESPONSES of bad apple breeders who have chosen to dig in their heels and throw their dogs under the wheels of the circled wagons for the sake of ribbons and attention that are changing my mind. Sad and angering, really.


I would suggest that the strawman is yours. I haven't seen a single person here state "find a breed that hasn't changed in the last 100 years", or "well the breed standard hasn't changed that's not the problem judges rewarding trends or fashions and that's what leads to extremes" have been made in this thread and yet there's NO WAY to breed a basset to standard. Nobody except you. I suspect the basset IS to standard. I haven't watched the judging yet. The thread IS about the dogs who were disqualified. It's about Crufts, specifically. If you don't believe that, look at the subject line. I find it a little frightening and disheartening that so many here are perfectly willing to believe that the disqualified dogs are genetically unsound and in pain and don't deserve to be bred, with so little real evidence.


----------



## houndies

Pawzk9 said:


> So? Who says the basset does not fit the standard? Have you seen pictures of the dog? A general practitioner vet who has no training as a show judge or in understanding breed standards. I think the vets (and this is surmise, based on what I have read) is that the vets at least assumed they were expected to fail some dogs, if not told outright. It's a traversty


Indeed. I have also heard that it was a given there were going to be DQs (not saying it is true BTW) 
SOB did you highlight those descriptions to show the new bits that were only added a couple years ago to the BH standard or are you trying to show Buzz as being off standard?
I know him and his breeders. Honestly yes he's a big boy but very healthy, perfect skin, beautiful temperament and and has amazing movement. 
Buzz

http://www.dereheath.com/CH_Buzz_Lightyear_at_Dereheath.php


----------



## Pawzk9

Moxie said:


> BBM. This. Exactly this. The behavior and statements made by people defending the status quo are hurting the fancy more than any vet check could. I honestly don't see how anyone can reasonably complain that disqualifications are ruining public perception of the show circle, they're doing just fine ruining it themselves! It's the response to a simple vet check that's shaping perception; it certainly has shaped mine.


Who here is defending the status quo? People including me have stated that this is not the best way to address the issues. It's a weak and unsubstantial offering to public opinion. And I do suspect the examining vets went into the job knowing that they were supposed to find SOMETHING to disqualify at least a few dogs. I don't think it was an honest or apolitical effort


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Pawzk9 said:


> Who here is defending the status quo? People including me have stated that this is not the best way to address the issues. It's a weak and unsubstantial offering to public opinion. And I do suspect the examining vets went into the job knowing that they were supposed to find SOMETHING to disqualify at least a few dogs. I don't think it was an honest or apolitical effort


 And Yet the fact that no one is going to get around remains out there.......

At least four of the dogs, the Clumber, Bassett, Bulldog, and Peke, were failed due to eye issues. 

A GP vet is not qualified to diagnose, make determinations on the cause, etc of conditions of the eye.

IF a GP can clear or fail eyes, then everyone that has been taking their dogs to credentialed specialists all these years needs to get their money back. 

I know if I found out my regular vet could clear my dogs, I would be wanting about 1200 bucks back from three dogs.


And this is not a crack on vets. I respect vets and work very closely with my vets.

And I am all about testing and health clearances. I got above and beyond what is called for in my breed. 

A random vet at a show is not the way to do it.


----------



## Pawzk9

juliemule said:


> then I really don't understand why you keep defending it. I don't need to see any one dog. Look St the breeds in general pawz, do you honestly think we are bettering the breed with the examples of let's say the gsd or Pekingese, or any other breed on that list? ?
> 
> Hell I won't even become involved in conformation showing of malinois, not because of any exaggeration. (This is a breed that is basically unchanged since the beginning) and not because of any health issues, for the simple fact that many involved take NO consideration to the fact that the breed needs more than just looks, and I will not support breeders who will in any way let this beaded decline in ability, nerve, or quality, which I see happening in many breeds!


What do I "keep defending"? It's certainly your right to not show conformation. I don't either. And I wouldn't buy a conformation line Aussie. I've been offered some for free, and declined. But I'm not the breed police and don't tell other people what they are allowed to value in a dog. I also think that a show is a show, not an inquisition. The point is, you can say, yes, certain breeds are in trouble. And I'd preferr to see screenings from a specialist than a cursory examination by a general practitioner vet who was probably given an ajenda to find something wrong with at least a few dogs. And I find it horrific that so many people automatically seem to be accepting that the dogs disqualified are poor representatives of their respected breeds. I've seen a picture of the Bulll dog. I've watched the judging She is, infact, a nice moderate dog for her breed and deserved to represent the breed in BIS. My opinion only of course. But to have an opinion it's a good idea to at least look at the dogs involved.


----------



## juliemule

Pawzk9 said:


> Well, dog showing is a SPORT. It is a sport that many people enjoy. And like many sports, it's more fun to come in first than last. You don't have to show. You don't have to own a purebred. But do you really think you have the right to tell other people what sports they need to enjoy or refrain from. Are you that omnipotent?


This is defending.
Some view dog fighting as a sport. Doesn't make it right. If dogs are suffering, it should be changed. If show dogs are suffering, it should be changed. Just because a person doesn't compete, shouldn't mean they shouldn't care what goes on in that venue.

I am glad to see you agree with somethings needing to be changed in some breeds. We may disagree on the way it should be done, but at least something IS being done now.


----------



## Pawzk9

juliemule said:


> This is defending.
> Some view dog fighting as a sport. Doesn't make it right. If dogs are suffering, it should be changed. If show dogs are suffering, it should be changed. Just because a person doesn't compete, shouldn't mean they shouldn't care what goes on in that venue.
> 
> I am glad to see you agree with somethings needing to be changed in some breeds. We may disagree on the way it should be done, but at least something IS being done now.


Defending what? If dog showing is not a sport, what, exactly, is it? Surely you can't REALLY equate it with dog fighting? Something being done is not always a promise of success. And this was surely a very poorly thought out "something"


----------



## Rescued

Pawzk9 said:


> Well, I do see a whole lot of people here who are jumping to conclusion... without even seeing a PICTURE of the dogs.


Well you asked...Here's a picture.

http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/basset_hound/dog.html?id=863044

I wasn't really able to comment on the eye quality after seeing the dog, because I cannot see the actual eye. If the standard called for excessive haw, this dog definitely fits it.

I'll also go ahead and field comments that this is an unfair picture because the breeder did not provide it. Lets have a look at the two pictures on her website:

http://www.dereheath.com/CH_Buzz_Lightyear_at_Dereheath.php

Once again, I cannot comment on the eye quality, as I am unable to actually see the eye.


----------



## Rescued

Pawzk9 said:


> If loose skin isn't functional for certain purposes, what do you have to say about WORKING bloodhounds? I've never heard the "justification" you give, by the way.
> .


Bloodhounds have more olfactory receptors than other breeds. Loose skin has very little to do with it.

Can someone please explain why loose skin would be so important in a dog that hunts, tracks, and goes through brush? It must just be a coincidence that (almost?) all other hunting breeds are shorthaired without excess skin- the pointer, retriever, spaniel...


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> Well you asked...Here's a picture.
> 
> http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/basset_hound/dog.html?id=863044
> 
> I wasn't really able to comment on the eye quality after seeing the dog, because I cannot see the actual eye. If the standard called for excessive haw, this dog definitely fits it.
> 
> I'll also go ahead and field comments that this is an unfair picture because the breeder did not provide it. Lets have a look at the two pictures on her website:
> 
> http://www.dereheath.com/CH_Buzz_Lightyear_at_Dereheath.php
> 
> Once again, I cannot comment on the eye quality, as I am unable to actually see the eye.


Perhaps you should try glasses? I can see the dog's eye perfectly well in two of the three pictures (not the one with the eyes closed). Is there some haw showing? Yes, Does it look like cojunctivitis? No.


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> Bloodhounds have more olfactory receptors than other breeds. Loose skin has very little to do with it.
> 
> Can someone please explain why loose skin would be so important in a dog that hunts, tracks, and goes through brush? It must just be a coincidence that (almost?) all other hunting breeds are shorthaired without excess skin- the pointer, retriever, spaniel...


Loose skin catches scent and makes it stronger for the dog. Scent hounds are not the same thing as pointers and retrievers.


----------



## Rescued

Pawzk9 said:


> Loose skin catches scent and makes it stronger for the dog. Scent hounds are not the same thing as pointers and retrievers.


Then by that explanation, we would expect that the two loose skinned scent hounds would be the most popular with SAR and other programs, correct? Definitely more popular than beagles, since they must be worse at tracking a scent...because they dont have folds of skin on their face....

EDIT: The basset breed standard calls for


spanielorbust said:


> General Appearance: Short-legged hound of considerable substance, well balanced, full of quality. It is important to bear in mind that this is a working hound and must be fit for purpose, therefore should be strong, active and *capable of great endurance* in the field.
> 
> SOB


Do you really think that the CH basset is capable of "great endurance?" It might be, if the folds of skin covering its midsection did not literally *come in contact* with the ground.


----------



## Rescued

Pawzk9 said:


> Perhaps you should try glasses? I can see the dog's eye perfectly well in two of the three pictures (not the one with the eyes closed). Is there some haw showing? Yes, Does it look like cojunctivitis? No.


...Perfectly well?

http://www.albanybassets.co.uk/images/Albany/Noggin 2010.jpg

And if a licensed DVM isn't qualified to detect conjunctivitis, I don't really think it's fair for either of us to comment on its presence. Haw is a physical feature.


----------



## spanielorbust

houndies said:


> Indeed. I have also heard that it was a given there were going to be DQs (not saying it is true BTW)
> *SOB did you highlight those descriptions to show the new bits that were only added a couple years ago to the BH standard or are you trying to show Buzz as being off standard?*
> I know him and his breeders. Honestly yes he's a big boy but very healthy, perfect skin, beautiful temperament and and has amazing movement.
> Buzz
> 
> http://www.dereheath.com/CH_Buzz_Lightyear_at_Dereheath.php


I have no clue as to what the standard might have read a few years go. I saw a breeder on a video suggesting she could not breed a dog to standard that would pass a vet check. I went and read the standard and did not understand why she said that as I saw nothing in the standard that might prevent a pass, so I asked. I highlighted the items that MIGHT cause difficulties with regard to haw. Loose skin and lozenge eyes might be what leads to problems but I don't know if they would in moderation.

Were the items I bolded changed just recently? 










http://www.albanybassets.co.uk/gallery1.php

Can anyone tell me if the Albany Bassets have what would be called 'lozenge eyes'. Do THEY fit the standard? If they do are we then talking about a wide variance of interpretation to what the standard actually is aiming for?

I also just found this statement by the BH club so will link it. - http://www.bhcofwales.org.uk/CRUFTS 2012.pdf 

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> Then by that explanation, we would expect that the two loose skinned scent hounds would be the most popular with SAR and other programs, correct? Definitely more popular than beagles, since they must be worse at tracking a scent...because they dont have folds of skin on their face....
> 
> EDIT: The basset breed standard calls for
> 
> Do you really think that the CH basset is capable of "great endurance?" It might be, if the folds of skin covering its midsection did not literally *come in contact* with the ground.


I don't know that many basset hounds are still used for work. But I also don't know of any beagles used for man trailing.


----------



## Willowy

Pawzk9 said:


> I would suggest that the strawman is yours. I haven't seen a single person here state "find a breed that hasn't changed in the last 100 years", or "well the breed standard hasn't changed that's not the problem judges rewarding trends or fashions and that's what leads to extremes" have been made in this thread and yet there's NO WAY to breed a basset to standard. Nobody except you. I suspect the basset IS to standard. I haven't watched the judging yet. The thread IS about the dogs who were disqualified. It's about Crufts, specifically. If you don't believe that, look at the subject line. I find it a little frightening and disheartening that so many here are perfectly willing to believe that the disqualified dogs are genetically unsound and in pain and don't deserve to be bred, with so little real evidence.


 I could go back and find the instances. . .but I'd rather not dig through 33 pages . But, yes, those arguments were made, several times. And nobody said it's not possible to breed a Basset to standard, but the breeder herself said that it would be impossible to breed a Basset to standard AND pass a vet check. If that's true, maybe the breed is broken and none of them deserve to win. You keep saying that the Bulldog is moderate "for her breed". And that's the problem, isn't it? That in some breeds, unhealthy has become normal. 

Yeah, it's just a sport. But it's a sport that--or so they tell us--is relevant to average dog owners.

ETA: and, yeah, what IS a "lozenge-shaped eye"? LOL, I believe I've seen lozenges in all shapes.


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> ...Perfectly well?
> 
> http://www.albanybassets.co.uk/images/Albany/Noggin 2010.jpg
> 
> And if a licensed DVM isn't qualified to detect conjunctivitis, I don't really think it's fair for either of us to comment on its presence. Haw is a physical feature.


Yup. I could see the dog's eye with no proiblems. The amount of loose skin is kind of gross to me. But then, I have no desire to own a basset. I don't know that it causes the dog discomfort. But showing some haw in a number of breeds is not unusual. I'm not certain a little haw (which is what this dog shows, by the pictures you presented) is, in itself damaging or painful. I suspect this basset could pass a vet exam. Just not this particular exam that was loaded for bear. I do think the vets were given reason to think that they were expected to fail dogs. It's surprising that several actually were allowed through.


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> I could go back and find the instances. . .but I'd rather not dig through 33 pages . But, yes, those arguments were made, several times. And nobody said it's not possible to breed a Basset to standard, but the breeder herself said that it would be impossible to breed a Basset to standard AND pass a vet check. If that's true, maybe the breed is broken and none of them deserve to win. You keep saying that the Bulldog is moderate "for her breed". And that's the problem, isn't it? That in some breeds, unhealthy has become normal.


What makes you think the Bulldog is "unhealthy'?


----------



## Willowy

I've never laid eyes on _that_ Bulldog. But Bulldogs in general. . .that's been discussed, too .

Looking at the difference between the Basset that was DQed and the one SOB posted, there's a huge difference. But both are still Bassets. Is there something about the more normal looking dog that would make him out of standard? As I read the standard I don't see anything that would DQ a dog like that. If a dog like that were entered in a show, is there a true reason he wouldn't win? Or is it just show fashion that a show Basset needs to have body parts dragging on the ground and eyes so saggy he can barely see?


----------



## sassafras

Pawzk9 said:


> I would suggest that the strawman is yours. I haven't seen a single person here state "find a breed that hasn't changed in the last 100 years", or "well the breed standard hasn't changed that's not the problem judges rewarding trends or fashions and that's what leads to extremes" have been made in this thread and yet there's NO WAY to breed a basset to standard. Nobody except you.





cshellenberger said:


> There has been about the same amount of change in Dobermans, Boxers, and Mastiffs (since the breed was 'revived' after WW1).* Show me a breed that is hugely popular that looks the same as it did 100 years ago.*


That one I remember because it made my mind explode. Then there's this:



Pai said:


> The PDE Blog has an interesting clip from a recent Canine Alliance meeting.


Which if you bothered to read it, which I question due to your stubborn insistence that "no one" has made the claim that is... well, claimed here...



> A couple of others have mentioned it too so here it is. It's the moment when Heather Storton of Dereheath Bassets stood up and told the meeting that the vet that failed her dog at Crufts said to her: "I am judging this dog as a dog, not a Basset Hound". As you'll hear, there is laughter.
> 
> And when Mrs Storton says that she doesn't think that any any Basset that had gone into that room would have passed the test, the crowd claps supportively.
> 
> *"The breed standard that is in place for Bassets...I cannot produce the animal they want me to take into that veterinary room," insists Mrs Storton. " I cannot produce a lozenge-shaped eye that will get through that exam."*





> I suspect the basset IS to standard. I haven't watched the judging yet. The thread IS about the dogs who were disqualified. It's about Crufts, specifically. If you don't believe that, look at the subject line. I find it a little frightening and disheartening that so many here are perfectly willing to believe that the disqualified dogs are genetically unsound and in pain and don't deserve to be bred, with so little real evidence.


ONCE AGAIN, my anger is in response to the statement previous link - the one with the person stating that they wouldn't be able to breed bassets to the standard that could pass the health check. Am I in some alternate universe where not only is it OK to intentionally breed to a standard that by the breeders' own admission requires a problem that will cause their dog to fail a health check but it is preferable to changing the breed standard?


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Pawzk9 said:


> The thread IS about the dogs who were disqualified. It's about Crufts, specifically. If you don't believe that, look at the subject line. I find it a little frightening and disheartening that so many here are perfectly willing to believe that the disqualified dogs are genetically unsound and in pain and don't deserve to be bred, with so little real evidence.


Actually I never intended for this thread to go this way, it was just brought up and has now snowballed.


----------



## Rescued

sassafras said:


> ONCE AGAIN, my anger is in response to the statement previous link - the one with the person stating that they wouldn't be able to breed bassets to the standard that could pass the health check. Am I in some alternate universe where not only is it OK to intentionally breed to a standard that by the breeders' own admission requires a problem that will cause their dog to fail a health check but it is preferable to changing the breed standard?


THIS^. "Breed standard" starts to mean very little when you compare the albany and CH bassets, both purebred. I don't really think that's "Standard" when they look like completely different dogs...and one has proved that it actually CAN and DOES serve its original purpose, even without tons of folded skin.


----------



## jiml

obv the basset in question does not fit what is written in the standard, only what has become the norm. If bassets are no longer need "great endurance" then the standard should be changed. Not just a blind eye to what is actually written. 




Pawzk9 said:


> I don't know that many basset hounds are still used for work. But I also don't know of any beagles used for man trailing.


----------



## Rescued

http://www.bassethoundclub.co.uk/documents/CRUFTS 2012.pdf

From the breed club:

"The colour of the conjunctivae was pink, perhaps a little raised in pink – not red or 
inflamed. He put the slightly raised colour down to the high level of exercise 
immediately prior to the Health Check – the high speed and considerable amount of 
movement, asked for by the Judge, around the ring when the Dog and Bitch 
challenged for Best of Breed."

This is part of the issue. Since when is a ten minute high-paced trot considered "considerable" exercise for a breed that was originally intended to work?


----------



## houndies

spanielorbust said:


> I have no clue as to what the standard might have read a few years go. I saw a breeder on a video suggesting she could not breed a dog to standard that would pass a vet check. I went and read the standard and did not understand why she said that as I saw nothing in the standard that might prevent a pass, so I asked. I highlighted the items that MIGHT cause difficulties with regard to haw. Loose skin and lozenge eyes might be what leads to problems but I don't know if they would in moderation.
> 
> Were the items I bolded changed just recently?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.albanybassets.co.uk/gallery1.php
> 
> Can anyone tell me if the Albany Bassets have what would be called 'lozenge eyes'. Do THEY fit the standard? If they do are we then talking about a wide variance of interpretation to what the standard actually is aiming for?
> 
> I also just found this statement by the BH club so will link it. - http://www.bhcofwales.org.uk/CRUFTS 2012.pdf
> 
> SOB


You did highlight all the recent changes.
Albany Bassets are a hunting pack and not recognised by the KC as being Basset Hounds-they are not at all to standard. They have their own registration called the MBHC. It has been like this for a long time. I will not bore you with the history of the Basset but there has been a split for a long time. Albany Bassets - I have been to their fundraising events for years - are nothing like Basset Hounds - in movemment, temperament, voice, and speed - they are too fast and quite honestly unfit for purpose of what a true Basset Hound was for 600 years ago. Albany Bassets are much more like Beagles and supposedly they have been outcrossed. I would really like Alison Jeffers to show some DNA reports....


----------



## Pawzk9

sassafras said:


> ONCE AGAIN, my anger is in response to the statement previous link - the one with the person stating that they wouldn't be able to breed bassets to the standard that could pass the health check. Am I in some alternate universe where not only is it OK to intentionally breed to a standard that by the breeders' own admission requires a problem that will cause their dog to fail a health check but it is preferable to changing the breed standard?


If the health checks were fair and honest, you'd have a point there. I strongly suspect they were biased and political. And unsuccessful in noting a healthy dog.


----------



## Pawzk9

jiml said:


> obv the basset in question does not fit what is written in the standard, only what has become the norm. If bassets are no longer need "great endurance" then the standard should be changed. Not just a blind eye to what is actually written.


The dog was not failed for a lack of endurance. He was failed because the normal color of the haw was showing.


----------



## Pawzk9

houndies said:


> You did highlight all the recent changes.
> Albany Bassets are a hunting pack and not recognised by the KC as being Basset Hounds-they are not at all to standard. They have their own registration called the MBHC. It has been like this for a long time. I will not bore you with the history of the Basset but there has been a split for a long time. Albany Bassets - I have been to their fundraising events for years - are nothing like Basset Hounds - in movemment, temperament, voice, and speed - they are too fast and quite honestly unfit for purpose of what a true Basset Hound was for 600 years ago. Albany Bassets are much more like Beagles and supposedly they have been outcrossed. I would really like Alison Jeffers to show some DNA reports....


They do look a great deal like a number of BassetxBeagle mixesj I've seen. Funny how horrified a number of people are of purposeful crossbreeding - until, of course.


----------



## houndies

Rescued said:


> Bloodhounds have more olfactory receptors than other breeds. Loose skin has very little to do with it.
> 
> Can someone please explain why loose skin would be so important in a dog that hunts, tracks, and goes through brush? It must just be a coincidence that (almost?) all other hunting breeds are shorthaired without excess skin- the pointer, retriever, spaniel...


Scent.Loose skin keeps the scent. Loose mouths and drool tastes the scent. They are French breeds - France developed a hound for every type of hunting -game, terrain, weather and how they wanted to hunt.


----------



## Pawzk9

sassafras said:


> Blame AR, blame PDE, blame the inhuman monster vet who wouldn't give a thirsty Peke a drink of water, blame whoever your usual suspects are -- but in all honesty it's the RESPONSES of bad apple breeders who have chosen to dig in their heels and throw their dogs under the wheels of the circled wagons for the sake of ribbons and attention that are changing my mind. Sad and angering, really.


So, as a vet, you think it's okay to deny water to a dog who has just been in the ring with bright lighting for several minutes. The peke judging took quite a while to judge, considering there had to be four videos to show the whole thing. By the way, I am not a bad apple breeder and I don't show conformation. I STILL think the whole plan was poorlly conceived and even more poorly carried out. Doesn't mean I deny that there are issues in more than 15 breeds, or that extreme dogs sometimes win. Just that I think this isn't an answer.


----------



## sassafras

Pawzk9 said:


> If the health checks were fair and honest, you'd have a point there. I strongly suspect they were biased and political. And unsuccessful in noting a healthy dog.


If you believe that, then honestly there's no discussion to be had. 



Pawzk9 said:


> So, as a vet, you think it's okay to deny water to a dog who has just been in the ring with bright lighting for several minutes.


More deflection. It doesn't have anything to do with the larger issue at hand. Anyway, I strongly suspect that the Peke owner's statement, in addition to being highly emotional, was biased and political. :/


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sassafras said:


> I strongly suspect that the Peke owner's statement, in addition to being highly emotional, was biased and political. :/




And yours aren't?


----------



## Roloni

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> 3rd in Group) Akita: CH. Redwitch Leather and Lace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ]


Great looking dog!


----------



## Rescued

JohnnyBandit said:


> And yours aren't?


I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally am not seeking the destruction of the pedigreed dog world...As you stated, tons of health testing has been sponsored as well as having a portion of GOOD breeders that put health and quality of life first, or at least of equal importance to the magical breed standard.

What would I (mutt owner) gain from the destruction of the KC? It's not like we need more mutts.... I just feel as though people are being pegged as AR or PDE (again, this is a general statement, not towards you specifically) because we want answers about this whole "health testing" Crufts thing. Just like breeders keep arguing that ultimately its about the dogs- I would think (hope) that very few people are in this to slander, and do not care about the health aspect at all.


----------



## sassafras

JohnnyBandit said:


> And yours aren't?


I think you missed my point.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Rescued said:


> I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally am not seeking the destruction of the pedigreed dog world...As you stated, tons of health testing has been sponsored as well as having a portion of GOOD breeders that put health and quality of life first, or at least of equal importance to the magical breed standard.
> 
> What would I (mutt owner) gain from the destruction of the KC? It's not like we need more mutts.... I just feel as though people are being pegged as AR or PDE (again, this is a general statement, not towards you specifically) because we want answers about this whole "health testing" Crufts thing. Just like breeders keep arguing that ultimately its about the dogs- I would think (hope) that very few people are in this to slander, and do not care about the health aspect at all.




I never suggested you were. Although there are some that have commented on this thread that I fully believe are in favor of seeing the end of purebred dogs. At least they think they are....

That being said.... I think testing is a great thing. I think all breeders should be testing..... 
But for an owner or a breeder to travel around seeing specialists, specialists, paying for expensive detailed testing, just to have whatever vet the KC chooses fail the dog.

IF anything this publicity stunt set testing back... Because breeders of breeds that are haphazzard about testing, have now dug their heels in. The KC has betrayed the people they represent.....


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

JohnnyBandit said:


> The KC has betrayed the people they represent.....


Which they have been doing for years.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sassafras said:


> I think you missed my point.


No I got your point..... And asked a question.....


----------



## So Cavalier

> IF anything this publicity stunt set testing back... Because breeders of breeds that are haphazzard about testing, have now dug their heels in. The KC has betrayed the people they represent.....


Again, its all about the people...that's the problem....it SHOULD be about the dogs. A good breeder will do what's right because they LOVE and CARE about their breed. It shouldn't matter to them if someone else is telling them that they need to test their dogs. They should be doing it because it is the RIGHT thing to do. I DO believe there are amazing breeders who do do things to better their breed. There are some really wonderful Cavalier breeders. It will be from one of them, that I get my next Cavalier.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

So Cavalier said:


> Again, its all about the people...that's the problem....it SHOULD be about the dogs. A good breeder will do what's right because they LOVE and CARE about their breed. It shouldn't matter to them if someone else is telling them that they need to test their dogs. They should be doing it because it is the RIGHT thing to do. I DO believe there are amazing breeders who do do things to better their breed. There are some really wonderful Cavalier breeders. It will be from one of them, that I get my next Cavalier.



What you do not understand..... The KC does represent the people..... The owners, breeders and exhibitors are the ones that should be championing the dogs.....


----------



## sassafras

JohnnyBandit said:


> No I got your point..... And asked a question.....


Does it matter what my answer is, when most people are simply running everything through their own internal filters to justify their previously held positions?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sassafras said:


> Does it matter what my answer is, when most people are simply running everything through their own internal filters to justify their previously held positions?


To answer your question...... Based on some 30 odd pages, of this thread..... Any answer other than to affirm that your posts are biased wouldn't matter in the least.....

BTW.....Nice deflection..... Answering a question with a question...... Seems I remember someone else accusing a member of deflecting a few posts back.


----------



## So Cavalier

> What you do not understand..... The KC does represent the people..... The owners, breeders and exhibitors are the ones that *should* be championing the dogs.....


Yes, I DO understand.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

So Cavalier said:


> Yes, I DO understand.


Then why do you say it is a problem? A KC is an organization that supports, owners, breeders, fanciers, of dogs. It is an organization that is set up to support and guide people within the dog community. The dogs are not the members of the kennel club.... The people are..... The the KC has betrayed their membership.

The people are the ones that should be championing the dogs.


----------



## sassafras

JohnnyBandit said:


> To answer your question...... Based on some 30 odd pages, of this thread..... Any answer other than to affirm that your posts are biased wouldn't matter in the least.....
> 
> BTW.....Nice deflection..... Answering a question with a question...... Seems I remember someone else accusing a member of deflecting a few posts back.


I really, really don't think you got my point earlier, but since you insist on being a literalist I feel the need to point out that I have not excluded myself from any statement I've made about "everyone". Of course my statements are emotional and biased _along with everyone else's_ -- although I have no political interests or stake in dog showing.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sassafras said:


> I really, really don't think you got my point earlier, but since you insist on being a literalist I feel the need to point out that I have not excluded myself from any statement I've made about "everyone". Of course my statements are emotional and biased _along with everyone else's_ -- although I have no political interests or stake in dog showing.


Well since this is about a situation in the UK, very few of us have any political interest or stake in what is going on over there. I know there are a few members that have posted that are in the UK. But most of us.... This is all just an excercise....


----------



## Pawzk9

sassafras said:


> If you believe that, then honestly there's no discussion to be had.
> 
> :/


 Yup. I honestlly believe that the vets went into the exams with an agenda. And I didn't pull that out of thin air.




sassafras said:


> More deflection. It doesn't have anything to do with the larger issue at hand. Anyway, I strongly suspect that the Peke owner's statement, in addition to being highly emotional, was biased and political.:/



And I think the vet exam was biased and political. How the exhibitors and their dogs were treated IS completely on topic and part of the huge issue at hand. I have to tell you, if I was treated like a criminal for showing my dog and winning, I'd be highly emotional too.


----------



## Pawzk9

sassafras said:


> Does it matter what my answer is, when most people are simply running everything through their own internal filters to justify their previously held positions?


Including you.


----------



## Pawzk9

sassafras said:


> I really, really don't think you got my point earlier, but since you insist on being a literalist I feel the need to point out that I have not excluded myself from any statement I've made about "everyone". Of course my statements are emotional and biased _along with everyone else's_ -- although I have no political interests or stake in dog showing.


Nor do I. But I do believe in fairness,.


----------



## sassafras

Pawzk9 said:


> Yup. I honestlly believe that the vets went into the exams with an agenda. And I didn't pull that out of thin air.


No, you pulled it out of choosing to dismiss a veterinarian's statement to the contrary but believing a breeder's statement that agrees with you. Status quo: Preserved.


----------



## Pawzk9

sassafras said:


> No, you pulled it out of choosing to dismiss a veterinarian's statement to the contrary but believing a breeder's statement that agrees with you. Status quo: Preserved.


One only has to look at the available information/lack of information with an open mind to see what has happened.


----------



## houndies

JohnnyBandit said:


> Then why do you say it is a problem? A KC is an organization that supports, owners, breeders, fanciers, of dogs. It is an organization that is set up to support and guide people within the dog community. The dogs are not the members of the kennel club.... The people are..... The the KC has betrayed their membership.
> 
> The people are the ones that should be championing the dogs.


In a nutshell! I don't think any of us believe it is NOT about the dogs.


----------



## houndies

Rescued said:


> Then by that explanation, we would expect that the two loose skinned scent hounds would be the most popular with SAR and other programs, correct? Definitely more popular than beagles, since they must be worse at tracking a scent...because they dont have folds of skin on their face....
> 
> EDIT: The basset breed standard calls for
> 
> Do you really think that the CH basset is capable of "great endurance?" It might be, if the folds of skin covering its midsection did not literally *come in contact* with the ground.


How do you know he doesn't have great endurance? And no bits touch the ground btw. Beagles hunt in a completely different way. Bassets are for hunting on foot - they flush and don't kill. They were bred to be basically in form as a short Bloodhound. No other breed of dog has the sniffing ability as a Basset or Bloodhound. Believe me it can be a very frustrating thing to compete with - noses on legs


----------



## Big Ears

The Albany Bassets have never been outcrossed with Beagles, that is inacurate information often quoted by the show world to explain why the Albany bassets look so different (and much nicer) when compared to show hounds.

Having also seen their hounds I think Houdies should amend her statement to: The Albany Bassets are nothing like KC show Basset Hounds - in movemment, temperament, voice, and speed. They are fit for purpose and can still do what a true Basset Hound was originally bred for


----------



## houndies

Albany Bassets are not Bassets IMO and in many. They sound more like Beagles, move more like Beagles, and act more like Beagles. And another peeve is so many of them have turned out feet.
This is what really gets me about Alison and the likes. Who are you to say what is fit for purpose? My hounds all but one who is a rescue come from good breeders (who show). They have tremendous stamina and will pick up a scent and are off hounding - music to the ears - for miles. Fit for and performing purpose.
Perhaps it is just a matter of taste....


----------



## Rescued

houndies said:


> How do you know he doesn't have great endurance? And no bits touch the ground btw. Beagles hunt in a completely different way. Bassets are for hunting on foot - they flush and don't kill. They were bred to be basically in form as a short Bloodhound. No other breed of dog has the sniffing ability as a Basset or Bloodhound. Believe me it can be a very frustrating thing to compete with - noses on legs


http://www.bhcofwales.org.uk/CRUFTS 2012.pdf

The colour.... the *high level of exercise *
immediately prior to the Health Check – the* high speed* and* considerable amount* of 
movement, asked for by the Judge, around the ring when the Dog and Bitch 
challenged for Best of Breed.

Endurance? I wasn't under the impression that a ten minute fast paced trot was something that would tire a dog capable of endurance while hunting in the field.


----------



## houndies

Rescued who said he was tired? Haws change colour from exercise, play, stress - it's to do with increased heartbeat and pumped blood. When my lot realises we are pulling up to the vets I can see instant change of colour


----------



## sassafras

Pawzk9 said:


> One only has to look at the available information/lack of information with an open mind to see what has happened.


LOL, wouldn't it be great if anyone was doing that?


----------



## jiml

To answer your question...... Based on some 30 odd pages, of this thread..... Any answer other than to affirm that your posts are biased wouldn't matter in the least>>>>

and the same can not be said for you? 

There is a growing population in the dog world (including the non conformation PB owners) that KC, AKC and the rest are moving many dog breeds in the wrong direction of form>function. The KC is trying to take a stab at that and outside of the show circles It is being widely applauded from what I can see. Was there method the best, prob not. Will it impruve-hopefully so.


----------



## Pawzk9

sassafras said:


> LOL, wouldn't it be great if anyone was doing that?


Absolutely!


----------



## spanielorbust

Big Ears said:


> The Albany Bassets have never been outcrossed with Beagles, that is inacurate information often quoted by the show world to explain why the Albany bassets look so different (and much nicer) when compared to show hounds.
> 
> Having also seen their hounds I think Houdies should amend her statement to: The Albany Bassets are nothing like KC show Basset Hounds - in movemment, temperament, voice, and speed. They are fit for purpose and can still do what a true Basset Hound was originally bred for


Thanks. I thought not as I've heard that kind of rumour mongering before, but let it slide as it is just not worth it. 

I like the Albanys. It is a matter of taste then as I see the Albanys as fitting the description in the standard. If taste is causing harm (daily pain due to bred for eye discomfort) to dogs then it is also a matter of welfare IMHO.

SOB


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

jiml said:


> \. Was there method the best, prob not.


And that is all people who see this for what it really is, are mad about. The way this was carried out was poor, it was humiliating to those who had to go through it, those that failed had to face the hounding press (more humiliation). 

If this was anything more than a knee jerk reaction, they would have ironed out all the kinks and tested this at a show before the worlds LARGEST and WELL RENOWNED show so that any further kinks of execution could be ironed out. That would have been the smart thing to do. But no they chose to make a big splash and betray those who support them, rather than supporting the people (which they stopped doing a while ago for some of those in the "infamous 15"). 

And why did the KC, two weeks before the show loose faith in the crufts vets to properly carry these tests out. Crufts vets who are specialist in various fields, who know what these breeders have accomplish in such a short amount of time, and who would look at the dogs not as generic dogs but as their respective breeds. Then they went with the vets they went with, one of which was clearly too harsh with the dogs. 

Almost all standards have changed (not just 15), the KC agreed with the breed clubs after a bunch of fighting of various wording (mostly on KC's part) with the changes. 

Personally, although some have too much excess skin (not all), the front assembly on Bassets have greatly improved in the last 30 some odd years.


----------



## houndies

SOB it is completely contradictory as they do not fit to standard. Yes please lets agree it is a matter of taste. 
And to suggest all Bassets beside the few hunting packs have eye discomfort is just plain ridiculous and quite slanderous really.


----------



## houndies

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> And that is all people who see this for what it really is, are mad about. The way this was carried out was poor, it was humiliating to those who had to go through it, those that failed had to face the hounding press (more humiliation).
> 
> If this was anything more than a knee jerk reaction, they would have ironed out all the kinks and tested this at a show before the worlds LARGEST and WELL RENOWNED show so that any further kinks of execution could be ironed out. That would have been the smart thing to do. But no they chose to make a big splash and betray those who support them, rather than supporting the people (which they stopped doing a while ago for some of those in the "infamous 15").
> 
> And why did the KC, two weeks before the show loose faith in the crufts vets to properly carry these tests out. Crufts vets who are specialist in various fields, who know what these breeders have accomplish in such a short amount of time, and who would look at the dogs not as generic dogs but as their respective breeds. Then they went with the vets they went with, one of which was clearly too harsh with the dogs.
> 
> Almost all standards have changed (not just 15), the KC agreed with the breed clubs after a bunch of fighting of various wording (mostly on KC's part) with the changes.
> 
> Personally, although some have too much excess skin (not all), the front assembly on Bassets have greatly improved in the last 30 some odd years.


Very good post
x


----------



## jiml

I will make a final argument on the general "show dog" form>function argument. You should not be able to go to a working dog forum where knowledgeable people make fun of show winning GSD's form or hunting forums where they day "god I would never hunt that dog" referring to the amt of debris that would get caught in the eyes. 

Now the show dog may not have the drive of its working counterpart but it sure should look the part.


----------



## houndies

There are very few breeds crossing over as a true working breed and to the show ring. Hmmm well the Bloodhound is one - a dog with haw. 
I think what MOST are saying yes to some changes and No to the way it has been handled. Very simple really....

My hounds are bred out of the Spartan kind,
So flew'd, so sanded, and their heads are hung
With ears that sweep away the morning dew;
Crook-knee'd, and dew-lapp'd like Thessalian bulls;
Slow in pursuit, but match'd in mouth like bells,
Each under each. A cry more tuneable
Was never holla'd to, nor cheer'd with horn,
In Crete, in Sparta, nor in Thessaly:
Judge when you hear.

Shakespeare writing about Basset Hounds
To me a real problem is stating things that you don't REALLy know enough about. I would never claim or write about breeds I don't have enough knowledge about.


----------



## Moxie

houndies said:


> SOB it is completely contradictory as they do not fit to standard. Yes please lets agree it is a matter of taste.
> And to suggest all Bassets beside the few hunting packs have eye discomfort is just plain ridiculous and quite slanderous really.


Suggesting that bassets may have eye discomfort is slanderous? You just came on here and directly accused a named individual breeder of unreported out-crossing. Wow. :doh:


----------



## houndies

Moxie said:


> Suggesting that bassets may have eye discomfort is slanderous? You just came on here and directly accused a named individual breeder of unreported out-crossing. Wow. :doh:


Supposedly as I said... And by the way Bassets were outcrossed to Bloodhounds and Beagles on a number of occasions over the years. WOW


----------



## spanielorbust

spanielorbust said:


> Thanks. I thought not as I've heard that kind of rumour mongering before, but let it slide as it is just not worth it.
> 
> I like the Albanys. It is a matter of taste then as I see the Albanys as fitting the description in the standard. If taste is causing harm (daily pain due to bred for eye discomfort) to dogs then it is also a matter of welfare IMHO.
> 
> SOB





houndies said:


> SOB it is completely contradictory as they do not fit to standard. Yes please lets agree it is a matter of taste.
> And to suggest all Bassets beside the few hunting packs have eye discomfort is just plain ridiculous and quite slanderous really.


I have supplied the post you have misconstrued. Please show me where I suggested that ALL Bassets beside the few hunting packs have eye discomfort.

I do believe that SOME Bassets are guaranteed eye discomfort due to a taste for breeding for over exaggeration with regard to the haw and loose skin, which my statement covered.










Source - http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.ca/2012/03/bit-too-much-haw.html

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

*"Positive meeting with the Canine Alliance*

The Kennel Club has held a positive meeting with the Canine Alliance that enabled it to listen to the views of the representatives about the vet checks that have been introduced to dog shows.

The meeting on Wednesday 28th March was held between Canine Alliance representatives; Robert Harlow, Alliance Secretary, Mike Gadsby and Lisa Croft-Elliott and Kennel Club representatives; Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club Secretary and Kathryn Symns, Executive of Canine Activities.

Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club Secretary, said: “We agreed to a meeting with the Canine Alliance so that we could hear the views of this group of exhibitors about the vet checks that have been introduced to Crufts and all Championship Shows.

“We are glad that we all share the same objective, of protecting and supporting the well-being of pedigree dogs and of ensuring that healthy dogs are rewarded in the show ring and we are committed to ensuring that fair and equitable measures are put in place to achieve this outcome.

“The Canine Alliance requested that vet checks be suspended immediately and whilst we informed the representatives that this would not be possible, we have asked the Alliance to present their specific proposals for our consideration.”

After the meeting Alliance secretary Robert Harlow said, "We were delighted with the response of the Kennel Club to our request for an early meeting, and felt that our proposals were being taken seriously. However, we are disappointed that the veterinary examinations of Best of Breed winners are continuing to go ahead in their present form, the first of which are due to take place at the United Kingdom Toydog Society Show on Saturday 31st March.

“Our members had hoped that this meeting would have led to a prompt response to the actions that gave rise to the formation of the Canine Alliance, and will be disappointed that their representatives were not given more positive assurances.

“We informed the Kennel Club that our next committee meeting is due to be held on 18th April and they have asked us to come back to them with specific proposals after that meeting.”

ENDS
30th March 2012"

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/4232/23/5/3​
SOB


----------



## houndies

How interesting...
If you have an issue perhaps you should pm me as I really do not want to get into a breed I know a lot about as you do with Cavs!!


----------



## +two

Pawzk9 said:


> Yup. I honestlly believe that the vets went into the exams with an agenda. And I didn't pull that out of thin air.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I think the vet exam was biased and political. How the exhibitors and their dogs were treated IS completely on topic and part of the huge issue at hand. I have to tell you, if I was treated like a criminal for showing my dog and winning, I'd be highly emotional too.


You keep saying this. One Vet released a statement that said nothing about being pressured to fail dogs. What gain would there be? She could loose her license and her livelihood. 


As far as it being a 'travesty' and breeders being treated like 'criminals', I guess we just must see things differently. What I keep hearing from a select few is that the breeders feelings were hurt and the KC turned against their membership. And then, I keep hearing a lot about all the money that goes into it. Well, I don't honestly care about any of those things and I imagine that most people who care about the dogs and not the sport do too. I think that is the issue that is being mulled up in this thread: we have people who care about the welfare of the dogs and then we have people who care about the welfare of their sport.


----------



## Pawzk9

+two said:


> You keep saying this. One Vet released a statement that said nothing about being pressured to fail dogs. What gain would there be? She could loose her license and her livelihood.
> 
> 
> As far as it being a 'travesty' and breeders being treated like 'criminals', I guess we just must see things differently. What I keep hearing from a select few is that the breeders feelings were hurt and the KC turned against their membership. And then, I keep hearing a lot about all the money that goes into it. Well, I don't honestly care about any of those things and I imagine that most people who care about the dogs and not the sport do too. I think that is the issue that is being mulled up in this thread: we have people who care about the welfare of the dogs and then we have people who care about the welfare of their sport.


Perhaps the vet should lose her license if she did what many people believe she did. And then, some of us care both about the welfare of the sport AND very much about the welfare of dogs. Just because you don't agree that doesn't mean you need to cast aspersions on those of us who do.


----------



## Pawzk9

spanielorbust said:


> Source - http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.ca/2012/03/bit-too-much-haw.html
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [SOB


I'd be more shocked by this picture if it were of an adult dog instead of a very young puppy. In many breeds (Shar Pei comes to mind) the puppies have a great deal more loose skin and wrinkles than they do as adults. Wassa matter, couldn't Jemmy find a picture of an adult that was shocking enuff?


----------



## Willowy

It's not the wrinkles. Do you not see his EYES? That's not normal.


----------



## Pawzk9

Does this dog look like she actually has severe entropion?
http://www.kennel-chervood.dk/photos/3635.jpg


----------



## Willowy

If a GP vet supposedly isn't qualified to diagnose entropion after examining the dog closely with a small flashlight, I'm not sure what you expect anyone to see from a fuzzy photo at a distance.


----------



## spanielorbust

houndies said:


> How interesting...
> If you have an issue perhaps you should pm me as I really do not want to get into a breed I know a lot about as you do with Cavs!!


I have no clue what you are speaking to as being interesting, or which 'issue' you are refering to that you think I have. Please clarify.

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> If a GP vet supposedly isn't qualified to diagnose entropion after examining the dog closely with a small flashlight, I'm not sure what you expect anyone to see from a fuzzy photo at a distance.


I think the GP vet saw what she was told to see. The picture is not that fuzzy and not that distant. Perhaps you need glasses.


----------



## Willowy

LOL, I DO have glasses. . .since I was 8. I'm told they work well . The pic looks fuzzy but maybe it's my screen. And really, you're saying a GP vet isn't qualified to diagnose eye issues from an exam but now you want random people (most of whom are not vets) to diagnose eye issues from a photo? Anyway, it's obvious that dog does not have a problem so glaring as the Basset puppy's eye problem, but who knows? Apparently anyone not an opthalomologist can't say.


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> LOL, I DO have glasses. . .since I was 8. I'm told they work well . The pic looks fuzzy but maybe it's my screen. And really, you're saying a GP vet isn't qualified to diagnose eye issues from an exam but now you want random people (most of whom are not vets) to diagnose eye issues from a photo? Anyway, it's obvious that dog does not have a problem so glaring as the Basset puppy's eye problem, but who knows? Apparently anyone not an opthalomologist can't say.


I'm not saying a vet CAN'T diagnose certain eye issues (some do require a specialist, which you should know if you know anything about health clearances) I'm saying I think this vet did what she was told to do (or hinted at). Since Crufts has a regular vet, it's odd they didn't choose to use him. Perhaps his ethics were too high. Do you know what entropion is?


----------



## So Cavalier

> I'd be more shocked by this picture if it were of an adult dog instead of a very young puppy.


I personally can't imagine ANYONE who wouldn't find this picture of this puppy shocking. Dogs were not meant to have eyes like this EVER! This is the mentality that so many of us are arguing about. These dogs are bred to be so extreme and that is considered acceptable. Sheesh......


----------



## Rescued

houndies said:


> Rescued who said he was tired? Haws change colour from exercise, play, stress - it's to do with increased heartbeat and pumped blood. When my lot realises we are pulling up to the vets I can see instant change of colour


The point of the quote was not the color of the haw, the point is that someone who* knows* the breed,* knows* the breed history, and* knows this individual dog* commented that a ten minute trot, in the case of this dog, was a "high" level of exercise, and a "considerable" amount of movement. For a working breed? Really?


----------



## Rescued

Pawzk9 said:


> I'm not saying a vet CAN'T diagnose certain eye issues (some do require a specialist, which you should know if you know anything about health clearances) I'm saying I think this vet did what she was told to do (or hinted at). Since Crufts has a regular vet, it's odd they didn't choose to use him. Perhaps his ethics were too high. Do you know what entropion is?


Perhaps his ethics were too high? I'm still failing to understand exactly what is "ethical" about a regular, KC employed vet to not denounce these dogs in the first place. Do you honestly believe that every DQ'ed dog would in no way, shape, or form be diagnosed with any of the conditions they were?

And if so, why would the breeders not have their dogs examined by him after the DQ? Why would they go to their own vets when the Crufts vet could do it?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

+two said:


> You keep saying this. One Vet released a statement that said nothing about being pressured to fail dogs. What gain would there be? She could loose her license and her livelihood.
> 
> 
> As far as it being a 'travesty' and breeders being treated like 'criminals', I guess we just must see things differently. What I keep hearing from a select few is that the breeders feelings were hurt and the KC turned against their membership. And then, I keep hearing a lot about all the money that goes into it. Well, I don't honestly care about any of those things and I imagine that most people who care about the dogs and not the sport do too. I think that is the issue that is being mulled up in this thread: we have people who care about the welfare of the dogs and then we have people who care about the welfare of their sport.


You are willing to see a person have their reputation tarnished internationally over a brief exam of one dog? That is telling...... 

And the sport exists for and because of the dogs.... Those that cut corners never last.....

A few additional things....

1) I certainly think it is possible that the KC had an agenda and fed a few high profile dogs to the wolves. The public is fickle and was screaming... IF the vets had not found any dogs that failed the public would have been highly suspect that the there was any substance to the tests. 
In fact there was doubt in some circles that the testing would be valid. Some thought the testing was just a horse and pony show to get people off the back of the KC. What better way to prove the tests were valid than to ensure some dogs failed? 

So yes I think it could have been a set up.... Do I know that? No, not at all.... But if Vegas would take odds, I would have placed a big bet......

2) I have read Allison Skipper's letter. It is ironic that one of the vets has been involved with the same breed I am. So I know who she is by reputation. It is MY OPINION that she overstated some of the items she referenced in her background with the breed. That combined the fact that the letter was written from the defensive position, I think she wrote it because she was attempting to take heat off herself. 


3) I am not a Basset person. I have owned hounds for hunting in the past, but I certainly not call myself a hound person.... But that being said, I do NOT like the looks of those eyes on that puppy.... I certainly would not purchase a puppy with eyelids like that. Other than that, it is far out of my area of knowledge. Having worked dogs off and on my entire life, going by looks alone, I think the Albany Bassetts appear to be much more fit working dogs. 

4) That being said, I do not know if that is a typical Bassett puppy.... In the UK or anywhere else. Based on everything else "Jemmy" has touched, my gut is that this puppy was hand picked because of those eyes......


----------



## +two

Pawzk9 said:


> I think the GP vet saw what she was told to see. The picture is not that fuzzy and not that distant. Perhaps you need glasses.


Where is your proof?


----------



## sassafras

Pawzk9 said:


> Does this dog look like she actually has severe entropion?
> http://www.kennel-chervood.dk/photos/3635.jpg


Oh, come on. There's no way you can tell if that dog has entropion from that picture, the eyes aren't even in focus. You're better than this.


----------



## sassafras

Pawzk9 said:


> I think the GP vet saw what she was told to see. The picture is not that fuzzy and not that distant. Perhaps you need glasses.


You need to be able to see the margins of the eyelids distinctly to see entropion. If you are basing your opinion that the GP saw what she was told to see on this picture, you have really gone off the deep end.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sassafras said:


> Oh, come on. There's no way you can tell if that dog has entropion from that picture, the eyes aren't even in focus. You're better than this.


As much as I hate to do so..... I have to agree with Sas on this one..... I fully understand being passionate on this subject...... But that is a stretch.......A quite long one...


----------



## Pawzk9

So Cavalier said:


> I personally can't imagine ANYONE who wouldn't find this picture of this puppy shocking. Dogs were not meant to have eyes like this EVER! This is the mentality that so many of us are arguing about. These dogs are bred to be so extreme and that is considered acceptable. Sheesh......


Since the pictures came from Jemmy, I wouldn't be surprised if they were photoshopped.


----------



## Pawzk9

JohnnyBandit said:


> As much as I hate to do so..... I have to agree with Sas on this one..... I fully understand being passionate on this subject...... But that is a stretch.......A quite long one...


The picture of the dog was closeup and fairly clear. The eyes aren't what I'd want to see in my breed, but fairly tight for a clumber


----------



## Pawzk9

sassafras said:


> You need to be able to see the margins of the eyelids distinctly to see entropion. If you are basing your opinion that the GP saw what she was told to see on this picture, you have really gone off the deep end.


No, I was not basing my opinion on the picture, but the entire unfairness of the event. HTH


----------



## Rescued

Pawzk9 said:


> The picture of the dog was closeup and fairly clear. The eyes aren't what I'd want to see in my breed, but fairly tight for a clumber












Fairly clear?

...I guess I must have photoshopped it.


----------



## sassafras

Pawzk9 said:


> The picture of the dog was closeup and fairly clear. The eyes aren't what I'd want to see in my breed, but fairly tight for a clumber


I think you should check your link and make sure it is the picture you think it is. Because seriously, that picture is neither close up nor fairly clear.


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> The point of the quote was not the color of the haw, the point is that someone who* knows* the breed,* knows* the breed history, and* knows this individual dog* commented that a ten minute trot, in the case of this dog, was a "high" level of exercise, and a "considerable" amount of movement. For a working breed? Really?


Under television lights?


----------



## Rescued

Pawzk9 said:


> Since the pictures came from Jemmy, I wouldn't be surprised if they were photoshopped.


I can say with relative certainty that if those pictures were photoshopped, the breeder of the puppy would have sued the crap out of her.



Pawzk9 said:


> Under television lights?


Semantics....*hunting* when the_ sun_ is out?

You're dancing around the point.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Pawzk9 said:


> No, I was not basing my opinion on the picture, but the entire unfairness of the event. HTH


I do agree the entire process was unfair.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Rescued said:


> I can say with relative certainty that if those pictures were photoshopped, the breeder of the puppy would have sued the crap out of her.
> 
> .


Now that would be pretty weak. The breeder would have to prove a financial loss, damage to reputation, etc. No one as far as I know, knows the source of the puppy. And it could be a pet shop puppy, a random photo off the net etc...


----------



## Rescued

JohnnyBandit said:


> I do agree the entire process was unfair.


As do I...but I'm not really sure there are 39 pages of this because nobody can agree on "fairness."


----------



## Rescued

JohnnyBandit said:


> Now that would be pretty weak. The breeder would have to prove a financial loss, damage to reputation, etc. No one as far as I know, knows the source of the puppy. And it could be a pet shop puppy, a random photo off the net etc...


How is that any harder to do than the lawsuit that is currently in place with the breeder of the bulldog?

Damage to reputation...DVM lying versus an opinionated videomaker lying....which would jump to the top of the list as being most likely to be admissible in court?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Rescued said:


> As do I...but I'm not really sure there are 39 pages of this because nobody can agree on "fairness."


Well I see pages and pages of comments defending this process and touting this as a step in the right direction.


----------



## Rescued

JohnnyBandit said:


> Well I see pages and pages of comments defending this process and touting this as a step in the right direction.


Is this not a discussion/ forum/ place where everyone is allowed to share their viewpoint?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Rescued said:


> How is that any harder to do than the lawsuit that is currently in place with the breeder of the bulldog?
> 
> Damage to reputation...DVM lying versus an opinionated videomaker lying....which would jump to the top of the list as being most likely to be admissible in court?


The breeder of the bulldog was humiated publically on an international scale. That is a photo of a random puppy on the internet....

Let me put it this way.... You know my dog Merlin? Someone found a photo of him on a craigslist ad....showing him as their stud dog. They did not use his name, but used a show photo of him. I WANTED BLOOD! My attorney got the photo removed within hours. I wanted to sue... But other than my attorneys fee I was out nothing... No harm to either my rep or my dog's reputation.... (my attorneys clerk did check with the AKC to ensure no one had claimed a breeding or forged any docs.) It was just a random photo pirated off the internet. Probably off my facebook page.... It is done all the time. So I had no damages to recover. Similar here.... If she claimed this dog was from such and such kennel and photo shop... Open the check book.... But a random photo


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Rescued said:


> Is this not a discussion/ forum/ place where everyone is allowed to share their viewpoint?


Absolutely.....


----------



## Rescued

JohnnyBandit said:


> The breeder of the bulldog was humiated publically on an international scale. That is a photo of a random puppy on the internet....
> 
> Let me put it this way.... You know my dog Merlin? Someone found a photo of him on a craigslist ad....showing him as their stud dog. They did not use his name, but used a show photo of him. I WANTED BLOOD! My attorney got the photo removed within hours. I wanted to sue... But other than my attorneys fee I was out nothing... No harm to either my rep or my dog's reputation.... (my attorneys clerk did check with the AKC to ensure no one had claimed a breeding or forged any docs.) It was just a random photo pirated off the internet. Probably off my facebook page.... It is done all the time. So I had no damages to recover. Similar here.... If she claimed this dog was from such and such kennel and photo shop... Open the check book.... But a random photo


Okay, then let's just say she lied, and photoshopped those pictures. Does that lead anyone to a much different place?

I would assume that it would just cause you to be more sure of your viewpoint, more convinced that PDE was a load of crap... ie not very different from where you currently stand.

Myself? I would take it with a grain of salt, admit that PDE was sensationalized (which I already believe in), and continue to seek answers for all the other questions it raised.


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> You're dancing around the point.


Sorry, I don't see a point.


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> Is this not a discussion/ forum/ place where everyone is allowed to share their viewpoint?


It is. Which makes me wonder about your snide comments to me.


----------



## Rescued

I'm just going to let this one go... There's plenty of other debatable points that have been made. I don't really wish to rehash this one again.


----------



## Rescued

Pawzk9 said:


> It is. Which makes me wonder about your snide comments to me.


I apologize for any comments that seemed to demean you. You obviously have a lot invested in the dog world (though more sporting than conformation I think?) and I'm glad to hear your responses, which is why I've continued to post on this thread. Gazing over just this page I see the photoshop comment, but I'm sure you can understand my frustration at the thought of being accused of photoshopping a picture.

No hard feelings meant


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> Fairly clear?
> 
> ...I guess I must have photoshopped it.


Snide. I never attacked you. When you blow it up 300% of course it's going to look bitmappy


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> Okay, then let's just say she lied, and photoshopped those pictures. Does that lead anyone to a much different place?
> 
> I would assume that it would just cause you to be more sure of your viewpoint, more convinced that PDE was a load of crap... ie not very different from where you currently stand.
> 
> Myself? I would take it with a grain of salt, admit that PDE was sensationalized (which I already believe in), and continue to seek answers for all the other questions it raised.


Yes. I think there are problems in the show world that need to be addressed in a reasonable manner. AND I think PDE was a piece of crap. And shame on the KC for groveling to it in such ah unthoughtful way. And premiering this piece of crap at their premier show of the year.


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> I apologize for any comments that seemed to demean you. You obviously have a lot invested in the dog world (though more sporting than conformation I think?) and I'm glad to hear your responses, which is why I've continued to post on this thread. Gazing over just this page I see the photoshop comment, but I'm sure you can understand my frustration at the thought of being accused of photoshopping a picture.
> 
> No hard feelings meant


I never accused you of photoshopping anything.


----------



## Rescued

Pawzk9 said:


> Snide. I never attacked you. When you blow it up 300% of course it's going to look bitmappy


I'll come right out and admit that wasn't the best choice of words- hindsight is always 20/20 (especially online with no expressions!). I'm still interested in the points presented in all 40 pages though

EDIT: Just realized what you meant. The blown up picture was intended to show that I didn't see any redness (even when very zoomed in). It wasn't intended to comment on the overall quality of the picture you posted.


----------



## Rescued

I know! I said the thought of it, I didn't accuse you.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

Pawzk9 said:


> Well, dog showing is a SPORT. It is a sport that many people enjoy. And like many sports, it's more fun to come in first than last. You don't have to show. You don't have to own a purebred. But do you really think you have the right to tell other people what sports they need to enjoy or refrain from. Are you that omnipotent?


There are plenty of sports out there (both dog sports and non-dog sports) that I don't participate in, follow, or care for, but that I really don't pass judgement on. But when a "sport" (and I really hate that this term is applied to dog showing!) threatens the well-being of dogs, then yes, I think I and every other person who loves dogs should have a say in how it is carried out. I think Julie's comment about dog fighting is completely applicable, as dog fighting also represents a threat to the well-being of dogs, although it is admittedly much more dramatic.


----------



## jiml

Pawzk9 said:


> Does this dog look like she actually has severe entropion?
> http://www.kennel-chervood.dk/photos/3635.jpg


----------



## So Cavalier

> Since the pictures came from Jemmy, I wouldn't be surprised if they were photoshopped.





> "A bit too much haw..."
> When I blogged two weeks ago re the Basset Hound Ch Buzzed Lightyear at Dereheath being disqualified at Crufts, it created a lively discussion in the comments - with a couple of contributions from a top American Basset breeder "outraged" by what had happened.
> 
> In the main, US Bassets are much less exaggerated than many of the dogs in the UK showring, so I googled to see what this breeder's Bassets were like and found she currently had a litter of pups on the ground with, well, frankly the worst eyes I had ever seen. I posted a link. In my heart, I hoped the breeder would admit that the eyes were bad and say it was something she was worried about and trying to breed away from , but no. Her response was: "...the litter you have commented upon has probably the least chance of developing glaucoma of any dogs in the US due to a great deal of research, careful breeding and a lot of money spent. Frankly, if you give me a choice between eliminating glaucoma and a bit too much haw showing...well the answer should be clear to anyone I think. I've NEVER known of a Basset going blind from ectropia and/or a lot of haw but I could name way too many who have gone blind from glaucoma."
> 
> As several people commented, it should not be a case of either/or. Anyway, the breeder has now taken her website down and I've had a few people wanting to see the pictures write in to say the link is no longer working. Suspecting that the site might become unavailable in the wake of the criticism, I cached the pix at the time, so for those who want to know what we were talking about, here they are.
> 
> It makes me incredibly sad to see these pictures. Have we really lost our way so much that anyone can really think this is all right?


http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.ca/2012/03/bit-too-much-haw.html

First you post a fuzzy photo and say the dog's eyes look fine. Then you see a clear photo showing a puppy with clearly deformed eyes and say well if that was a full grown dog...is that the best Jemmy could find?. 



> Wassa matter, couldn't Jemmy find a picture of an adult that was shocking enuff?


Then you accuse her of photoshopping the photo. Again, this is the mentality that is causing people like me and others here to agree with what the KC is doing. We need people to see that there is a problem and deal with it from within.

I hear time and time again, AKC doesn't set the standards, the breed clubs do. But it is the AKC judges that put dogs through. The AKC and the KC have a lot of power to put a stop to this. The judges in these organizations need to stop putting dogs through with extreme conformation. I know you are going to scream that the bull dog was moderate. I am not talking about the bull dog specifically. I am talking about the direction conformation has taken. 

It is time to stop saying poor, poor exhibitors. They put all this time, money and effort into their dogs. For what....fame, ribbons, bragging rights? It should be for the betterment of the breed. I don't even want to know how much money I have spent in agility, in terms of time, training, classes, entry fees, travel, etc.....but the day my dog tells me she is done, even if we are one Q from her championship.....then we are done, period. Because in the end, that basket full of ribbons means nothing....it is the time I spent with my dog that means everything.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

GottaLuvMutts said:


> There are plenty of sports out there (both dog sports and non-dog sports) that I don't participate in, follow, or care for, but that I really don't pass judgement on. But when a "sport" (and I really hate that this term is applied to dog showing!) threatens the well-being of dogs, then yes, I think I and every other person who loves dogs should have a say in how it is carried out. I think Julie's comment about dog fighting is completely applicable, as dog fighting also represents a threat to the well-being of dogs, although it is admittedly much more dramatic.


Yet you are willing to pass judgement so willingly on conformation..... What do you base this wide sweeping judgement on? Personal experience? First hand knowledge? 

Or other sources?


----------



## Pawzk9

jiml said:


>


Obviously from Jemimia? That is not the dog who won at Crufts. I also don't think that degree of haw is going to make the dog suffer.


----------



## Pawzk9

GottaLuvMutts said:


> There are plenty of sports out there (both dog sports and non-dog sports) that I don't participate in, follow, or care for, but that I really don't pass judgement on. But when a "sport" (and I really hate that this term is applied to dog showing!) threatens the well-being of dogs, then yes, I think I and every other person who loves dogs should have a say in how it is carried out. I think Julie's comment about dog fighting is completely applicable, as dog fighting also represents a threat to the well-being of dogs, although it is admittedly much more dramatic.


If "dog showing" isn't a sport, what is it? Surely you dont actually believe it is a breed worthiness test. Ditto on dog and human sports don't always have my interest. I'm only marginally interested in conformation showing. I have said so many times I can't count it that there are problems that need to be addressed in the system, and there are better ways to address them. That generally gets ignored and snipped out of quotes by people who are interested in twisting my words for their own purpose. If we were to be really honest about dog sports (or any sports) few of them are without risks (maybe if you consider chess a sport). Dogs get hurt doing agility. Occasionally a dog wipes out on a jump in obedience, and could be injured. Dogs get hurt working livestock (Owners too! I have a knee to testify to that fact) Many, many dogs suffer repetitive stress injuries from doing flyball. Then again, I knew a dog who broke her neck running into the tree in her own backyard. The only dog I've had seriously injured broke his leg on a chain link fence in the yard. Perhaps we need to agree with the AR activist that any use of a dog (including service and guide dogs and pets) should be banned. I of course, disagree. I think the more you ask of your dog, the stronger the relationship, and I have dogs who love going places and taking part in sports. I wouldn't deny them that, even if it means a slight chance of injury. Flyball I can do without, but I don't think that means that those who love it should be denied the opportunity to do it. 
I see a strong double standard on this list. The same people I see thinking that what the KC did was perfectly okay and a step in the right direction are the same people who want to hang anyone who is considering breeding dogs which are not "proven" or do not meet the breed standard. Or anyone whose breeding goal isn't trying to improve on what they have.


----------



## Pawzk9

So Cavalier said:


> http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.ca/2012/03/bit-too-much-haw.html
> 
> Then you accuse her of photoshopping the photo. Again, this is the mentality that is causing people like me and others here to agree with what the KC is doing. We need people to see that there is a problem and deal with it from within.
> 
> I hear time and time again, AKC doesn't set the standards, the breed clubs do. But it is the AKC judges that put dogs through. The AKC and the KC have a lot of power to put a stop to this. The judges in these organizations need to stop putting dogs through with extreme conformation. I know you are going to scream that the bull dog was moderate. I am not talking about the bull dog specifically. I am talking about the direction conformation has taken.
> 
> It is time to stop saying poor, poor exhibitors. They put all this time, money and effort into their dogs. For what....fame, ribbons, bragging rights? It should be for the betterment of the breed. I don't even want to know how much money I have spent in agility, in terms of time, training, classes, entry fees, travel, etc.....but the day my dog tells me she is done, even if we are one Q from her championship.....then we are done, period. Because in the end, that basket full of ribbons means nothing....it is the time I spent with my dog that means everything.


How perceptive of you to "know" that I'm going to scream about something. Sorry, no screaming here. I did not say that Jemmy photoshopped the picture, just that it was a possibility. By the way, if you base your support for the program on remarks of people you disagree with, I think you may need to work on being able to form a decision independently and impartially - based on actual evidence. I don't disagree that there are problems that need looking at. I simply disagree with a process that ignores the fact that a dog is thirsty and treats exhibitors like suspects. You may like it. I hope if you do, they take you away after you are awarded best of breed (or winners, or a MACH or whatever) and treat you in the same manner so you can have a bit more empathy. Of course, the problems in your breed aren't likely to be noticed by a vet (unless s/he wants to DQ your dog for an old, non genetic injury). Which is why it would be much MORE useful to have ALL dogs of ALL breeds present relevant health clearances before being allowed to enter shows. AND educating judges on putting up very extreme dogs. And enforcing it. (They still have reps, don't they?)


----------



## juliemule

Pawzk9 said:


> If "dog showing" isn't a sport, what is it? Surely you dont actually believe it is a breed worthiness test. Ditto on dog and human sports don't always have my interest. I'm only marginally interested in conformation showing. I have said so many times I can't count it that there are problems that need to be addressed in the system, and there are better ways to address them. That generally gets ignored and snipped out of quotes by people who are interested in twisting my words for their own purpose. If we were to be really honest about dog sports (or any sports) few of them are without risks (maybe if you consider chess a sport). Dogs get hurt doing agility. Occasionally a dog wipes out on a jump in obedience, and could be injured. Dogs get hurt working livestock (Owners too! I have a knee to testify to that fact) Many, many dogs suffer repetitive stress injuries from doing flyball. Then again, I knew a dog who broke her neck running into the tree in her own backyard. The only dog I've had seriously injured broke his leg on a chain link fence in the yard. Perhaps we need to agree with the AR activist that any use of a dog (including service and guide dogs and pets) should be banned. I of course, disagree. I think the more you ask of your dog, the stronger the relationship, and I have dogs who love going places and taking part in sports. I wouldn't deny them that, even if it means a slight chance of injury. Flyball I can do without, but I don't think that means that those who love it should be denied the opportunity to do it.
> I see a strong double standard on this list. The same people I see thinking that what the KC did was perfectly okay and a step in the right direction are the same people who want to hang anyone who is considering breeding dogs which are not "proven" or do not meet the breed standard. Or anyone whose breeding goal isn't trying to improve on what they have.


IMO a chance of getting injured, which could happen just taking a dog for a walk, is different than purposely breeding injuries.


----------



## So Cavalier

> How perceptive of you to "know" that I'm going to scream about something. Sorry, no screaming here. I did not say that Jemmy photoshopped the picture, just that it was a possibility. By the way, if you base your support for the program on remarks of people you disagree with,_* I think you may need to work on being able to form a decision independently and impartially - based on actual evidence.*_


How perceptive of _*you*_ to "know" that I am incapable of being able to form a decision independently and impartially-based on actual evidence. Sorry, you don't know me or my capabilities. My doctorate degree would indicate that I am capable of independent thought.

I have not commented on the dogs disqualified because quite frankly I have no evidence of why they were disqualified, I don't know the dogs, how they looked on that day and what the vet actually saw. My comments were directed to the photo posted of the puppy with quite obvious eye malformations and to the fact that I think that the welfare of the dogs should always take precedence over the feelings of the exhibitors. My comments were directed to the extremes that some people find acceptable. My comments were also that many of us feel that the conformation world needs a wake up call. I hope this was it.




> Which is why it would be much MORE useful to have ALL dogs of ALL breeds present relevant health clearances before being allowed to enter shows. AND educating judges on putting up very extreme dogs. And enforcing it. (They still have reps, don't they?)


 I agree with you 100% on this.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

Pawzk9 said:


> If "dog showing" isn't a sport, what is it? Surely you dont actually believe it is a breed worthiness test.


No, of course I don't believe it is a breed-worthiness test. That's my point - it's not really a test of anything, since it doesn't award good temperament, ability to work, or health (at least until now). It's an activity that humans have created for their amusement and enjoyment, which wouldn't be a problem except that dogs are suffering. I'd call dog showing a game, but I wouldn't call it a sport.



Pawzk9 said:


> If we were to be really honest about dog sports (or any sports) few of them are without risks (maybe if you consider chess a sport). Dogs get hurt doing agility. Occasionally a dog wipes out on a jump in obedience, and could be injured. Dogs get hurt working livestock (Owners too! I have a knee to testify to that fact) Many, many dogs suffer repetitive stress injuries from doing flyball. Then again, I knew a dog who broke her neck running into the tree in her own backyard. The only dog I've had seriously injured broke his leg on a chain link fence in the yard.


Yes, dog sports (which are also games!) are dangerous. I participate in 3 and compete in 2, so clearly I have accepted those risks. As Julie said, the risks associated with living life to its fullest are very different than the risks associated with ignoring obvious health issues and breeding the affected dog anyway, thereby sentencing offspring to needless suffering.



Pawzk9 said:


> Perhaps we need to agree with the AR activist that any use of a dog (including service and guide dogs and pets) should be banned. I of course, disagree. I think the more you ask of your dog, the stronger the relationship, and I have dogs who love going places and taking part in sports. I wouldn't deny them that, even if it means a slight chance of injury.


Again with the AR strawman argument? Really? EVERYONE here disagrees with AR that any use of a dog should be banned.



Pawzk9 said:


> I see a strong double standard on this list. The same people I see thinking that what the KC did was perfectly okay and a step in the right direction are the same people who want to hang anyone who is considering breeding dogs which are not "proven" or do not meet the breed standard. Or anyone whose breeding goal isn't trying to improve on what they have.


I do think that anyone considering breeding dogs needs to be thinking about how they have "proven" their dogs, how they can improve on what's already out there. But I don't think that the breed standard should necessarily take a central role in that. Ideally, they are proving their dogs through achievement in the work that they were intended to do. I don't really see how that's at odds with thinking that the KC's health checks were a step in the right direction.


----------



## cshellenberger

Rescued said:


> Bloodhounds have more olfactory receptors than other breeds. Loose skin has very little to do with it.
> 
> Can someone please explain why loose skin would be so important in a dog that hunts, tracks, and goes through brush? It must just be a coincidence that (almost?) all other hunting breeds are shorthaired without excess skin- the pointer, retriever, spaniel...


Actually, the loose skin and long ears on the Bassett and the Bloodhound act as a funnel to bring scent to the nose. They are functional and a huge part of how the dogs anatomy works to help it do it's job.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

GottaLuvMutts said:


> No, of course I don't believe it is a breed-worthiness test. That's my point - it's not really a test of anything, since it doesn't award good temperament, ability to work, or health (at least until now). It's an activity that humans have created for their amusement and enjoyment, which wouldn't be a problem except that dogs are suffering. I'd call dog showing a game, but I wouldn't call it a sport.
> .


You could not be more incorrect if you made a concerted effort to be. 

Conformation has a purpose and an important role. It is an evaluation of potential breeding stock, based on each dog as it compares to the written standard in terms of structure, coat, movement, temperament, etc. The dog is evaluated based on movement, body structure, etc. And while it there is not a lengthy temperament test, each dog should exhibit the proper temperament for their breed and age.

Dogs get excused all the time because of temperament. I have seen it done three times this year alone in rings Merlin was competing in. (twice in breed and once in group) Judges can also withhold ribbons, withhold the first place ribbon in a class, etc. This is done when the situation is not as severe and prevents the dog from moving on and competing for winners dog and winners bitch. When they do it does not affect the entry numbers as it does when the dog is excused. It took Merlin additional time to finish his championship because of excusals. Not because he was excused but other dogs were excused and broke majors. 

Temperament is a bigger deal in some breeds than in others. Many judges have GSDs do an extra task. They have the handler and dog approach them before going over the dog. 

It is a big deal in my breed as well. Dogs get excused for being too sharp, growling at the judge, etc.

And while they do not get excused for being too friendly, dogs in my breed do get penalized for it. I know a spectacular dog that is having a hard time finishing because he is too friendly. When a judge that the dog does not know approaches and the dog's tail is going 90 miles a second, that is a problem. They ain't Labs and are not supposed to love everyone they meet.... Any more than a restrainted brief tail wag is not consistent with the proper temperament. 


And while conformation shows should NOT be the only evaluation prior to breeding it is an important part of the equation. You cannot have function without proper form. If a dog does not have the proper structure to do the job it was bred for, it does matter how much drive or working ability it has or how great a temperament it has. 

That being said, I am not saying there are not some breed standards that are screwed up. In fact I did say that the standards in some breeds are screwed up on this very thread. I am also not saying that every judge always picks the best dogs. 



In any case, your personal assessment of what you "think" conformation dog shows are about is way off the mark.... If it was a barn, you would not have hit the broad side of it....


----------



## Pai

> Actually, the loose skin and long ears on the Bassett and the Bloodhound act as a funnel to bring scent to the nose.


A dog brings scent to it's nose by INHALING. I have never seen any scientific proof that long ears or short, baggy skin or tight has ANY affect on how well a dog can scent. Biologically, it's the number of scent receptors inside the nose that affects that skill, nothing more. Certain breeds have more of them, which makes them better scenthounds. It's boggles me how old wives' tales cooked up in the 19th Century still keep getting repeated to this day even without a shred of real-life evidence to support them.


----------



## Rescued

Pai said:


> A dog brings scent to it's nose by INHALING. I have never seen any scientific proof that long ears or short, baggy skin or tight has ANY affect on how well a dog can scent. Biologically, it's the number of scent receptors inside the nose that affects that skill, nothing more. Certain breeds have more of them, which makes them better scenthounds. It's boggles me how old wives' tales cooked up in the 19th Century still keep getting repeated to this day even without a shred of real-life evidence to support them.


This is what I meant by my statement.


----------



## Rescued

Pawzk9 said:


> Obviously from Jemimia? That is not the dog who won at Crufts. I also don't think that degree of haw is going to make the dog suffer.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ubTCBN_l1E

Except for it is the dog that won at Crufts. This is the issue- you cannot accuse people of toying with the facts when the facts are there, plain and simple, in video and in picture.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Pai said:


> A dog brings scent to it's nose by INHALING. I have never seen any scientific proof that long ears or short, baggy skin or tight has ANY affect on how well a dog can scent. Biologically, it's the number of scent receptors inside the nose that affects that skill, nothing more. Certain breeds have more of them, which makes them better scenthounds. It's boggles me how old wives' tales cooked up in the 19th Century still keep getting repeated to this day even without a shred of real-life evidence to support them.


Really? You post a link to a psychology site as your backup to your statement? 

Interesting to say the least.....

Have you ever worked with hounds in a trailing situation? Specifically cold trailing hounds? 

While most of my hound experience is with hot trailing dogs such as redbones, black and tans, BMCs, beagles etc. And I have never done anything with a Bassett, I have seen Bloodhounds work. More than a couple of times. We had one at the hunting lease my family was part of when I was growing up. I saw first hand the difference between cold trailing and hot trailing dogs. We ran game with our other hounds. The bloodhound found stuff that was hopelessly lost. Game and.... Over the years several people. Didn't matter who was on the other end of the leash, didn't matter where the track led, he would follow it. 

The difference between how breeds like Redbones work and how Bloodhounds work a track is so different, they almost do not belong in the same group. While you can measure how old of a trail a hot trailing dog can follow in hours, with a Bloodhound you can measure it in days. 

Hot trail hounds work fast. and when the track is really fresh they can work it running at full speed. Bloodhounds do not work that way. They have their nose to the ground. Plus they are repeatedly "blowing' the track. They exhale VERY heavily straight into the ground. I am not talking about a winded exhale, I am talking about what you would do to blow powdered sugar off the kitchen counter. If it is dusty, dust goes flying everywhere. and if they are on water, well it goes flying everywhere. The older the track the more they "blow". And while I agree the number of scent receptors does play a factor, all you have to do is look at the face of a Bloodhound while it is working and see the dust, dirt, mud, water, and anything else that gets blown up by all that huffing and puffing, clinging to and dripping off of their wrinkled faces and long ears, and all caught up in their drooling mucus to know that these things definately help the dog and are a factor in how good the dog is. Heck is common sense really. The head goes to the ground, the long ears drop down to each side of the nose and the folds of skin provide more surface area to trap the scent. The dog's head and ears build a box to keep the scent channelled right into its nose.


So study or no study.... Yes, the folds of skin and long ears help the dogs. That being said, I am not saying their face needs to look like a prune that has been sitting on the sidewalk for two weeks. Too much is excessive and would surely work against the dog. But some is good.....


----------



## juliemule

Seriously if the ears and skin acted as a funnel they would have to be in front of the nose rather than behind it. Many other breeds can track as well a a hound. Greta did the same 2 mile aged track as the bloodhounds, in better time even. The best tracking bloodhound I have personally seen had less skin hanging, less haw, and a tighter ear. I have seen many tear the skin around the eye in briars.

I don't see any reason that a show dog can't or shouldn't be fully functional, to the best health possible.


----------



## sassafras

juliemule said:


> IMO a chance of getting injured, which could happen just taking a dog for a walk, is different than purposely breeding injuries.


Yes! Or purposely including injuries in the standard. 



Pai said:


> A dog brings scent to it's nose by INHALING. I have never seen any scientific proof that long ears or short, baggy skin or tight has ANY affect on how well a dog can scent. Biologically, it's the number of scent receptors inside the nose that affects that skill, nothing more. Certain breeds have more of them, which makes them better scenthounds. It's boggles me how old wives' tales cooked up in the 19th Century still keep getting repeated to this day even without a shred of real-life evidence to support them.


Thank you. This always drives me nuts. Not only that, but those super excessively folded dogs are so prone to skin fold debris and infections that I've always thought their own stench has to interfere with trying to follow a scent. (Or, as one of our techs said to a very un-exaggerated basset last week, "you don't smell like a basset!" Sad.)


----------



## JohnnyBandit

juliemule said:


> Seriously if the ears and skin acted as a funnel they would have to be in front of the nose rather than behind it. Many other breeds can track as well a a hound. Greta did the same 2 mile aged track as the bloodhounds, in better time even. The best tracking bloodhound I have personally seen had less skin hanging, less haw, and a tighter ear. I have seen many tear the skin around the eye in briars.
> 
> I don't see any reason that a show dog can't or shouldn't be fully functional, to the best health possible.


The ears are beside the nose.... Not in front or back. IF they were in front they would push the scent out of the way. 

And I am sure your dog did a two mile track faster than the bloodhounds. I would say you had a serious issue if your dog did not. And as far as aged goes....... In a trial or test situation..... Aged a day? Less? Come back in a week and see how your dog does compared to a Bloodhound.


----------



## Rescued

JohnnyBandit said:


> The ears are beside the nose.... Not in front or back. IF they were in front they would push the scent out of the way.
> 
> And I am sure your dog did a two mile track faster than the bloodhounds. I would say you had a serious issue if your dog did not. And as far as aged goes....... In a trial or test situation..... Aged a day? Less? Come back in a week and see how your dog does compared to a Bloodhound.


IMO the basis for this entire argument was the fact that the basset that won is in no way able to "do a two mile track" - Due in part to his excessive wrinkles. It doesn't really matter WHAT the dog can smell if it can't get to the smell...


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sassafras said:


> Yes! Or purposely including injuries in the standard.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. This always drives me nuts. Not only that, but those super excessively folded dogs are so prone to skin fold debris and infections that I've always thought their own stench has to interfere with trying to follow a scent. (Or, as one of our techs said to a very un-exaggerated basset last week, "you don't smell like a basset!" Sad.)




There are all sorts of features of the anatomy of living creatures that aid the scenses. The loose skin and long ears of the Bloodhound.... Just happens to be one of them. 

Pai said there has been no study to show those features help. But then again.... There has been no study to show that they don't.

All one has to do is spend some time in the field with a Bloodhound and pay attention to know that it is fact...


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Rescued said:


> IMO the basis for this entire argument was the fact that the basset that won is in no way able to "do a two mile track" - Due in part to his excessive wrinkles. It doesn't really matter WHAT the dog can smell if it can't get to the smell...


True..... A Bassett with his tallywacker dragging the ground ain't going far....


----------



## Rescued

JohnnyBandit said:


> True..... A Bassett with his tallywacker dragging the ground ain't going far....


Exactly. I'm not saying they aren't good at scenting, but all Crufts does is evaluate conformation. Working titles are a separate thing...and thus far, I haven't seen any evidence that the BOB basset has any.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

BTW.... Here is a painting of a Bloodhound from 1904


----------



## juliemule

The oldest track we have run was 49 hours old. But she is still a.pup. the hot and cold tracks are all about training. Floppy ears and pointy ears will argue which is better all day long. Either is fully capable. I run both. I prefer pointy ears, but that's just because I like the interaction, and being able to cross train, rather than only trail.

Scenting is very complicated. So much plays a role, people don't know exactly what factors in, and there has yet been any machine to compare to a dogs ability to scent.

As I type this, I am at a workshop with twenty of the top cadaver dogs in the us, USAR hrd. Its amazing to see the dogs work. Not one shows any exaggerated features. There is one gsd, several mals, a few dutchies, and several labs. Couple of border collies. Oh and one golden. Here from Arizona, Hawaii, Wisconsin, Virginia, and everywhere in between.

When we do our trailing certs, its about even pointy to floppy ears.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

juliemule said:


> The oldest track we have run was 49 hours old. But she is still a.pup. the hot and cold tracks are all about training. Floppy ears and pointy ears will argue which is better all day long. Either is fully capable. I run both. I prefer pointy ears, but that's just because I like the interaction, and being able to cross train, rather than only trail.
> 
> Scenting is very complicated. So much plays a role, people don't know exactly what factors in, and there has yet been any machine to compare to a dogs ability to scent.
> 
> As I type this, I am at a workshop with twenty of the top cadaver dogs in the us, USAR hrd. Its amazing to see the dogs work. Not one shows any exaggerated features. There is one gsd, several mals, a few dutchies, and several labs. Couple of border collies. Oh and one golden. Here from Arizona, Hawaii, Wisconsin, Virginia, and everywhere in between.
> 
> When we do our trailing certs, its about even pointy to floppy ears.


I think I am fairly familiar with what goes into scent work. And 49 hours is great for a Mal or Dutchie.... That is not even cold for a bloodhound. And I agree training can improve a dog.... But the dog can only do what it can physically do. Traditional working dogs do great in many scenting situations. But their physical abilities when it comes to scent work do not compare to many of the hound. Especially the Bloodhounds. 

And what you are doing now with the cadaver dogs is a completely different type of scent work. The dog is not trailing, tracking etc. It is searching for a particular scent. And then alerting to that scent. 
Drugs, explosives, cellphones, etc etc etc are all that type of work.


----------



## juliemule

Yeah, a two day track is cold for a hound. For any dog. Scent only holds so long. Depending on conditions. I have seen some pretty good dogs run with ok handlers. Then you have ok dogs that a good man trailing handler can run, and in circles around any dog.
Yes detection work is much different than tracking. The dogs have to be independent enough to go hunt, biddable enough to direct. Committed enough to search an area with no scent what so ever, rather than just following along. Add in rubble piles in disaster, water searches on the boat, buried hides two feet deep, its pretty dang amazing what dogs can do. Yet still be in great health, have the stamina to work all day (scenting is mind and body work) , and be physically able to run hours, climb extreme obstacles, jumps, balance, etc, it just is awesome what dogs are capable of.


----------



## begemot

> Originally Posted by Pawzk9:
> Perhaps we need to agree with the AR activist that any use of a dog (including service and guide dogs and pets) should be banned. I of course, disagree. I think the more you ask of your dog, the stronger the relationship, and I have dogs who love going places and taking part in sports. I wouldn't deny them that, even if it means a slight chance of injury.





GottaLuvMutts said:


> Again with the AR strawman argument? Really? EVERYONE here disagrees with AR that any use of a dog should be banned.


Try to pay attention Pawzk, since there seems to be some confusion about the term. GottaLuvMutts has correctly pointed out an actual "strawman argument."


----------



## begemot

This thread is getting harder and harder to make logical sense of, as a reader, because of the level of intellectual dishonesty. People are lying or making totally unsubstantiated claims -- the vets were told to DQ some dogs, the clumber in the picture is not the clumber from crufts, laypeople can diagnose entropion/ectropion from a distant photograph, "jemmy" works for the KC, it's "slander" to say that entropion causes discomfort, it is a "fact" supported by "evidence" that the bulldog was DQ'd for an old eye injury, general practitioner vets are unqualified to perform basic superficial exams, a flashlight is a special diagnostic tool, breeders are an unbiased source of information about their DQ'd dogs, wrinkles "funnel" scent, and so many other deflections, excuses, and outright lies -- then getting called on it, then ignoring the evidence and circling back around to make the same argument again. Intellectual dishonesty.



JohnnyBandit said:


> There are all sorts of features of the anatomy of living creatures that aid the scenses. The loose skin and long ears of the Bloodhound.... Just happens to be one of them.
> 
> Pai said there has been no study to show those features help. But then again.... There has been no study to show that they don't.
> 
> All one has to do is spend some time in the field with a Bloodhound and pay attention to know that it is fact...


Case in point. The fact that bloodhounds are good at scent work does nothing to support your assertion that it's because of their wrinkles. It truly doesn't matter how many bloodhound anecdotes you recite. You still haven't proven that loose skin has anything to do with scenting.

If the next intellectually dishonest argument is going to be that I haven't proven that the wrinkles _don't_ "funnel" scents (where? to the ground? because that's the direction those wrinkles point to), think again. I don't have to prove it. Just like I don't have to prove there aren't unicorns. _You're_ the one saying that's why they exist, so it's up to you to find evidence.


----------



## Rescued

begemot said:


> This thread is getting harder and harder to make logical sense of, as a reader, because of the level of intellectual dishonesty. People are lying or making totally unsubstantiated claims -- the vets were told to DQ some dogs, the clumber in the picture is not the clumber from crufts, laypeople can diagnose entropion/ectropion from a distant photograph, "jemmy" works for the KC, it's "slander" to say that entropion causes discomfort, it is a "fact" supported by "evidence" that the bulldog was DQ'd for an old eye injury, breeders are an unbiased source of information about their DQ'd dogs, wrinkles "funnel" scent, and so many other deflections, excuses, and outright lies -- then getting called on it, then ignoring the evidence and circling back around to make the same argument again. Intellectual dishonesty.


I heard jemmy is actually Ingrid Newkirk in disguise... 

/sarcasm. But really... it's getting harder and harder to believe most of the claims in this thread, due to the fact that when evidence is produced, it is either dismissed as AR propaganda, or outright ignored. I'm relatively sure that a study commenting on the importance of wrinkles would be worthless, because someone would claim it was biased no matter what the findings were.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

JohnnyBandit said:


> Conformation has a purpose and an important role. It is an evaluation of potential breeding stock, based on each dog as it compares to the written standard in terms of structure, coat, movement, temperament, etc.


Great, so a beauty pageant with consequences for the next generation. That's supposed to make me feel better about it? I put no stock in breed standards - its what one person or group of people think is ideal, but as we have seen, it leaves a lot of wiggle room, and is subject to all kinds of ridiculous interpretations and fads. Just cause you write something down doesn't make it something to strive for.



JohnnyBandit said:


> while it there is not a lengthy temperament test, each dog should exhibit the proper temperament for their breed and age. Dogs get excused all the time because of temperament. I have seen it done three times this year alone in rings Merlin was competing in. (twice in breed and once in group) Judges can also withhold ribbons, withhold the first place ribbon in a class, etc. This is done when the situation is not as severe and prevents the dog from moving on and competing for winners dog and winners bitch. When they do it does not affect the entry numbers as it does when the dog is excused. It took Merlin additional time to finish his championship because of excusals. Not because he was excused but other dogs were excused and broke majors.
> 
> Temperament is a bigger deal in some breeds than in others. Many judges have GSDs do an extra task. They have the handler and dog approach them before going over the dog.
> 
> It is a big deal in my breed as well. Dogs get excused for being too sharp, growling at the judge, etc.


Uh huh. So why do we hear about dogs with bad temperaments winning? For example, GSD folks on this forum have bemoaned the fact that "spooky" GSDs often win. And really, the "extra test" is having the handler and dog approach the judge? Sure, some dogs might react, but that test is so contrived that you could have dogs with awful temperaments winning. You could also train a dog to accept that, even if the temperament was such that the dog still had a problem with it. 



JohnnyBandit said:


> And while conformation shows should NOT be the only evaluation prior to breeding


I'm glad that you have other ways of evaluating your dogs prior to breeding. Unfortunately, not all show breeders do. 



JohnnyBandit said:


> it is an important part of the equation. You cannot have function without proper form. *If a dog does not have the proper structure to do the job it was bred for, it does matter how much drive or working ability it has or how great a temperament it has.


So if you can't have function without proper form, why not just test the function, and let the chips fall as they may? By your logic, none of the dogs with poor form will succeed at the work.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

begemot said:


> This thread is getting harder and harder to make logical sense of, as a reader, because of the level of intellectual dishonesty. People are lying or making totally unsubstantiated claims -- the vets were told to DQ some dogs, the clumber in the picture is not the clumber from crufts, laypeople can diagnose entropion/ectropion from a distant photograph, "jemmy" works for the KC, it's "slander" to say that entropion causes discomfort, it is a "fact" supported by "evidence" that the bulldog was DQ'd for an old eye injury, breeders are an unbiased source of information about their DQ'd dogs, wrinkles "funnel" scent, and so many other deflections, excuses, and outright lies -- then getting called on it, then ignoring the evidence and circling back around to make the same argument again. Intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> Case in point. The fact that bloodhounds are good at scent work does nothing to support your assertion that it's because of their wrinkles. It truly doesn't matter how many bloodhound anecdotes you recite. You still haven't proven that loose skin has anything to do with scenting.
> 
> If the next intellectually dishonest argument is going to be that I haven't proven that the wrinkles _don't_ "funnel" scents (where? to the ground? because that's the direction those wrinkles point to), think again. I don't have to prove it. Just like I don't have to prove there aren't unicorns. _You're_ the one saying that's why they exist, so it's up to you to find evidence.


First of all.... I play no part in any intellectual dishonestly..... The fact that you choose not to believe what I say has no bearing on that.

And secondly..... The fact that the loose skin and ears to aid in scenting for Bloodhounds has been well known among hound men for well over a century. So if you are refuting this, then yes it is up to you to prove it. Fund a study....


----------



## Pawzk9

begemot said:


> Try to pay attention Pawzk, since there seems to be some confusion about the term. GottaLuvMutts has correctly pointed out an actual "strawman argument."


No need to get snarky. We disagree. We don't disagree that there are problems. We disagree on a fair and effective way to address those problems. Get over it.


----------



## juliemule

Facts are not the same as theories.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Great, so a beauty pageant with consequences for the next generation. That's supposed to make me feel better about it? I put no stock in breed standards - its what one person or group of people think is ideal, but as we have seen, it leaves a lot of wiggle room, and is subject to all kinds of ridiculous interpretations and fads. Just cause you write something down doesn't make it something to strive for.
> 
> 
> 
> .


Nothing for me to feel better about. It is what it is.... You choose to feel differently.... So be it... Does not change reality.....



GottaLuvMutts said:


> Uh huh. So why do we hear about dogs with bad temperaments winning? For example, GSD folks on this forum have bemoaned the fact that "spooky" GSDs often win. And really, the "extra test" is having the handler and dog approach the judge? Sure, some dogs might react, but that test is so contrived that you could have dogs with awful temperaments winning. You could also train a dog to accept that, even if the temperament was such that the dog still had a problem with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


How many examples do you want? THe results from every show are listed.... You can look through virtually any show record and find excusals. Your sarcasm does not mean it does not happen regularly. Fact is that it does.....



GottaLuvMutts said:


> So if you can't have function without proper form, why not just test the function, and let the chips fall as they may? By your logic, none of the dogs with poor form will succeed at the work.


If you JUST test the function... that would be EXACTLY the same thing as you are accusing the show world of doing....

If you want the BEST dogs.... You breed for the total dog.... Not just half.....


And if you want to actually open your mind.... To which I seriously doubt you do.... 

I can tell you EXACTLY what screws up dog breeds.... And it is NOT the show world....


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> Exactly. I'm not saying they aren't good at scenting, but all Crufts does is evaluate conformation. Working titles are a separate thing...and thus far, I haven't seen any evidence that the BOB basset has any.


News phlash. Most show dogs don't. A few do. I don't consider obedience, agility, rally or CGC to be working titles


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Pawzk9 said:


> No need to get snarky. We disagree. We don't disagree that there are problems. We disagree on a fair and effective way to address those problems. Get over it.


Don't worry about the snarky behavior.... It happens when folks do not have facts to support their uninformed position....


----------



## sassafras

JohnnyBandit said:


> All one has to do is spend some time in the field with a Bloodhound and pay attention to know that it is fact...


Not really. It may be a fact that Bloodhounds are good at tracking, but watching a Bloodhound track doesn't "prove" anything other than you watched a Bloohound track who had wrinkles on its face. Correlation isn't proof.



Pawzk9 said:


> The eyes don't look painful.


_You_ think they don't look painful.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Pawzk9 said:


> News phlash. Most show dogs don't. A few do. I don't consider obedience, agility, rally or CGC to be working titles


They are not....... Those are silly games.... And you and I are going to disagree here...... But Herding trials are not a good proof of working ability in a good number of herding breeds. 

There are dogs in my breed that do okay and sometimes even good at herding trials. The thing is they should not.... There are many styles of herding. And no way to showcase an ACD's talents in a trial. Not unless you have a trial covering at least a couple of hundred acres. 


Back on CGCs...... You could take a 12 week old puppy to a pestmart training class, with a trainer that was just hired, miss two weeks, and still fly through the CGC.... 

And if you are actually decent trainer, you can get a dog with a really crappy and nasty temperament through it.


----------



## Pawzk9

clumber spaniel from 1915
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clumber_Spaniel_from_1915.JPG


----------



## Rescued

Pawzk9 said:


> The eyes don't look painful.


:doh: 

Why do a good amount of your comments fallaciously shift your previous argument to another one?

And can someone please explain why a DVM cannot correctly diagnose an eye disorder, but* YOU* can, in multiple dogs, of multiple breeds, in multiple age groups... from pixelated 2" by 3" pictures on a computer screen?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sassafras said:


> Not really. It may be a fact that Bloodhounds are good at tracking, but watching a Bloodhound track doesn't "prove" anything other than you watched a Bloohound track who had wrinkles on its face. Correlation isn't proof.
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ think they don't look painful.


There are many things about certain breeds of dogs that are fact but there have been no studies on......

A proper ACD..... has a very low stop and deep inset eyes. They need this because dog with a high stop gets his head bashed in if kicked by a steer. While a dog with a low stop the hoove glances right off with minimal damage.... As for the eyes. A dog with bulging eyes, can easily have its eye kicked right out of the socket.... While inset eyes are protected.....

There have been no scientific studies on these features either.....But the lack of a formal study does not diminish the fact.....


----------



## Pawzk9

juliemule said:


> IMO a chance of getting injured, which could happen just taking a dog for a walk, is different than purposely breeding injuries.


Who is purposely breeding "injuires"? Yes there are some breeds that have extreme features. That's a fact. And I don't like the features of many dogs, including the temperaments I've seen on a number of malinois. I think extreme temperaments are possibly as damaging as extreme physical traits. Unless you are the military.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

And here is another fact..... Bloodhounds are FANTASTIC at tracking and have had loose skin folds as long as they have existed in their present form. Well over a hundred years.... Baggy eyes and all.... They have been great working dogs this entire time......


----------



## Pawzk9

So Cavalier said:


> How perceptive of _*you*_ to "know" that I am incapable of being able to form a decision independently and impartially-based on actual evidence. Sorry, you don't know me or my capabilities. My doctorate degree would indicate that I am capable of independent thought.
> 
> .


All I know about you is that you said you were formimg your opinions based on the opinions of others (me in particular, ignoring the fact that I agree there are problems. This just isn't the way to fix them.)


----------



## Crantastic

I am always disappointed to see people referring to dog shows as "beauty pageants." They're not. They are a good tool for responsible breeders to use to help them evaluate their breeding stock. I find them especially useful for companion breeds like the papillon that don't have a set way of being "proven" -- at least if they're shown, their breeders will know if they're structurally sound and have a decent temperament. And you _can_ gauge temperament decently well at a show. A dog with a bad temperament -- one that is nervous and won't keep its tail up in the ring, one that snaps at a judge, one that spooks or won't walk properly -- usually (I won't say always, because as with anything, judge quality varies) won't win, or may even be excused from the ring.

People who don't show can develop kennel blindness -- they become blind to any structural faults in their lines. It really does help to get outside people -- dog show judges -- to go over a dog and critique it. A dog can't get its championship without being seen by at least a few different judges, so that's several opinions that the breeder can take into account. Showing is a tool, just like puppy evaluations, temperament testing, genetic tests, and sports. I think it does benefit breeders to show their dogs.

And yes, there are politics, just like in anything. There are bad breeders who only care about winning. There are judges who have loose interpretations of the standards and award flashy dogs who really shouldn't win. You see this in little shows, and you see it in the big, high-profile shows with dogs that are winning because they're being campaigned and are handled by professionals. But there are also many, many breeders and judges who care a lot about the breeds and who only want deserving dogs to be awarded. You see a lot of them if you spend time at smaller shows; many of them are breeder/owner/handlers who are showing for fun and to make connections and to prove their dogs. I think it's hurtful when people completely write off dog shows as "beauty pageants" and ignore the many people who use them as a tool to help them breed the very best examples of their breed that they possibly can.

Also, there are far more breeds with "normal" conformation -- nothing excessive -- than there are what I'd call "troubled" breeds. I think that showing benefits the former category of dog much more. I definitely think that something needs to be done about those troubled breeds. But like I've said in previous posts, I don't think that the situation at Crufts was handled well at all. Despite their intentions (which may have been good), it came across as a publicity stunt -- a very loud public shaming. Even allowing the reserve BOBs to compete instead of the disqualified dogs would have helped; it would have given the whole thing less of a "no pekes can even compete this year, how do you like THAT!?" kind of antagonistic feel.


----------



## Pawzk9

Pai said:


> A dog brings scent to it's nose by INHALING. I have never seen any scientific proof that long ears or short, baggy skin or tight has ANY affect on how well a dog can scent. Biologically, it's the number of scent receptors inside the nose that affects that skill, nothing more. Certain breeds have more of them, which makes them better scenthounds. It's boggles me how old wives' tales cooked up in the 19th Century still keep getting repeated to this day even without a shred of real-life evidence to support them.



And you know this from your long history working with man trailing dogs, right?


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> I heard jemmy is actually Ingrid Newkirk in disguise...
> 
> .


There are many irrational and obsessed people out there looking for their 15 minutes (or more) of fame. There are also a number of people out there trying to destroy purebred (or any) dog and the events we do with them.. There are also a lot of people who have good intentions but are mislead. Doesn't mean they are all the same person. Besides, Jemmy's face isn't nearly as ugly unless she's wearing a fright mask for her Ingrid persona..


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> IMO the basis for this entire argument was the fact that the basset that won is in no way able to "do a two mile track" - Due in part to his excessive wrinkles. It doesn't really matter WHAT the dog can smell if it can't get to the smell...


That was not why he was disqualified.


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ubTCBN_l1E
> 
> Except for it is the dog that won at Crufts. This is the issue- you cannot accuse people of toying with the facts when the facts are there, plain and simple, in video and in picture.


Looks like it has a lot more ticking. Maybe not. But in any case, the eye doesn't look "painful" It just looks loose.


----------



## begemot

I'm snarky?



Pawzk9 said:


> It might be useful if you actually quoted me, and not just what you think I might have been saying,





Pawzk9 said:


> As to your reading comprehension, if you truly can't get what I'm saying, you might want to work on that





Pawzk9 said:


> Gee, I'm really sorry that your reading comprehensionseems to have really deterioated





Pawzk9 said:


> Perhaps you should try glasses? I can see the dog's eye perfectly well in two of the three pictures





Pawzk9 said:


> I think the GP vet saw what she was told to see. The picture is not that fuzzy and not that distant. Perhaps you need glasses.


----------



## begemot

Pawzk9 said:


> So? Who says the basset does not fit the standard? Have you seen pictures of the dog?





Pawzk9 said:


> I bet you haven't even seen pictures of them


From page 13:



begemot said:


> Anyway, here's the basset hound that failed.


From page 16:



perrodeapeso said:


> I found that pic on a link in this thread.


From page 17:



begemot said:


> Ithani.


----------



## Pawzk9

Crantastic said:


> I am always disappointed to see people referring to dog shows as "beauty pageants." They're not. They are a good tool for responsible breeders to use to help them evaluate their breeding stock. I find them especially useful for companion breeds like the papillon that don't have a set way of being "proven" -- at least if they're shown, their breeders will know if they're structurally sound and have a decent temperament. And you _can_ gauge temperament decently well at a show. A dog with a bad temperament -- one that is nervous and won't keep its tail up in the ring, one that snaps at a judge, one that spooks or won't walk properly -- usually (I won't say always, because as with anything, judge quality varies) won't win, or may even be excused from the ring.
> 
> People who don't show can develop kennel blindness -- they become blind to any structural faults in their lines. It really does help to get outside people -- dog show judges -- to go over a dog and critique it. A dog can't get its championship without being seen by at least a few different judges, so that's several opinions that the breeder can take into account. Showing is a tool, just like puppy evaluations, temperament testing, genetic tests, and sports. I think it does benefit breeders to show their dogs.
> 
> And yes, there are politics, just like in anything. There are bad breeders who only care about winning. There are judges who have loose interpretations of the standards and award flashy dogs who really shouldn't win. You see this in little shows, and you see it in the big, high-profile shows with dogs that are winning because they're being campaigned and are handled by professionals. But there are also many, many breeders and judges who care a lot about the breeds and who only want deserving dogs to be awarded. You see a lot of them if you spend time at smaller shows; many of them are breeder/owner/handlers who are showing for fun and to make connections and to prove their dogs. I think it's hurtful when people completely write off dog shows as "beauty pageants" and ignore the many people who use them as a tool to help them breed the very best examples of their breed that they possibly can.
> 
> Also, there are far more breeds with "normal" conformation -- nothing excessive -- than there are what I'd call "troubled" breeds. I think that showing benefits the former category of dog much more. I definitely think that something needs to be done about those troubled breeds. But like I've said in previous posts, I don't think that the situation at Crufts was handled well at all. Despite their intentions (which may have been good), it came across as a publicity stunt -- a very loud public shaming. Even allowing the reserve BOBs to compete instead of the disqualified dogs would have helped; it would have given the whole thing less of a "no pekes can even compete this year, how do you like THAT!?" kind of antagonistic feel.


Great post.


----------



## Pawzk9

begemot said:


> I'm snarky?


Yup. And sometimes I snark back. But I don't need to go back through the whole thread to prove my polnt.


----------



## begemot

Pawzk9 said:


> Yup. I honestlly believe that the vets went into the exams with an agenda. And I didn't pull that out of thin air.


So what place did you pull it out of?  No, seriously, since you keep casting aspersions on the moral integrity of the vets involved and hinting at an unnamed source, why don't you enlighten us? If not thin air, where are you getting this information?


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> :doh:
> 
> Why do a good amount of your comments fallaciously shift your previous argument to another one?
> 
> And can someone please explain why a DVM cannot correctly diagnose an eye disorder, but* YOU* can, in multiple dogs, of multiple breeds, in multiple age groups... from pixelated 2" by 3" pictures on a computer screen?


maybe because I am responding to other posts. I admitted I might be mistaken about it being the BOB dog. Do the eyes look inflamed and painful to you? Now the Neo, I'd have to agree that is very extreme. I'm not a DVM, but I am a pet professional who has been awfully accurate on telling clients when they DO need to visit the vet with a specific concern. And I never said a vet COULDN'T dx a problem, just that I think these vets were specifically looking for reason to DQ the dogs. Why else select 15 specific breeds and give a list of characteristics of that breed.


----------



## Pawzk9

begemot said:


> So what place did you pull it out of?  No, seriously, since you keep casting aspersions on the moral integrity of the vets involved and hinting at an unnamed source, why don't you enlighten us? If not thin air, where are you getting this information?


Maybe if you looked for yourself you'd believe it. Maybe you should do that. I only stated that in my opinion, it was likely the vets went into the "judging?" with an agenda. Why else would the KC set it up that way? I also think that the way the winning exhibitors and their dogs was disgraceful.


----------



## begemot

Pawzk9 said:


> The fact is, people are better off buying a purebred from an AKC (and probably from a KC) breeder than from a paper mill registry. And if you want a healthy, well bred dog without too many issues, a dog from a breeder is a better bet than a rescue from unknown circumstance.


Except for all the crap breeders, right? You just forgot to mention them. The ones that breed sick dogs that win ribbons despite -- or because of -- their painful physical defects. Or the breeders that do double merle breedings, yet are respected in their community and win ribbons with the offspring. Or the breeders that inbreed, despite centuries of scientific evidence indicating that it causes disease. Or the breeders that "cull" healthy puppies. Not to mention the millers and BYB's that do zero health testing.

If there's any take-away from the recent threads about this, it's that blind trust in "reputability" isn't a good strategy when it comes to puppy buying. There are good breeders. But AKC registration or the mere fact that they are intentionally breeding puppies doesn't _make _them good. And it doesn't make their puppies any better than rescue puppies. No, to be good you have to earn it.


----------



## Pawzk9

begemot said:


> Except for all the crap breeders, right? You just forgot to mention them. The ones that breed sick dogs that win ribbons despite -- or because of -- their painful physical defects. Or the breeders that do double merle breedings, yet are respected in their community and win ribbons with the offspring. Or the breeders that inbreed, despite centuries of scientific evidence indicating that it causes disease. Or the breeders that "cull" healthy puppies. Not to mention the millers and BYB's that do zero health testing.
> 
> If there's any take-away from the recent threads about this, it's that blind trust in "reputability" isn't a good strategy when it comes to puppy buying. There are good breeders. But AKC registration or the mere fact that they are intentionally breeding puppies doesn't _make _them good. And it doesn't make their puppies any better than rescue puppies. No, to be good you have to earn it.


Sorry, I am through responding to you. Keep typing if you like. I will continue to respond to people who disagree with me, but are able to do so in a reasonable manner,


----------



## begemot

Pawzk9 said:


> Maybe if you looked for yourself you'd believe it. Maybe you should do that. I only stated that in my opinion, it was likely the vets went into the "judging?" with an agenda.


Except you didn't state that it was only in your opinion. You said that you "didn't pull that out of thin air" -- implying a source. So I'm asking you to link to that source.

I have looked. And everything I've read has left me with the impression that the vets were impartial and fair-minded.


----------



## juliemule

Pawzk9 said:


> Who is purposely breeding "injuires"? Yes there are some breeds that have extreme features. That's a fact. And I don't like the features of many dogs, including the temperaments I've seen on a number of malinois. I think extreme temperaments are possibly as damaging as extreme physical traits. Unless you are the military.


 I don't know of any good breeder that raises unstable temperament s in mals. If one comes as truly bad tempered, they are pulled from breeding. 
If you are referring to the dogs wit, ability to stand almost any working.g environment , the nerve to take on anything, well that's what it takes. There is t anything wrong withit. Those dogs are about the healthiest you can find, and conformation wise, they are structurally sound. How is that hurting the dog? Oh because those dogsw are not co tent to only new shown, and have to "water down" the breed?

Not many people can handle them properly, to have a top work dog and a safe family pet. Greta would say hi, but the little league team here at the hotel is busy rubbing her belly


----------



## Pawzk9

juliemule said:


> Oh because those dogsw are not co tent to only new shown, and have to "water down" the breed?
> 
> Not many people can handle them properly, to have a top work dog and a safe family pet. Greta would say hi, but the little league team here at the hotel is busy rubbing her belly


Not at all. But if not many people can handle them properly to have a safe family pet, I would consider that might be an issue.


----------



## Willowy

While I recognize the value of evaluating potential breeding stock, I'm not sure that competition is a good way to determine that. Typically, a competition rewards the best one present. If the best one there happens to be sorta mediocre, well, he wins anyway. But if there are several outstanding examples present, only one can win. So the mediocre one who won is a better breeding prospect than the outstanding one that came in third? Plus, the fact that showing takes a lot of time and money (and a special kind of personality ) means that a huge percentage of possibly excellent examples of dog-dom are eliminated from the gene pool only because their owners don't have the time, money, or patience to show just doesn't seem like a good way to go about it.

If there were designated expert panels who could tell you what's good and bad about your dog and his/her potential as breeding material, that would make a lot more sense. But, no, I don't have any faith in competition to accomplish that.

And this use of the diminutive "Jemmy" is disrespectful and juvenile. Especially from people who earlier objected to being called "showies".


----------



## Crantastic

It's not only one dog of each breed who earns points, though: http://www.akc.org/events/conformation/counting_points.cfm

Also, I agree that if the best dog there isn't really great, he can still win. But the judge has the ability to not award anything if no dog there truly deserves it. Also, it doesn't often happen that all of the dogs entered for a breed are mediocre -- if that does happen, it's likely because there are very few dogs of that breed even entered. In that case, the dog that wins isn't going to earn many points anyway, as points are based on the number of dogs of that breed entered (I believe that if too few dogs of that breed are entered, you can't even earn _any_ points in breed and would have to try for them in group, and a mediocre dog's not going to get anything in group). Someone can elaborate on that or correct me if I'm missing something... the ins and outs of the points system still baffle me a little.

I also disagree that showing takes a certain personality. Really hardcore showing, maybe... but I personally know introverted, shy, wry and sarcastic, and outgoing breeder/handlers who all do well at nearby shows.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Willowy said:


> While I recognize the value of evaluating potential breeding stock, I'm not sure that competition is a good way to determine that. Typically, a competition rewards the best one present. If the best one there happens to be sorta mediocre, well, he wins anyway. But if there are several outstanding examples present, only one can win. So the mediocre one who won is a better breeding prospect than the outstanding one that came in third? Plus, the fact that showing takes a lot of time and money (and a special kind of personality ) means that a huge percentage of possibly excellent examples of dog-dom are eliminated from the gene pool only because their owners don't have the time, money, or patience to show just doesn't seem like a good way to go about it.
> 
> If there were designated expert panels who could tell you what's good and bad about your dog and his/her potential as breeding material, that would make a lot more sense. But, no, I don't have any faith in competition to accomplish that.
> 
> And this use of the diminutive "Jemmy" is disrespectful and juvenile. Especially from people who earlier objected to being called "showies".




Some things you are leaving out.....

1) It is a single tool......Just part of the picture. 

2) Your point about only mediocre dogs being at a show is negated by show rules.... A dog (in the AKC anyway) has to win two majors and earn points under at least three judges to become a champion..... So multiple judges have to agree the dog is worthy and it must win at least two shows with significant competition. 

And.... The new measure of which dogs are graded by in the AKC is Grand Champion. In which you must earn even more points, Win under four different judges, win three majors and defeat other finished champions or grand champions in three seperate shows under three different judges. 

3) Dogs that have real potential to be something special seldom (it does happen) go to pet homes or homes that do not have the time or resources to put a real effort towards showing. It does happen. But is the exception rather than the rule. Sometimes on here you will see a thread about my dog's breeder now wants me to show him. Well that is often a case of such and exception. After the dog matured, the breeder sees potential in the dog they did not originally see. But most experienced breeders that know what they are doing, are good at identifying potential greatness at a very young age. And somethings if they are not sure, they hang on to the puppy a while and see how it turns out. I have frients that are breeders that AMAZE me. Including Merlins Breeder. And most show puppies have lengthy contracts in which the breeder retains certain rights on the dog. 

When I was ready to make my pick ( I WAS NOT looking for a show dog) and told her which puppy I wanted, She said we needed to talk. She said he was an extremely nice puppy and had GREAT potential. She said I was going to have to show him, she would be retaining breeding rights on him for life, was going on him as co owner until certain things were accomplished (I have long since fulfilled all of those things but left her on as co owner. Because I have him willed back to her should something happen to me. My wife loves the dog very much but she cannot come close to handling him. So if I croak, he needs to go back to the breeder. So it is easier to leave her on the paperwork) plus there was a long list of tests I was going to have to do. There were also things in there that protected me. If he did not turn out, failed health testing, etc., I could get a second dog or my money back. etc. 

She told me things about him at seven weeks that at the time I took with a bit of grain of salt. She said he was going to be a big ACD, between 19.5 and 20, close to 55 pounds, his ears were going to be a little big but he would pull it off because he would have a great head, and he would be a tad light on bone for some tastes. And she said he was going to move prettier than just about any ACD out there. 

Guess what, Merlin is 19.75 inches, 54 pounds, has ears a little big but a great head so it works, and could use a tad more bone. And he MOVES LIKE A DREAM. 

When I went to show him at 7 months old, she told me I was wasting my money because he was going to be awkward compared to smaller puppies. She said he would not do anything until he was about 18 months. But then LOOK OUT!
I showed the heck out of him anyway. He one a single point show but got his butt kicked all over the place. He got his second win ( a two pointer) at 18 months. He finished right at his second birthday. And I put forth less effort and went to fewer shows than we did when he was a puppy. It was like he could not lose.

I then thought I might special him some and get his grand championship. She said to not show him for a year that he needed to finish maturing then take him back out. Again I did not listen..... We did not do much of anything. I had just about decided he was not that great a dog comformation wise. Just an nice little champion that was not strong enough to compete against other champions. I did not show him for over six months. Then I entered him in a show just because I wanted to go and hang out. He took best of breed both days. So I started entering him. And he kept winning. Not every show but when you are competing against other grand champions and champions you are not going to win every week. And we ran and ran. All of a sudden people were talking about my dog. Last year he had a GREAT run. Ended up ranked 14th in his breed in the US. And he is still running. Once all three wins he had in march are updated to his totals he will be back at around number 14 in the US in his breed. He is a virtual lock to be invited to the national championship for a second year in a row and is just a few points away from earning his Bronze Achievement level on his Grand Championship. 

And the point is.... His breeder saw that when he was 7 weeks old. And she does it all the time. So do many other breeders. 

So..... 
Your designated panel of experts already exists... The judges.
There are checks to prevent a mediocre dog from becoming a champion. 
Most dogs with real potential go to homes that will work to see the dogs realize that potential 
Great dogs are very seldom eleminated from the gene pool. 

And something else...... A lot of champion dogs are never bred. If someone had a dog or a bitch that just finished is championship and did little else past that, people are not beating down the door to breed to it. 
Heck I have one of the hottest dogs in the country in his breed. He will be five in May, and has GREAT test results and clearances and while I have not put any performance titles on him yet, there are enough people in the breed that know him, have seen him work stock, etc that it is known that he has GOBS of drive and working ability. AND PEOPLE ARE NOT BEATING DOWN MY DOOR TO BREED TO HIM. He has yet to produce a puppy and I have advertised him as an available stud. He will produce some puppies. There are couple of breedings in the works, and a couple more potential breedings. And I have my eye out for the right bitch. To either buy or preferably lease. To produce a litter.


----------



## houndies

Bloodhounds have been around for more than a thousand years. In France around 800 and they came to the UK with William the Conqueror in 1066. There are plenty of records over these years describing them for example "We know these doggies by their long large and bagging lips and skin, by their ears reaching down both sides of their chaps" Dr. Johannes Caius, 1576.


----------



## houndies

spanielorbust said:


> I have no clue what you are speaking to as being interesting, or which 'issue' you are refering to that you think I have. Please clarify.
> 
> SOB


Interesting 
That the image comes from PDE and that this poor puppy with crappy eyes - by any standard - represents all Bassets or lets go further all dogs with haw is a fine example of the hysteria behind this witch hunt. That BH puppy has bad eyes and not just because of the haw but they are badly set and not the right shape. His eyes are even different shaped and sized to one another and he has eye gunk! 
All along I think all of us have agreed changes need to be made on A LOT of breeds. Believe it or not I too don't like seeing dogs with truly excessive furniture or exaggerated features. But I think we have to be more erudite in the best way forward.


----------



## houndies

Crantastic said:


> I am always disappointed to see people referring to dog shows as "beauty pageants." They're not. They are a good tool for responsible breeders to use to help them evaluate their breeding stock. I find them especially useful for companion breeds like the papillon that don't have a set way of being "proven" -- at least if they're shown, their breeders will know if they're structurally sound and have a decent temperament. And you _can_ gauge temperament decently well at a show. A dog with a bad temperament -- one that is nervous and won't keep its tail up in the ring, one that snaps at a judge, one that spooks or won't walk properly -- usually (I won't say always, because as with anything, judge quality varies) won't win, or may even be excused from the ring.
> 
> People who don't show can develop kennel blindness -- they become blind to any structural faults in their lines. It really does help to get outside people -- dog show judges -- to go over a dog and critique it. A dog can't get its championship without being seen by at least a few different judges, so that's several opinions that the breeder can take into account. Showing is a tool, just like puppy evaluations, temperament testing, genetic tests, and sports. I think it does benefit breeders to show their dogs.
> 
> And yes, there are politics, just like in anything. There are bad breeders who only care about winning. There are judges who have loose interpretations of the standards and award flashy dogs who really shouldn't win. You see this in little shows, and you see it in the big, high-profile shows with dogs that are winning because they're being campaigned and are handled by professionals. But there are also many, many breeders and judges who care a lot about the breeds and who only want deserving dogs to be awarded. You see a lot of them if you spend time at smaller shows; many of them are breeder/owner/handlers who are showing for fun and to make connections and to prove their dogs. I think it's hurtful when people completely write off dog shows as "beauty pageants" and ignore the many people who use them as a tool to help them breed the very best examples of their breed that they possibly can.
> 
> Also, there are far more breeds with "normal" conformation -- nothing excessive -- than there are what I'd call "troubled" breeds. I think that showing benefits the former category of dog much more. I definitely think that something needs to be done about those troubled breeds. But like I've said in previous posts, I don't think that the situation at Crufts was handled well at all. Despite their intentions (which may have been good), it came across as a publicity stunt -- a very loud public shaming. Even allowing the reserve BOBs to compete instead of the disqualified dogs would have helped; it would have given the whole thing less of a "no pekes can even compete this year, how do you like THAT!?" kind of antagonistic feel.


Very good post!


----------



## houndies

Lol come on JB if a Basset's willy dragged on the ground it would be very difficult to breed with a sore half worn willy....


----------



## cshellenberger

Pai said:


> A dog brings scent to it's nose by INHALING. I have never seen any scientific proof that long ears or short, baggy skin or tight has ANY affect on how well a dog can scent. Biologically, it's the number of scent receptors inside the nose that affects that skill, nothing more. Certain breeds have more of them, which makes them better scenthounds. It's boggles me how old wives' tales cooked up in the 19th Century still keep getting repeated to this day even without a shred of real-life evidence to support them.


 
Really? an 'old wives tale?' Please know your facts before trying to contradict. 

http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/breeds/bassets.html

and 

http://basset-bhca.com/

Basset Hounds are descended from the old St. Hubert hounds. Used to trail and drive game away, the Basset has had such famous admirers as King Edward VII and Shakespeare. The Basset was bred for hunting small game.* The Basset's long ears were developed to stir up and hold the scent for their strong nose to smell. The folds of skin under the chin, called the dewlap, help trap and hold the scent. Wrinkles about the head and face also aid in holding the scent.* Their large feet make them steady and the heavy bones make them sturdy. With their short legs they are ideal for slow trailing which allows hunters to follow on foot. The Basset is used primarily to hunt rabbit although they were first used on other small game such as pheasant.


----------



## Willowy

houndies said:


> Lol come on JB if a Basset's willy dragged on the ground it would be very difficult to breed with a sore half worn willy....


 Maybe their owners keep them in jockstraps at home? I don't know. But my brothers and I used to watch dog shows on TV and laugh at the Bassets with their "willies" and balls dragging on the ground. . .


----------



## KBLover

begemot said:


> Case in point. The fact that bloodhounds are good at scent work does nothing to support your assertion that it's because of their wrinkles. It truly doesn't matter how many bloodhound anecdotes you recite. You still haven't proven that loose skin has anything to do with scenting.
> 
> If the next intellectually dishonest argument is going to be that I haven't proven that the wrinkles _don't_ "funnel" scents (where? to the ground? because that's the direction those wrinkles point to), think again. I don't have to prove it. Just like I don't have to prove there aren't unicorns. _You're_ the one saying that's why they exist, so it's up to you to find evidence.



Why don't BOTH sides support their positions? Why bring up unicorns or choose not to bring up any information even if you have the "right" not to or whatever? 

As for if they do or don't - it makes logical sense that it helps.

Rub anything on the ground and you'll kick up dust and at the least stir up the air just off the surface of the ground. Why is it impossible that the bloodhound can then inhale his stirred up air every sniff?

Considering the air has to all be pushed forward at least to some degree (physics dictates that - you move your hand forward, or move a stiff piece of paper forward you're pushing some of the air in front of that object forward) and since forward of the ears is the nose and the dog is actively sniffing - why is it impossible that the nose picks up this scent as well? 

Why would the strictly physics nature of what happens not prove that the dog is actually getting more scent?


----------



## houndies

Willowy said:


> Maybe their owners keep them in jockstraps at home? I don't know. But my brothers and I used to watch dog shows on TV and laugh at the Bassets with their "willies" and balls dragging on the ground. . .


I wold love to see proof of this as I don't think any judge would pass any dog if this was the case.


----------



## houndies

juliemule said:


> Facts are not the same as theories.


Are they. I think facts need empirical evidence. It is undisputed that the Blood and Basset Hounds have the best noses - nothing about training - in the canine world. Perhaps this is the correlation you need that the tools they have have made them this way.


----------



## houndies

juliemule said:


> IMO a chance of getting injured, which could happen just taking a dog for a walk, is different than purposely breeding injuries.


Breeding with eye injuries?! What a haw that comes with some loose skin - by the way actually protects the eyes when the head is dropped.? 
If this is an injury or others have put it painful and a disfunction don't you think you would see on the whole eye gunk, tears, scratching or rubbing of the eye, if these dogs were in such pain or injured? I know when one of my hounds was scratched in the eye (btw the only problem I have ever had with eyes) I could see her discomfort. What I always see are very waggy happy laid back dogs not dogs in any form of discomfort.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

The Pug CC winners yesterday at the UK toy dog Society show REFUSED to stand for BOB yesterday in protest.


----------



## So Cavalier

> I think facts need empirical evidence.


The bottom line is that the functionality any sensory system is determined by the numbers, types and viability of the sensory receptors, the numbers and types of neural transmitters (ascending and descending) and the size of cortical processing delegated to that particular sensory organ. Any outward features may support the access to the sensory stimuli, but they reach a point where bigger is not better. There will always be a limit to what the features will provide. Basically, while long ears and skin folds may help initially to collect scent, ultimately it is the sensory and neurological make up of the blood hound's olfactory system that makes this breed of dog a good tracker.


----------



## houndies

JohnnyBandit said:


> The Pug CC winners yesterday at the UK toy dog Society show REFUSED to stand for BOB yesterday in protest.


Good long may it continue. x


----------



## So Cavalier

> Great dogs are very seldom eleminated from the gene pool.


There are many wonderful, healthy, well bred dogs with amazing temperments placed in pet homes with spay and neuter contracts that are eliminated from the gene pool. I have one.


----------



## houndies

So Cavalier said:


> The bottom line is that the functionality any sensory system is determined by the numbers, types and viability of the sensory receptors, the numbers and types of neural transmitters (ascending and descending) and the size of cortical processing delegated to that particular sensory organ. Any outward features may support the access to the sensory stimuli, but they reach a point where bigger is not better. There will always be a limit to what the features will provide. Basically, while long ears and skin folds may help initially to collect scent, ultimately it is the sensory and neurological make up of the blood hound's olfactory system that makes this breed of dog a good tracker.


So please tell me why they have the best noses?


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

JohnnyBandit said:


> The Pug CC winners yesterday at the UK toy dog Society show REFUSED to stand for BOB yesterday in protest.


Awesome, what about the pekes?


----------



## So Cavalier

> So please tell me why they have the best noses?


Because they have a highly developed olfactory system.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

So Cavalier said:


> There are many wonderful, healthy, well bred dogs with amazing temperments placed in pet homes with spay and neuter contracts that are eliminated from the gene pool. I have one.




That is not what I said.... I said GREAT.... There is a difference.... I seriously doubt that if the breeder of your dog had felt your dog was something spectacular, you would have gotten. Breeders... Well good breeders, are breeding to improve their own lines and programs. It makes no sense for them to put their top puppies into pet homes.


----------



## houndies

So Cavalier said:


> Because they have a highly developed olfactory system.


And why do you think or what gave them that in evolution? Keeping in mind what they look like and how old both breeds are?


----------



## houndies

JohnnyBandit said:


> That is not what I said.... I said GREAT.... There is a difference.... I seriously doubt that if the breeder of your dog had felt your dog was something spectacular, you would have gotten. Breeders... Well good breeders, are breeding to improve their own lines and programs. It makes no sense for them to put their top puppies into pet homes.


Very true the breeders would keep exceptional puppies or get them homed by other equivalent standard breeders. My lot (except one) come from very good breeders - healthy, fantastic temperament,long lived and successful showers but by no means are up to show standard.


----------



## So Cavalier

> Very true the breeders would keep exceptional puppies or get them homed by other equivalent standard breeders. My lot (except one) come from very good breeders - healthy, fantastic temperament,long lived and successful showers but by no means are up to show standard.


Here's where we differ in our definition of a great dog. I am talking about health and temperment, not a dog who would win in a show ring. I have two dogs from a breeder shows her dogs in conformation but she also competes in agility. One of these dogs is still ripping in the agility ring at 8 1/2 years of age and is asymptomatic for SM. I have one cavalier who is a rescue, who at almost 10 years of age, is heart cleared by ascultation from a board certified cardiologist, sweetest temperment ever and totally asymptomatic for SM also. I wouldn't trade any of my dogs for a show champion who drops dead from heart failure at 6 years of age.


----------



## So Cavalier

> And why do you think or what gave them that in evolution? Keeping in mind what they look like and how old both breeds are?


Selective breeding. Not their long ears and loose skin. If that were the case, all dogs with floppy ears and loose skin would have the tracking abilities of a bloodhound.


----------



## Niraya

Just a question: why is that automatically a dog that competes in show is going to drop dead at a young age but a rescue or another well bred dog from the same litter as that show dog is going to live much longer because it was placed in a pet home?

Or am I just misunderstanding what you said?


----------



## Avie

This is a 1891 Bloodhound and a 1879 Basset Hound. I think that especially the Basset Hound looks remarkably different from its modern form. I can't say much about the Bloodhound because I can't recall seeing one in real life, but for people who do: when comparing this Bloodhound with modern Bloodhounds, do they look like their modern type? (out of curiosity) 

Back to the Bassets: this old dog really reminds me of those Albany and West Lodge Bassets.


----------



## Crantastic

I had the same question, Niraya!

Also, sometimes great puppies are placed in pet homes. My papillon's breeder recently had a litter of five boys. Three of the five are show quality. One of the three is a bit cobby but could still easily finish; the other two are gorgeous conformationally and have lovely personalities, too. One of those two -- the pick puppy, actually -- went to a pet home. The breeder only needed one of those pups for his genes, and if any of the other local breeders wanted to use him, they could come to her -- no need to have two stud dogs with the exact same pedigree kicking around the same small geographical area. She would have sold to a show home here or elsewhere if someone expressed interest, of course, but it didn't disappoint her to place him in a great pet home. (The third pup may go to another country, but that depends on a few factors.)


----------



## JohnnyBandit

So Cavalier said:


> Here's where we differ in our definition of a great dog. I am talking about health and temperment, not a dog who would win in a show ring. The two dogs that I got from a breeder shows her dogs in conformation but she also competes in agility. One of these dogs is still ripping in the agility ring at 8 1/2 years of age and is asymptomatic for SM. I have one cavalier who is a rescue, who at almost 10 years of age, is heart cleared by ascultation from a board certified cardiologist, sweetest temperment ever and totally asymptomatic for SM also. I wouldn't trade any of my dogs for a show champion who drops dead from heart failure at 6 years of age.


Not discounting your dog. But a breeder is going to keep the very best overall dogs for their program or at least keep access to their genetics. To do otherwise would be foolish and go against building a line. 

The ONLY reason I was able to obtain my dog Merlin is that she knows and trusts me, I agreed to do something with him and she trusted that I would follow through, she retained access to his genetics, and we live 45 miles apart. She can get to the dog any time she needs him.


----------



## houndies

So Cavalier said:


> Here's where we differ in our definition of a great dog. I am talking about health and temperment, not a dog who would win in a show ring. I have two dogs from a breeder shows her dogs in conformation but she also competes in agility. One of these dogs is still ripping in the agility ring at 8 1/2 years of age and is asymptomatic for SM. I have one cavalier who is a rescue, who at almost 10 years of age, is heart cleared by ascultation from a board certified cardiologist, sweetest temperment ever and totally asymptomatic for SM also. I wouldn't trade any of my dogs for a show champion who drops dead from heart failure at 6 years of age.


I think we completely agree here. My dogs as yours might not be up to show standard but they are great healthy dogs and full of drive. I have taken mine on scent trials and they all do very well and my youngest I have done agility with her - she loves it especially as it is her very own thing.... I don't show or breed but the integrity and showing dedication to my hounds as it is to yours is paramount.x


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Avie said:


> View attachment 32632
> View attachment 32633
> 
> This is a 1891 Bloodhound and a 1879 Basset Hound. I think that especially the Basset Hound looks remarkably different from its modern form. I can't say much about the Bloodhound because I can't recall seeing one in real life, but for people who do: when comparing this Bloodhound with modern Bloodhounds, do they look like their modern type? (out of curiosity)
> 
> 
> Back to the Bassets: this old dog really reminds me of those Albany and West Lodge Bassets.


I posted a painting of a Bloodhound from 1904/ 108 years ago. The facial features, loose skin, droopy eyes, and long ears are the same as they are now.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

JohnnyBandit said:


> BTW.... Here is a painting of a Bloodhound from 1904


You can even see the haws in the painting


----------



## So Cavalier

> Just a question: why is that automatically a dog that competes in show is going to drop dead at a young age but a rescue or another well bred dog from the same litter as that show dog is going to live much longer?


Early onset MVD is a huge issue in the Cavalier breed to the point that most Cavalier owners know that it isn't *if* their dog will develop mitral valve disease but *when*. Protocols for breeding away from early onset MVD have largely been watered down by Cavalier clubs to the point that no real improvement has been seen since the protocols were introduced. All you have to do is spend some time on Cavalier forums to understand the heartbreak of having your wonderful sweet dog suffer from MVD.

The UK Cavalier club touted that at a recent heart clinic "A total of 129 dogs were examined by the cardiologist Mr Simon Swift and 104 were found to be totally clear of any murmur." Look and see the numbers and ages of the dogs cleared. http://www.thecavalierclub.co.uk/start.html Click on the link to "2012 Championship Show Health Test Results" The vast majority of the cleared dogs were under 4 years of age.

I was not implying all show dogs drop dead from heart disease at 6. However, some do. The implication is that show dogs are superior to pet dogs. I don't agree. Being a champion in conformation does not imply that the dog is going to be free from genetic defect. A lot of truly healthy, sound dogs that could contribute to the overall health of a breed ARE placed in pet homes.


----------



## Crantastic

So Cavalier said:


> Early onset MVD is a huge issue in the Cavalier breed to the point that most Cavalier owners know that it isn't *if* their dog will develop mitral valve disease but *when*. Protocols for breeding away from early onset MVD have largely been watered down by Cavalier clubs to the point that no real improvement has been seen since the protocols were introduced. All you have to do is spend some time on Cavalier forums to understand the heartbreak of having your wonderful sweet dog suffer from MVD.
> 
> The UK Cavalier club touted that at a recent heart clinic "A total of 129 dogs were examined by the cardiologist Mr Simon Swift and 104 were found to be totally clear of any murmur." Look and see the numbers and ages of the dogs cleared. http://www.thecavalierclub.co.uk/start.html The vast majority of these dogs were under 4 years of age.


Yeah, we know this -- the question was, if you buy a dog from a show breeder but you don't show, why is your dog somehow less likely to drop dead than its siblings who DO compete in show? For that matter, why is any pet quality cavalier less likely to drop dead than a show quality one? MVD plagues the entire breed, no matter what kind of sport, if any, they do.



So Cavalier said:


> Here's where we differ in our definition of a great dog. I am talking about health and temperment, not a dog who would win in a show ring. *I have two dogs from a breeder shows her dogs in conformation but she also competes in agility. One of these dogs is still ripping in the agility ring at 8 1/2 years of age and is asymptomatic for SM.* I have one cavalier who is a rescue, who at almost 10 years of age, is heart cleared by ascultation from a board certified cardiologist, sweetest temperment ever and totally asymptomatic for SM also. *I wouldn't trade any of my dogs for a show champion who drops dead from heart failure at 6 years of age.*


----------



## Niraya

Thank you for the link and the information!

Crantastic beat me to it


----------



## juliemule

houndies said:


> Breeding with eye injuries?! What a haw that comes with some loose skin - by the way actually protects the eyes when the head is dropped.?
> If this is an injury or others have put it painful and a disfunction don't you think you would see on the whole eye gunk, tears, scratching or rubbing of the eye, if these dogs were in such pain or injured? I know when one of my hounds was scratched in the eye (btw the only problem I have ever had with eyes) I could see her discomfort. What I always see are very waggy happy laid back dogs not dogs in any form of discomfort.


Nowhere did I say breeding with eye injuries. Breeding g a dog that has known hereditary health issues IMO is not good breeding practice. If the dog or breed will pass on ANY type of issue, it should be culled from breeding.

As far as hounds go, yes they are excellent at scenting. I still don't see any fact about the wrinkles or ears. Yes it has been selectively bred, again that is in theory that it helps. If you could take the exact same dog, remove the wrinkles, and long ears, will he still scent as well? I dont think anyone can answer that. (With facts).

The truth is, a dogs scenting capabilities and the science of it is still a huge unknown. If wrinkles and ears were such a huge factor, seems like there would be a developed breed that has the training capacity of a pointy eared dog, with the physical characteristics of the bloodhounds. There has been a breed made for everything else.

Personally I don't care if it helps or not, as long as the dog can scent. My point was I have never seen proof. Nor seen it as fact. Because a breed standard, or information site states that's what they have been selected for doesn't mean its fact. I just know what I see, working dogs everyday. Lol, and I would never even consider the amount of wrinkles or ear length when choosing a tracking prospect. (Or know any person that would)


----------



## So Cavalier

> if you buy a dog from a show breeder but you don't show, why is your dog somehow less likely to drop dead than its siblings who DO compete in show? For that matter, why is any pet quality cavalier less likely to drop dead than a show quality one? MVD plagues the entire breed, no matter what kind of sport, if any, they do.


Please see my edit. I was not implying all show dogs drop dead from heart disease at 6. However, some do. The implication is that show dogs are superior to pet dogs. I don't agree. Being a champion in conformation does not imply that the dog is going to be free from genetic defect. A lot of truly healthy, sound dogs that could contribute to the overall health of a breed ARE placed in pet homes. I said I wouldn't trade my dogs for a champion who drops dead at age 6. I didn't say they all do.


----------



## houndies

juliemule said:


> IMO a chance of getting injured, which could happen just taking a dog for a walk, is different than purposely breeding injuries.


Purposely breeding with injury - you said it... And what injury??
I am not at all an expert on tracking so really can't respond to the rest of your post....


----------



## Crantastic

So Cavalier said:


> Being a champion in conformation does not imply that the dog is going to be free from genetic defect. A lot of truly healthy, sound dogs that could contribute to the overall health of a breed ARE placed in pet homes. I said I wouldn't trade my dogs for a champion who drops dead at age 6. I didn't say they all do.


Well, yeah. Like I said in my post, sometimes there will be two healthy, sound dogs in a litter who could contribute to the breed, and the breeder will keep one and end up placing one in a pet home because they don't need two dogs with the exact same pedigree (and might not get interest from other show breeders farther away geographically). I guess I just don't understand why you decided to toss the "I wouldn't trade my dogs for a champion who drops dead at age 6" thing in there at all -- it definitely sounded like you were saying that pet-quality dogs are superior to show-quality ones, but really if they're all coming from the same lines, they are equally likely to be healthy or unhealthy. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## begemot

Crantastic said:


> Yeah, we know this -- the question was, if you buy a dog from a show breeder but you don't show, why is your dog somehow less likely to drop dead than its siblings who DO compete in show? For that matter, why is any pet quality cavalier less likely to drop dead than a show quality one? MVD plagues the entire breed, no matter what kind of sport, if any, they do.


She never SAID that. She never made that argument. Reread her posts. She is saying (roughly, in my words) that showing is looks-only, but in a breed with the problems that cavaliers have, health should take priority. There are healthy dogs that go to pet homes (that aren't bred), and there are show dogs that die young (and are bred), and that indicates how prioritizing looks over health is harmful to the breed. She never said that ALL pet dogs are healthy and ALL show dogs are not. You are misreading her post.


----------



## houndies

juliemule said:


> Nowhere did I say breeding with eye injuries. Breeding g a dog that has known hereditary health issues IMO is not good breeding practice. If the dog or breed will pass on ANY type of issue, it should be culled from breeding.
> 
> As far as hounds go, yes they are excellent at scenting. I still don't see any fact about the wrinkles or ears. Yes it has been selectively bred, again that is in theory that it helps. If you could take the exact same dog, remove the wrinkles, and long ears, will he still scent as well? I dont think anyone can answer that. (With facts).
> 
> The truth is, a dogs scenting capabilities and the science of it is still a huge unknown. If wrinkles and ears were such a huge factor, seems like there would be a developed breed that has the training capacity of a pointy eared dog, with the physical characteristics of the bloodhounds. There has been a breed made for everything else.
> 
> Personally I don't care if it helps or not, as long as the dog can scent. My point was I have never seen proof. Nor seen it as fact. Because a breed standard, or information site states that's what they have been selected for doesn't mean its fact. I just know what I see, working dogs everyday. Lol, and I would never even consider the amount of wrinkles or ear length when choosing a tracking prospect. (Or know any person that would)


Perhaps develope a pointy eared dog thats biddable and tracks but it will never have the instinctive ancient drive , built for purpose as a Bloodhound or a Basset but yes it will be more manageable LOL


----------



## Crantastic

Yes, begemot. She already clarified, and things are fine. Nobody was being antagonistic -- no need to jump in and defend her. Also, showing is not "looks-only" -- it's not that simplistic. I already discussed that in this post. Finally, if the dogs being kept for show and the ones being sent to pet homes are from the same litter, as in the case of So Cavalier's dog from the show/agility breeder, they have just as much of a chance of being healthy or unhealthy -- which was the point that Niraya and I were making. Neither is "better" health-wise than the other.


----------



## Miss Bugs

> So please tell me why they have the best noses?


because they have been bred to scent. its well known that breeding for certain behaviours effects physical appearence because the genes are tied together. all retrievers no matter where they came from or what they were bred to retrieve have the same dropped medium triangle ears..so what if I said that Retreivers are the best BECAUSE they have medium dropped trangle ears? you would call me crazy, and rightly so!


----------



## Crantastic

Interesting article from PBS's Nature series (relevant parts bolded):



> *Researchers have estimated that a bloodhound’s nose consists of approximately 230 million olfactory cells, or “scent receptors” — 40 times the number in humans.* Whereas our olfactory center is about the size of a postage stamp, a dog’s can be as large as a handkerchief — *according to Allen, it is among the largest in canines.* “The physical size of their olfactory area far exceeds most other working scent dogs,” he says. “The larger capacity combined with the desire to work makes them a very good tool.”
> 
> When a bloodhound sniffs a scent article (a piece of clothing or item touched only by the subject), air rushes through its nasal cavity and chemical vapors — or odors — lodge in the mucus and bombard the dog’s scent receptors. Chemical signals are then sent to the olfactory bulb, the part of the brain that analyzes smells, and an “odor image” is created. For the dog, this image is far more detailed than a photograph is for a human. Using the odor image as a reference, the bloodhound is able to locate a subject’s trail, which is made up of a chemical cocktail of scents including breath, sweat vapor, and skin rafts. Once the bloodhound identifies the trail, it will not divert its attention despite being assailed by a multitude of other odors. Only when the dog finds the source of the scent or reaches the end of the trail will it relent. So potent is the drive to track, bloodhounds have been known to stick to a trail for more than 130 miles.
> 
> *A bloodhound’s outward appearance also adds to its tracking ability. Loose, wrinkled skin around the face helps trap scent particles and long, drooping ears that drag on the ground collect odors and sweep them into the nostril area.* The dog’s long neck and muscular shoulders, which slope into its strong back, allow it to track close to the ground for miles on end.


----------



## Niraya

Beat me to it again, Crantastic!

I hate trying to read an reply from my phone


----------



## juliemule

houndies said:


> Purposely breeding with injury - you said it... And what injury??
> I am not at all an expert on tracking so really can't respond to the rest of your post....


 ANY hereditary problem. I'll try to explain, because I'm lost at what you aren't understanding.
Lets say I breed pug a doodles. My stud has crappy knees, I breed him anyway, and his pups have crappy knees, which lead to chronic pain and injury.
Or I choose an entire breed that has a heart defect. Just examples, but IMO, those dogs shouldn't be bred

Maybe its my use of the word injury, why we are confused. I was not pointing out any one dog. My whole point on this thread was about the dogs now being checked for specific problems, that, again IMO, have become out of hand in regards to breeding extremes. If the breeders won't control it, and he judges are rewarding it, then someone else should step in, for the best interest of the dogs.


----------



## begemot

Crantastic said:


> Yes, begemot. She already clarified, and things are fine. Nobody was being antagonistic -- no need to jump in and defend her. Also, showing is not "looks-only" -- it's not that simplistic. I already discussed that in this post. Finally, if the dogs being kept for show and the ones being sent to pet homes are from the same litter, as in the case of So Cavalier's dog from the show/agility breeder, they have just as much of a chance of being healthy or unhealthy -- which was the point that Niraya and I were making. Neither is "better" health-wise than the other.


Your 1:42 post wasn't up yet when I wrote that. And it did look to me like a purposeful misread of her post, since you were attributing things to her that she never said. Though I should say, in fairness, when I tried to explain what she was saying, it wasn't that accurate either -- I think I added a lot of my own thoughts in there.

And I reread your earlier post. And, honestly, it doesn't really come close to convincing me that shows aren't primarily about looks. You say it's for breeder to evaluate their breeding stock -- that's for looks. You say it's to prevent kennel blindness -- that's for looks. And while it may be true that some small number of dogs with truly horrible temperaments get filtered out, there is no way you're going to convince me that that's a real temperament test. Not even close.


----------



## Crantastic

begemot said:


> And I reread your earlier post. And, honestly, it doesn't really come close to convincing me that shows aren't primarily about looks. You say it's for breeder to evaluate their breeding stock -- that's for looks. You say it's to prevent kennel blindness -- that's for looks. And while it may be true that some small number of dogs with truly horrible temperaments get filtered out, there is no way you're going to convince me that that's a real temperament test. Not even close.


Structure is not about looks -- it's about how the dog is actually put together, how well it moves, if it could do the job it's meant to do without pain or discomfort, etc. Coat color and markings matter in some breeds, but not as much as the actual structure of the dog -- for example, in papillons, a nice symmetrical face is preferred, but a dog that doesn't even have a blaze on its face will win if it's the most well put-together. 

I also never tried to convince anyone that showing is the best way to judge temperament. If you read my post again, you will see that I consider showing one tool among many -- the good breeders I know also temperament test, have genetic tests done, have multiple other breeders in to evaluate their litters, and have dogs of their breeding competing in sports, among other things. Showing is one part of the big picture.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

begemot said:


> Your 1:42 post wasn't up yet when I wrote that. And it did look to me like a purposeful misread of her post, since you were attributing things to her that she never said. Though I should say, in fairness, when I tried to explain what she was saying, it wasn't that accurate either -- I think I added a lot of my own thoughts in there.
> 
> And I reread your earlier post. And,* honestly, it doesn't really come close to convincing me that shows aren't primarily about looks*. You say it's for breeder to evaluate their breeding stock -- that's for looks. You say it's to prevent kennel blindness -- that's for looks. And while it may be true that some small number of dogs with truly horrible temperaments get filtered out, there is no way you're going to convince me that that's a real temperament test. Not even close.


How many shows have you been to? How many dogs have you shown? 

It is NOT about looks..... The dog is being evaluated for structure, movement, The Judge puts their hands over every INCH of the dog. Including the sexual organs. They are feeling for correctness in structure, the bite is examined, Then the dog is evaluated based on movement. 

The dog's structure, not looks, are what is being evaluated. 

IF you ACTUALLY knew anything about conformation, rather than basing your opinion on something you have either made up in your own head or have been fed through some source with an agenda....


----------



## Pai

If you put a Snood on a bloodhound and bred one with tight eyes, it will have no noticeable affect on their ability to scent. The claim that any dog -needs- huge amounts of drooping skin to properly track smells is pure baloney. People aren't upset over the fact that Bassets or Bloodhounds have some loose skin -- it's EXAGGERATED loose skin to the point where eyes can't function properly and skin fold infections can occur that people are complaining about. 

The whole fact that some people put more focus on 'amount of wrinkle' on a dog rather than it's actually TRACKING ABILITY is kind of at the whole root of the criticism that many in the show world have lost focus on what actually MATTERS MOST in their breed -- function, in chasing after aesthetic points pushed to the point of ridiculousness and physical harm.

It used to be a 'breed feature' for Dachshunds to have bent front legs. It 'aided their digging ability'. You can point to tons of old paintings and photos from 100 years ago that show their twisted front ends. But if anyone used them as 'proof' as to why it was ok to breed dogs like that today because 'twisted front legs are vital to digging ability', they'd be laughed out of the ring. It's just as silly to say 'lots of haw showing is ok on a Bloodhound because without skin that loose their noses can't work at full ability'. It biologically nonsense. There are just as many if not far more GSDs and Labs working tracking jobs as Bloodhounds today, and they don't seem to be hurt by their lack of haw and droopy ears.


----------



## Niraya

Someone who does not want to learn about something will always refute and argue against people who are willing to offer their knowledge, experiences and information.

If you don't like conformation or you just truly don't want to or are not willing to attempt to learn/understand the sport wouldn't it be more beneficial to spend your time with a topic you're more interested in? Quite a few people on this thread are experienced owner/handlers and several others show a great deal of interest in conformation. 

I'm confused as to why you constantly are referring to it as a contest of "looks" when it's been proven time and time again that it isn't.

I could just be reading your posts completely wrong (as it's hard to really tell over the internet how one really means for their words to be taken), begemot, but to me it has seemed that since you started replying on this thread you've just wanted to completely dismiss conformation all together as a huge beauty pageant with absolutely no care in the world for the dogs.

I'm not trying to be rude and I don't mean for this to come off as angry or rude because it is far from it. I'm just trying to get some clarification and understanding .


----------



## juliemule

houndies said:


> Perhaps develope a pointy eared dog thats biddable and tracks but it will never have the instinctive ancient drive , built for purpose as a Bloodhound or a Basset but yes it will be more manageable LOL


 Actually, all dogs should have that ancient drive. Its part of hunt drive. Survival. Which leads back to tracking prey. 
I believe (I hate to put this in type, l, since I own and run pointy ears lol) that features aid. Though I have never seen it proven. More olfactory receptors, proven. Specifically developed breed for many years, proven. Just nothing ever proven that more wrinkles increase the dogs scenting capabilities, other than theory.

We get to be a part of Penn vet Akc car study which is in the process of finding genetics on detection dogs. (Greta gets her blood drawn tonight after disaster work). Right now we have lots of theories on what makes an excellent detection dog, but its not proven. No facts. Just theory. So far.


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> While I recognize the value of evaluating potential breeding stock, I'm not sure that competition is a good way to determine that. Typically, a competition rewards the best one present. If the best one there happens to be sorta mediocre, well, he wins anyway. But if there are several outstanding examples present, only one can win. So the mediocre one who won is a better breeding prospect than the outstanding one that came in third? Plus, the fact that showing takes a lot of time and money (and a special kind of personality ) means that a huge percentage of possibly excellent examples of dog-dom are eliminated from the gene pool only because their owners don't have the time, money, or patience to show just doesn't seem like a good way to go about it.If there were designated expert panels who could tell you what's good and bad about your dog and his/her potential as breeding material, that would make a lot more sense. But, no, I don't have any faith in competition to accomplish that.
> And this use of the diminutive "Jemmy" is disrespectful and juvenile. Especially from people who earlier objected to being called "showies".


What makes you think an expert panel would be a better answer than a judge? If they are looking for the same things in relation to the breed standard? I would like it if judges would give evaluations as well as ribbons, though it hasn't stopped the European GSDs from being nearly as extreme as some of the US ones. I would also like it if health testing for the most problematic issues in the breed were required to show, and would love if it was required with registration applications. I recougnize that the latter would be a financial disaster for the already struggling AKC and don't realisticlly expect to see that happen in my lifetime. A judge doesn't HAVE to put up what they consider to be a mediocre animal. They don't have to award first place to any dog. And I've seen dogs excused for lack of merit, or given a second place ribbon in a class of one, so they aren't judged any further. I think the MAIN thing people need to consider is that in addition to the opinions of judges, they need to have the basic knowledge to make their OWN opinion of what they are looking for. And that needs to be based not only on the breed standard, but the health clearances, temperament, longevity of the line, and in working dogs real ability. Sometimes that is also tested for in artificial trials such as herding trials, hunt tests, schutzhund and other protection sports. Conformation showing is only one tool available. In the last litter I produced (7 years ago) The male would have possibly finished the CH (ASCA, not AKC) but he didn't have the long drapy coat most judges expect and the female is a little working bred dog who would never finish a CH in any organization these days. But if I was looking for show dogs to breed for show, my options would have been much greater. As to calling Jemima Harrision "jemmy", why should I be respectful of people I have no respect for? Live with it. I believe I may be the only person here who calls her that and I haven't been a "showie" for at least a decade.


----------



## juliemule

Crantastic said:


> Structure is not about looks -- it's about how the dog is actually put together, how well it moves, if it could do the job it's meant to do without pain or discomfort, etc. Coat color and markings matter in some breeds, but not as much as the actual structure of the dog -- for example, in papillons, a nice symmetrical face is preferred, but a dog that doesn't even have a blaze on its face will win if it's the most well put-together.
> 
> I also never tried to convince anyone that showing is the best way to judge temperament. If you read my post again, you will see that I consider showing one tool among many -- the good breeders I know also temperament test, have genetic tests done, have multiple other breeders in to evaluate their litters, and have dogs of their breeding competing in sports, among other things. Showing is one part of the big picture.


 It should be! It was once! What I see now, is extremes which takes away from the actual ability to perform the job that was asked from the dog. 
Some breeds that still holds true. Some it has become so far fetched that winning dogs couldn't claw their way out of a wet paper sack lol. 
This is the reason I am happy to see checks being done to get back to what proper form should be.


----------



## begemot

Crantastic said:


> Structure is not about looks -- it's about how the dog is actually put together, how well it moves, if it could do the job it's meant to do without pain or discomfort, etc.


The first two (how well the dog is put together and movement) _are _part of looks. The last one is something I don't believe that shows actually do. Winning qualities often seem to have little to do with a job, and may actually impede the performance of a job, and _cause _pain or discomfort. I feel like many people have explained this point in this very thread.



> I also never tried to convince anyone that showing is the best way to judge temperament.


In your own words:



Crantastic said:


> ... at least if they're shown, their breeders will know if they're structurally sound and have a decent temperament. And you _can_ gauge temperament decently well at a show.


You didn't say it's the "best" way to judge temperament, but you said it's a way. You used it as an example of how shows aren't just about looks, saying that they also judge temperament.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> Awesome, what about the pekes?


Pekes did show for BOB, and the dog that won is bred/handled/owned by this years peke judge at crufts.


----------



## Crantastic

Niraya said:


> I could just be reading your posts completely wrong (as it's hard to really tell over the internet how one really means for their words to be taken), begemot, but to me it has seemed that since you started replying on this thread you've just wanted to completely dismiss conformation all together as a huge beauty pageant with absolutely no care in the world for the dogs.


I feel like several people have been doing this, and it makes me a little sad. I sort of understand, though -- there _are_ bad breeders out there who just want to win and who breed dogs they know will win without regard to good health. Unfortunately, those are the breeders we hear about most often -- people don't tend to talk about the good ones who are just trucking along as usual -- and so people who don't know much about conformation and don't actually attend shows end up thinking the majority of breeders are like that. But there are bad apples in every sport, every profession, every group of people everywhere. Basing your opinion of dog shows on a few bad breeders or a few troubled breeds, when there are so many breeders out there breeding sound, healthy dogs and really caring about them, seems a little myopic.

I've also noticed that every one of us defending shows and show breeders in this thread has admitted that there are problems that need fixed. We just don't feel that Crufts handled the situation well.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim

Crantastic said:


> I feel like several people have been doing this, and it makes me a little sad. I sort of understand, though -- there _are_ bad breeders out there who just want to win and who breed dogs they know will win without regard to good health. Unfortunately, those are the breeders we hear about most often -- people don't tend to talk about the good ones who are just trucking along as usual -- and so people who don't know much about conformation and don't actually attend shows end up thinking the majority of breeders are like that. But there are bad apples in every sport, every profession, every group of people everywhere. Basing your opinion of dog shows on a few bad breeders or a few troubled breeds, when there are so many breeders out there breeding sound, healthy dogs and really caring about them, seems a little myopic.
> 
> I've also noticed that every one of us defending shows and show breeders in this thread has admitted that there are problems that need fixed. We just don't feel that Crufts handled the situation well.


Exactly very well put.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

begemot said:


> Your 1:42 post wasn't up yet when I wrote that. And it did look to me like a purposeful misread of her post, since you were attributing things to her that she never said. Though I should say, in fairness, when I tried to explain what she was saying, it wasn't that accurate either -- I think I added a lot of my own thoughts in there.
> 
> And I reread your earlier post. And, honestly, it doesn't really come close to convincing me that shows aren't primarily about looks. You say it's for breeder to evaluate their breeding stock -- that's for looks. You say it's to prevent kennel blindness -- that's for looks. And while it may be true that some small number of dogs with truly horrible temperaments get filtered out, there is no way you're going to convince me that that's a real temperament test. Not even close.


Will your dog stand rock still with no reaction while a perfect stranger goes over every inch of their body? Moving the head to different angles, Opening the mouth to look at the teeth, running their fingers deep into the dogs mouth, lifting the feet, straightning the tail, touching the sexual organs, etc etc etc? 

Your dog cannot shy away, cower, growl, snarl, snap, etc, go into a submissive position, lay down, turn around, get jumpy, etc. pull away, etc... Anything more than some tail wagging (too much of that is BAD in my breed) 

Will your dog ignore someone walking up from behind, and not be reactive when that person touches them? 

I would bet money it wouldn not allow all these things......

And more than that...... You have no idea if the judge (assuming you have never been in front of that judge before and often you have not been. You may have heard something about the judge) is going to handle your dog like a sack of potatoes they are trying to throw in the back of a truck, is kneading bread dough, or touching it as if they would a baby. 

Some judges have a heavy hand, some are rough, some are gentle, etc.... But it does not matter...... Your dog has to stand there....

T


----------



## Niraya

Crantastic said:


> I feel like several people have been doing this, and it makes me a little sad. I sort of understand, though -- there _are_ bad breeders out there who just want to win and who breed dogs they know will win without regard to good health. Unfortunately, those are the breeders we hear about most often -- people don't tend to talk about the good ones who are just trucking along as usual -- and so people who don't know much about conformation and don't actually attend shows end up thinking the majority of breeders are like that. But there are bad apples in every sport, every profession, every group of people everywhere. Basing your opinion of dog shows on a few bad breeders or a few troubled breeds, when there are so many breeders out there breeding sound, healthy dogs and really caring about them, seems a little myopic.
> 
> I've also noticed that every one of us defending shows and show breeders in this thread has admitted that there are problems that need fixed. We just don't feel that Crufts handled the situation well.


I love your posts, Crantastic. Fantastically said.


----------



## Crantastic

begemot said:


> The first two (how well the dog is put together and movement) _are _part of looks.


What do you mean by this? Of course a dog that's well-built is going to look nice. How in the world is that a bad thing? But the dog is not just being judged on how nice it looks standing in a ring -- it's being judged on how easily and well it moves and how its bone structure feels under the judges hands, and how its teeth and eyes look.



> The last one is something I don't believe that shows actually do. Winning qualities often seem to have little to do with a job, and may actually impede the performance of a job, and _cause _pain or discomfort. I feel like many people have explained this point in this very thread.


In some breeds, yes. I have never shied away from the fact that some breeds have become extreme. But in the majority of breeds, the dogs in a show are structurally able to do the job they were intended for. Look at the doberman, the rottweiler, the Finnish spitz, the beagle, the golden retriever, the pointers, the greyhound, and on and on -- these dogs are not conformationally extreme. Shows are a good tool for their breeders to use to make sure their dogs are structurally sound.



> You didn't say it's the "best" way to judge temperament, but you said it's a way. You used it as an example of how shows aren't just about looks, saying that they also judge temperament.


Yes, and I stand by that. A dog with a truly awful temperament is not going to show well -- it takes a certain amount of unflappability for a dog to be in a ring with many other dogs and handlers around and to have a stranger run his or her hands all over it, to move smoothly with the handler when prompted and to stand quietly and still the rest of the time.


----------



## houndies

Crantastic said:


> I feel like several people have been doing this, and it makes me a little sad. I sort of understand, though -- there _are_ bad breeders out there who just want to win and who breed dogs they know will win without regard to good health. Unfortunately, those are the breeders we hear about most often -- people don't tend to talk about the good ones who are just trucking along as usual -- and so people who don't know much about conformation and don't actually attend shows end up thinking the majority of breeders are like that. But there are bad apples in every sport, every profession, every group of people everywhere. Basing your opinion of dog shows on a few bad breeders or a few troubled breeds, when there are so many breeders out there breeding sound, healthy dogs and really caring about them, seems a little myopic.
> 
> I've also noticed that every one of us defending shows and show breeders in this thread has admitted that there are problems that need fixed. We just don't feel that Crufts handled the situation well.


yes again I think tis is how most of us feel!
x


----------



## begemot

> I'm confused as to why you constantly are referring to it as a contest of "looks" when it's been proven time and time again that it isn't.
> 
> I could just be reading your posts completely wrong (as it's hard to really tell over the internet how one really means for their words to be taken), begemot, but to me it has seemed that since you started replying on this thread you've just wanted to completely dismiss conformation all together as a huge beauty pageant with absolutely no care in the world for the dogs.


Is this directed at me? I have no problem with the idea of conformation competition. Far from it. And I haven't once used the term "beauty pageant" because that does sound a bit derogatory, and I'm not trying to be derogatory. But it _is _primarily about looks. This is such an obvious point, I don't really understand how it can be disputed.

BTW, from the above quote I think you have me confused with someone else. Today is the first time in this thread that I've mentioned it being primarily about looks.

And I don't have a problem with it being about looks! But I do have a problem with looks superseding health, to the point that breeders are intentionally breeding for traits that are debilitating and/or painful. And before you jump down my throat, no, I'm not saying _all _breeders do this.



Niraya said:


> Someone who does not want to learn about something will always refute and argue against people who are willing to offer their knowledge, experiences and information. If you don't like conformation or you just truly don't want to or are not willing to attempt to learn/understand the sport wouldn't it be more beneficial to spend your time with a topic you're more interested in? ... I'm not trying to be rude and I don't mean for this to come off as angry or rude because it is far from it. I'm just trying to get some clarification and understanding .


Actually, it sounds like you're telling me off because my purpose in being here isn't to passively "learn" from you -- ie, agree with you. It doesn't sound like a genuine attempt to get "clarification and understanding." Maybe I should complain because you're not here to "learn" from me and all the valuable knowledge, experiences, and information that I have to offer? 

ETA: Great post, pai!


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Pai said:


> If you put a Snood on a bloodhound and bred one with tight eyes, it will have no noticeable affect on their ability to scent. The claim that any dog -needs- huge amounts of drooping skin to properly track smells is pure baloney. People aren't upset over the fact that Bassets or Bloodhounds have some loose skin -- it's EXAGGERATED loose skin to the point where eyes can't function properly and skin fold infections can occur that people are complaining about.
> 
> The whole fact that some people put more focus on 'amount of wrinkle' on a dog rather than it's actually TRACKING ABILITY is kind of at the whole root of the criticism that many in the show world have lost focus on what actually MATTERS MOST in their breed -- function, in chasing after aesthetic points pushed to the point of ridiculousness and physical harm.
> 
> It used to be a 'breed feature' for Dachshunds to have bent front legs. It 'aided their digging ability'. You can point to tons of old paintings and photos from 100 years ago that show their twisted front ends. But if anyone used them as 'proof' as to why it was ok to breed dogs like that today because 'twisted front legs are vital to digging ability', they'd be laughed out of the ring. It's just as silly to say 'lots of haw showing is ok on a Bloodhound because without skin that loose their noses can't work at full ability'. It biologically nonsense. There are just as many if not far more GSDs and Labs working tracking jobs as Bloodhounds today, and they don't seem to be hurt by their lack of haw and droopy ears.


It is not bologney..... Prove it or I call BS... 

And yes there are more Labs, GSDs, etc working in scent work than Bloodhounds. But... Most of the GSDs, Mals, etc are generalists. And most of the Labs are doing scent location work. 

There is a HUGE difference between a K9 rolling up on a scene shortly after the suspect disappeared or a couple of hours after a kid went missing...... And days old tracks, pursuing a fugitive that has a big head start and is doing everything they can to hide their scent trail......

The heavy and hard work still falls to the Bloodhounds. Not every area has Bloodhounds. They are expensive to keep and are specialists. They track. The do not find drugs, do not clear buildings, no bite work... They follow a scent to its source. 

There are Bloodhound teams that get flown in all over the country in certain situations. 
The county I live in and the counties around me all maintain Bloodhounds. In fact our county was the last of the counties to add Bloodhounds to their K9 unit. They added them because they were tired of borrowing dog handler teams from neighboring counties when their regular duty K9 dogs fail. The head/training officer in our county, whom I have known my entire life, took on one of the current Bloodhounds. His other dog had just retired, so he took on this specialist dog as his partner. He regularly goes out on loan to other departments that do not have a Bloodhound. 

The reason this is..... Bloodhounds are the best at what they do. Anyone that states that a GSD, Mal, Labs, does just as good has never been around when one worked. 

And the skin folds, ears, etc are a part of what make them the best.


----------



## Crantastic

begemot said:


> And I don't have a problem with it being about looks! But I do have a problem with looks superseding health, to the point that breeders are intentionally breeding for traits that are debilitating and/or painful. And before you jump down my throat, no, I'm not saying _all _breeders do this.


Good breeders have a problem with that, too. 

Also, structure and looks are related. A well-built dog is going to look nice. So I suppose I can see how you'd think that judges are awarding dogs just for being the best-looking. But really a judge is awarding the most well-built dog, and that dog is naturally going to look very nice.


----------



## Laurelin

Maybe I'm disenchanted with the debacle going on in the PCA lately involving new health issues and kennels being brought up and all the subsequent attempts to stop further research. And yes, the people pushing for research are show people but the people pitching fits and trying to stop it (for fear that it will come back to their dogs) are also show people. I'm afraid we'll go the same way as the cavalier. I don't think in the papillon's case the problem is 'a few breeders'... And we have a relatively healthy breed- at least for now. I have very grim thoughts about where the breed is headed.


----------



## Pawzk9

juliemule said:


> Nowhere did I say breeding with eye injuries. Breeding g a dog that has known hereditary health issues IMO is not good breeding practice. If the dog or breed will pass on ANY type of issue, it should be culled from breeding.


So, if all dogs carry some genetic faults or weaknesses, does that mean we should only breed "perfect" dogs? What about breeding a carrier? What about dogs in breeds with multiple problems and a limited gene pool. One might breed a dog who was borderline dysplastic, but had clear eyes and a strong heart - if eyes and hearts and hips were an issue. I had a friend who was given a bad time for breeding an OFA fair. But that dog produced numerous OTCHs, UDs, CH and Working trial CHs. Not a single one of her offspring OFAed at less than good, and several were excellent. Most were working farm dogs as well as trial CH, and good enough looking to win at least Majors in shows. (ASCA , as this was the 80s, which I consider more prestigious than AKC, since most shows have larger entries and it takes THREE majors instead of two.. She was behind my little nationally ranked OTCH double UD twice.
In collies, eye problems were rampant a decade or so ago. Through selective breeding which included some minimally affected dogs because there simply weren't enough clear dogs, they still have problems, but a lot less problems than they did have. And a wider choice of clear dogs. Eliminating a problem is tricky and not always a straight forward choice of breeding only dogs with no genetic issues. It also isn't accomplished in a couple of generations. Even with DNA based tests, one has to use a degree of common sense. A couple of years ago, the health testing clinic at ASCA nationals premiered a DNA test for Juvenile Renal Dysplasia, which is a kidney problem that kills dogs young. Of 70-something dogs of varied bloodlines (from the stock dogs to the show champions) ONE dog came back as a carrier. The other 70-something came back as mutant/mutant. Now with that result, you'd sort of expect that there are a lot of puppies and adolescent Aussies dropping dead of kidney disease. But it doesn't happen. In fact, so far one Aussie has actually been diagnosed with JRD. So obviously there is an additional modifying gene that hasn't yet been found but keeps the JRD gene from expressing. In English Springer Spaniels, the PRA gene was found in over 50% of the dogs tested. However some of those dogs who tested mutant/mutant for PRA are in their teens and CERFed clear annually. This is an excellent article which should explain to people who don't quite get it: http://www.ashgi.org/articles/breeding_bad_genes.htm





juliemule said:


> As far as hounds go, yes they are excellent at scenting. I still don't see any fact about the wrinkles or ears. Yes it has been selectively bred, again that is in theory that it helps. If you could take the exact same dog, remove the wrinkles, and long ears, will he still scent as well? I dont think anyone can answer that. (With facts).
> 
> The truth is, a dogs scenting capabilities and the science of it is still a huge unknown. If wrinkles and ears were such a huge factor, seems like there would be a developed breed that has the training capacity of a pointy eared dog, with the physical characteristics of the bloodhounds. There has been a breed made for everything else.
> 
> Personally I don't care if it helps or not, as long as the dog can scent. My point was I have never seen proof. Nor seen it as fact. Because a breed standard, or information site states that's what they have been selected for doesn't mean its fact. I just know what I see, working dogs everyday. Lol, and I would never even consider the amount of wrinkles or ear length when choosing a tracking prospect. (Or know any person that would)


The fact is, in working breeds (and Bloodhounds existed in pretty much their current appearance long before the current fads) who work (and Bloodhounds are still a breed that preserves original function, that "look" is not as much aesthetic as it is functional. Have you ever read Coppinger? I became interested in his work back in the early 80s. Malinois, GSDs, etc, can be good specialists in scent work (and many other breeds, if given a chance) but they are not Bloodhounds and cannot do what Bloodhounds can. In the type of work you do though, you probably wouldn't notice the difference.


----------



## Niraya

begemot said:


> Actually, it sounds like you're telling me off because I'm not here to "learn" from you. It doesn't sound like a genuine attempt to get "clarification and understanding." Maybe I should complain because you're not here to "learn" from me and all the valuable knowledge, information, and experiences that I have to offer?


I don't think I could tell someone off for not "learning from me"? The quote


> Someone who does not want to learn about something will always refute and argue against people who are willing to offer their knowledge, experiences and information.


 was actually a very general quote and from what I've seen is very true - but it was far from being something I said particular directed AT you. It also wasn't a complaint so I'm not really sure where you got that from?


----------



## houndies

juliemule said:


> Actually, all dogs should have that ancient drive. Its part of hunt drive. Survival. Which leads back to tracking prey.
> I believe (I hate to put this in type, l, since I own and run pointy ears lol) that features aid. Though I have never seen it proven. More olfactory receptors, proven. Specifically developed breed for many years, proven. Just nothing ever proven that more wrinkles increase the dogs scenting capabilities, other than theory.
> 
> We get to be a part of Penn vet Akc car study which is in the process of finding genetics on detection dogs. (Greta gets her blood drawn tonight after disaster work). Right now we have lots of theories on what makes an excellent detection dog, but its not proven. No facts. Just theory. So far.


Hmmm... I am very much in the Basset and Bloodhound world - out of love. My eldest at 13 years her eyes have started to go especially in bright sunshine. So when we call her I think she has a problem seeing us. Immediately she puts her nose to the ground and traces exactly - zig baggy and all -where we have been - with the lovely Basset sound. I didn't train her to do this. I don't even work on this instinct...Nothing proven...


----------



## begemot

Crantastic said:


> Also, structure and looks are related. A well-built dog is going to look nice. So I suppose I can see how you'd think that judges are awarding dogs just for being the best-looking. But really a judge is awarding the most well-built dog, and that dog is naturally going to look very nice.


Erm, "well-built" isn't just related to looks, it's _part _of looks. And that's not to discount it.


----------



## cshellenberger

begemot said:


> She is saying (roughly, in my words) that showing is looks-only,


Showing in ANY breed is NOT looks only, it is supposed to prove tempermant and that the dogs CONFORMATION is CORRECT for the job it was meant to do. I know there is a problem with Cavs, it's ashamed that the breed club isn't doing it's job to improve the health, but to project what's going on in ONE breed onto others is wrong. I can tell you that the breed clubs for the EBD, the Doberman, the Mastiff and MANY other breeds ARE funding studies to make their breeds HEALTHIER, they are ENCOURAGING COE breeders to health test and improve the breeds health and conformation. I'm sorry the Cavilier breed club isn't doing the same.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Sigh....... All this time, I thought my dog had great structure..... Now I find out on here that he is ONLY pretty....... I am crushed.....


BTW the Judge that is walking behind him is known and respected worldwide. Not just in show dogs but very strongly in working dogs. She is the author of several books on dog movement and structure.... 
She travels world wide as a consultant on structure for both show and working dogs. People as well as Public agencies will fly her in to evaluate structure on litters of puppies and on older dogs BEFORE they purchase them.


----------



## Crantastic

begemot said:


> Erm, "well-built" isn't just related to looks, it's _part _of looks.


I am talking about how the dog's bones fit together. I'm talking about whether or not a dog is properly-built -- if its bones are the right length, if its proportions are correct, if the way its skeleton is built allows it to move effortlessly. That is what the judge is judging. And yes, a properly-built dog is going to look nice. But it's not the looks that are being judged.


----------



## Crantastic

Here are some examples of what the judge is judging, in papillons:

http://www.papillons60.freeserve.co.uk/standards17.htm

That page shows movement from the back, and how improper movement can indicate, for example, "weak stifles with perhaps a tendency to slipping patella."

http://www.papillons60.freeserve.co.uk/standards15.htm

This page shows fronts, and demonstrates how some dogs will stand a certain way because "the weakness in the pasterns [compels] them to do so."

http://www.papillons60.freeserve.co.uk/standards7.htm

This page demonstrates correct and incorrect bites. An incorrect bite or crowded mouth can cause problems for the dog. Judges check this, too.

http://www.papillons60.freeserve.co.uk/standards11.htm

This page shows toplines and explains, among other things, how to tell if a dog is "too fine and fragile for health purposes."

These are the things that judges are judging, not just how pretty the dog looks standing in the ring.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

begemot said:


> Erm, "well-built" isn't just related to looks, it's _part _of looks. And that's not to discount it.



Well built.... Has nothing to do with looks... Other than a well built dogs usually looks good...

Well built is about structure.....

Have you ever worked a dog? Do you know that a dog that is put together correctly, has the correct angles, is coupled properly, has good reach and drive, is more capable of working and doing its job well from the physical standpoint than a dog that is sloppy? 

Anyone that is looking for a working, sport, etc dog that only looks at drive, instinct, temperament, etc when chosing that dog is foolish... Heck I will say it.... They are STUPID!!! 
It takes the whole dog to do the job. All the drive, intelligence, instinct and time you have spent training and developing the dog does you ABSOLUTELY no good if the dog cannot carries those things into the field and work all day. 

If the dog is not put togehter correctly, it will tire and become fatigued faster, it will not be as effective, and it will have a shorter working life because it will be more prone to injury and will break down sooner. 

Look at these dogs....



























Then go back and look at my dog....


----------



## Laurelin

Crantastic said:


> Good breeders have a problem with that, too.
> 
> Also, structure and looks are related. A well-built dog is going to look nice. So I suppose I can see how you'd think that judges are awarding dogs just for being the best-looking. But really a judge is awarding the most well-built dog, and that dog is naturally going to look very nice.


Papillons are gradually getting more extreme even. Take a look at some typical specials and you'll note how much fringe and coat they tend to have. How tiny the breed is becoming. How much focus is purely on head piece and not the total dog. Now Beau did finish very easily and he has a very coarse head, small ears, and single fringing unlike the specials tend to. His structure has been much better than most I see though and a much more solid temperament. Some judges rewarded that, but a lot do not. Beau was consistently first or last in his class, no in between.

Papillons are very much turning into a 'head' breed and I think that's just awful for the breed. I have seen so many people praising the merits of a 3 or 4 lb dog simply because it has a pretty head. I have also seen dogs with obvious structural issues (like a roach back) put up over a dog that is put together much nicer but the first dog had the nicer head with bigger ears. I would say coarseness of the head is a much lesser issue than a bad topline.

I like the idea of conformation certificates. Something that states that this dog is structurally sound and also is conformationally within the breed standard. It would never work though because people like the game of campaigning dogs to the top and you couldn't in that kind of system. But I think it would be better than the system in place now. I have no faith in the current system at all. The NAD fiasco is not helping my opinion much. And the fact that many 'good' breeders in the breed don't health test or seem opposed to health research. 

I see a big difference between the idea of a 'working conformation' and evaluating that rather than conformation showing. At least at the upper levels, I see the two as very different things. Perhaps other breeds aren't so bad as papillons.


----------



## Pawzk9

Pai said:


> If you put a Snood on a bloodhound and bred one with tight eyes, it will have no noticeable affect on their ability to scent. The claim that any dog -needs- huge amounts of drooping skin to properly track smells is pure baloney. .
> 
> .


I guess you know this because of your extensive experience with man trailing dogs?


----------



## houndies

Pawzk9 said:


> I guess you know this because of your extensive experience with man trailing dogs?


And again - why does this breed have the best nose?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

JohnnyBandit said:


> Look at these dogs....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then go back and look at my dog....


I can tell you without doubt that my dog will outwork them, work longer, be safer, etc than any of these three dogs from a physical side of things.

Dog 1 and 2 are short coupled and boxy, they will not be able to manouver out of the way of angry cattle as effectively. Also being short coupled, it will take more effort and energy to move. They will not be able to accelerate as quickly or run as fast. 

Dog one is also going to wear out its knees. That dog has CCL issues and surgery in its future if it does any significant work. Look at the easty westy feet..... That is going to put un natural pressure on those knees. 

Dog three is a complete train wreck. Aweful topline, roached up rear, no layback in the shoulder, 
weird angles in the back, (probably roach caused this) This dog could not run its way out of a paper bag. Much less work...

And another look at my dog...









He has layback in the shoulder, is not barrel chested, not short coupled, has decent angle, stands with his feet square and is well balanced. He can work. He covers ground without effort. Has unbelievable reach and drive, etc. He is built to work and physically capable of doing what the breed was developed to do.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

And.... My dog looks prettier than any of those dogs.... Because he is well built and has great structure.


----------



## cshellenberger

JB, the first and second dog BOTH look to have knee problems in the future, not enough angulation there and I see a potential for pateller lux in both.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

JohnnyBandit said:


> .


Oh and there is that Judge again.... The one that has consulted all over the world on structure of working dogs..... That day my dog beat out two other top ranked ACDs to take Best of Breed. I wonder if she thinks he is just a pretty dog, or well put together? 

Actually I know exactly what she thinks of my dog.....


----------



## Crantastic

houndies said:


> And again - why does this breed have the best nose?


Because their olfactory center is among the largest in canines. I posted a link to an article from PBS's Nature series a few pages back. The article also states that the dog's wrinkled skin helps collect scent particles, while its ears sweep scents into the nostril area.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

cshellenberger said:


> JB, the first and second dog BOTH look to have knee problems in the future, not enough angulation there and I see a potential for pateller lux in both.


I think you are correct.... I left that out because the grass is kind of in the way of seeing his angle and I can't see his feet.


----------



## Pawzk9

juliemule said:


> It should be! It was once! What I see now, is extremes which takes away from the actual ability to perform the job that was asked from the dog.
> Some breeds that still holds true. Some it has become so far fetched that winning dogs couldn't claw their way out of a wet paper sack lol.
> This is the reason I am happy to see checks being done to get back to what proper form should be.


I'd like to see less exaggeration in several breeds, better health testing in some. The thing about the vet's checks - even if they didn't have a programmed agenda to disqualify at least a few dogs - is that they were being evaluated by people unfamiliar with the breeds (why did they choose not to use the official vet?) These vets were actually looking for a generic dog without any consideration for breed standard. Clumbers and Bassets are going to have loose eyes. If the eye is only moderately loose (like the Clumber, which probably doesn't negatively effect the dog at all) you can't expect it's going to look like a tight, almond shaped, working Aussie eye. I say working because some of the show line dogs have much rounder eyes than I prefer (and the breed standard calls for) Aussies shouldn't look like Gund Teddy Bears.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Crantastic said:


> Because their olfactory center is among the largest in canines. I posted a link to an article from PBS's Nature series a few pages back. *The article also states that the dog's wrinkled skin helps collect scent particles, while its ears sweep scents into the nostril area.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Which is what I said yesterday.... But Pai knows better.... It is all balogney.... (sarcasm)


----------



## houndies

Pawzk9 said:


> I'd like to see less exaggeration in several breeds, better health testing in some. The thing about the vet's checks - even if they didn't have a programmed agenda to disqualify at least a few dogs - is that they were being evaluated by people unfamiliar with the breeds (why did they choose not to use the official vet?) These vets were actually looking for a generic dog without any consideration for breed standard. Clumbers and Bassets are going to have loose eyes. If the eye is only moderately loose (like the Clumber, which probably doesn't negatively effect the dog at all) you can't expect it's going to look like a tight, almond shaped, working Aussie eye. I say working because some of the show line dogs have much rounder eyes than I prefer (and the breed standard calls for) Aussies shouldn't look like Gund Teddy Bears.


Very well said


----------



## Pawzk9

JohnnyBandit said:


> And another look at my dog...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has layback in the shoulder, is not barrel chested, not short coupled, has decent angle, stands with his feet square and is well balanced. He can work. He covers ground without effort. Has unbelievable reach and drive, etc. He is built to work and physically capable of doing what the breed was developed to do.


Just a question, Johnny Bandit. Do you work or trial this handsome dog?


----------



## cshellenberger

JohnnyBandit said:


> I think you are correct.... I left that out because the grass is kind of in the way of seeing his angle and I can't see his feet.


My Pugs knees are underangulated and he has mild PL, I can spot it from a mile away. He'd never be show quality and is from a mill (though he's not as bad conformationally as many mill pugs I've seen).


----------



## juliemule

Pawzk9 said:


> So, if all dogs carry some genetic faults or weaknesses, does that mean we should only breed "perfect" dogs? What about breeding a carrier? What about dogs in breeds with multiple problems and a limited gene pool. One might breed a dog who was borderline dysplastic, but had clear eyes and a strong heart - if eyes and hearts and hips were an issue. I had a friend who was given a bad time for breeding an OFA fair. But that dog produced numerous OTCHs, UDs, CH and Working trial CHs. Not a single one of her offspring OFAed at less than good, and several were excellent. Most were working farm dogs as well as trial CH, and good enough looking to win at least Majors in shows. (ASCA , as this was the 80s, which I consider more prestigious than AKC, since most shows have larger entries and it takes THREE majors instead of two.. She was behind my little nationally ranked OTCH double UD twice.
> In collies, eye problems were rampant a decade or so ago. Through selective breeding which included some minimally affected dogs because there simply weren't enough clear dogs, they still have problems, but a lot less problems than they did have. And a wider choice of clear dogs. Eliminating a problem is tricky and not always a straight forward choice of breeding only dogs with no genetic issues. It also isn't accomplished in a couple of generations. Even with DNA based tests, one has to use a degree of common sense. A couple of years ago, the health testing clinic at ASCA nationals premiered a DNA test for Juvenile Renal Dysplasia, which is a kidney problem that kills dogs young. Of 70-something dogs of varied bloodlines (from the stock dogs to the show champions) ONE dog came back as a carrier. The other 70-something came back as mutant/mutant. Now with that result, you'd sort of expect that there are a lot of puppies and adolescent Aussies dropping dead of kidney disease. But it doesn't happen. In fact, so far one Aussie has actually been diagnosed with JRD. So obviously there is an additional modifying gene that hasn't yet been found but keeps the JRD gene from expressing. In English Springer Spaniels, the PRA gene was found in over 50% of the dogs tested. However some of those dogs who tested mutant/mutant for PRA are in their teens and CERFed clear annually. This is an excellent article which should explain to people who don't quite get it: http://www.ashgi.org/articles/breeding_bad_genes.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, in working breeds (and Bloodhounds existed in pretty much their current appearance long before the current fads) who work (and Bloodhounds are still a breed that preserves original function, that "look" is not as much aesthetic as it is functional. Have you ever read Coppinger? I became interested in his work back in the early 80s. Malinois, GSDs, etc, can be good specialists in scent work (and many other breeds, if given a chance) but they are not Bloodhounds and cannot do what Bloodhounds can. In the type of work you do though, you probably wouldn't notice the difference.


 Lol, what kind of work do I do pawz?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Pawzk9 said:


> Just a question, Johnny Bandit. Do you work or trial this handsome dog?


My dog currently holds no other titles.... Frankly only because I have spent a TON of time and money in conformation. I spent over a grand in march alone and will be spending another two weekends away from home and my wife plus another grand or more in April, At least one weekend out in May, Two in June, possibly one in July, then again in October, and November, then the National Championship in December... 

But...... That does not mean he is not capable. He works cattle all the time. Real work at family and friends cattle operations. He is VERY good. In fact if we did a performance only breeding with him, I could get more deposits in a few phone calls than a bitch could produce. 

The club I am President of, hosts at least two herding trials a year. We have a facility and members have sheep to save money. I have used him often as the dog that brings the stock in and moves them out of the trial field. He is not NEARLY as tight as a trial dog and a bit rough on sheep. I could tighten him up. But I DO NOT want him tight. I am not all about trialing my dog. I LOVE to work cattle though. I grew up in it and once had a cow calf op myself. I work stock every chance I get. I do not want a tight precision dog for working wild Florida Brahma cross stock. I want him loose and rough. He stays alive that way. 

I have entered him twice in tracking trials but that is limited slot trial. Neither time we were picked. He is well past being ready to go on his TD title. 

I co teach an Obedience class. And sometimes co teach agility. I use him as a demo dog in both those at times. I will title him both at some point. I want the awards for him from the national club. I want him to be remembered. Not for me but for him, in Versatility records forever....
He has plenty of time. He will soon be 5. I expect between is line, his individual health, the condition I keep him in, etc to do 15 plus years. And to be active right up to the end. Lots of dogs in his breed do it, including some of his close relatives.


----------



## Rescued

JohnnyBandit said:


> And another look at my dog...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has layback in the shoulder, is not barrel chested, not short coupled, has decent angle, stands with his feet square and is well balanced. He can work. He covers ground without effort. Has unbelievable reach and drive, etc. He is built to work and physically capable of doing what the breed was developed to do.


He really is gorgeous! And out of curiosity (since I was examining the toplines of all those ACD's)- would my mutt dog have what is considered a roach back? I know you can't judge him to any breed, but if he was walking down the street and you saw him, is that something that would come to mind? Just trying to figure out if I'm looking at the right part of the back in the other dogs you posted. And as far as rear angulation, do you want the back hocks to be further out than the actual rear of the dog (in ACD's at least)?

(I know the vest sort of impedes the view and its a puppy picture, but its the best picture of him to the side that I can find)


----------



## houndies

Pai said:


> If you put a Snood on a bloodhound and bred one with tight eyes, it will have no noticeable affect on their ability to scent. The claim that any dog -needs- huge amounts of drooping skin to properly track smells is pure baloney. People aren't upset over the fact that Bassets or Bloodhounds have some loose skin -- it's EXAGGERATED loose skin to the point where eyes can't function properly and skin fold infections can occur that people are complaining about.
> 
> The whole fact that some people put more focus on 'amount of wrinkle' on a dog rather than it's actually TRACKING ABILITY is kind of at the whole root of the criticism that many in the show world have lost focus on what actually MATTERS MOST in their breed -- function, in chasing after aesthetic points pushed to the point of ridiculousness and physical harm.
> 
> It used to be a 'breed feature' for Dachshunds to have bent front legs. It 'aided their digging ability'. You can point to tons of old paintings and photos from 100 years ago that show their twisted front ends. But if anyone used them as 'proof' as to why it was ok to breed dogs like that today because 'twisted front legs are vital to digging ability', they'd be laughed out of the ring. It's just as silly to say 'lots of haw showing is ok on a Bloodhound because without skin that loose their noses can't work at full ability'. It biologically nonsense. There are just as many if not far more GSDs and Labs working tracking jobs as Bloodhounds today, and they don't seem to be hurt by their lack of haw and droopy ears.


Well that would be cruel. Shall we put a snood on you and send you off to whatever you do?? GSD s and labs really are not the same as a dog that has been built to sniff.
Do some homework
x


----------



## spanielorbust

Laurelin said:


> . . . I like the idea of conformation certificates. Something that states that this dog is structurally sound and also is conformationally within the breed standard. It would never work though because people like the game of campaigning dogs to the top and you couldn't in that kind of system. But I think it would be better than the system in place now. I have no faith in the current system at all. The NAD fiasco is not helping my opinion much. And the fact that many 'good' breeders in the breed don't health test or seem opposed to health research. . .
> 
> . . . I see a big difference between the idea of a 'working conformation' and evaluating that rather than conformation showing. At least at the upper levels, I see the two as very different things. Perhaps other breeds aren't so bad as papillons.


I like the idea of conformation certificates myself. Does the UKC use this system, or is it just the FCI?

SOB


----------



## juliemule

houndies said:


> Hmmm... I am very much in the Basset and Bloodhound world - out of love. My eldest at 13 years her eyes have started to go especially in bright sunshine. So when we call her I think she has a problem seeing us. Immediately she puts her nose to the ground and traces exactly - zig baggy and all -where we have been - with the lovely Basset sound. I didn't train her to do this. I don't even work on this instinct...Nothing proven...


sorry about her eyes. That's great about her tracking. Good pups will show this hunt behavior as well. When testing, for drive, I'll have someone play with the pup, run and hide, wait a few minutes, and the pup should start tracking. This is with any breed. Its instinct, if they have it.


----------



## So Cavalier

> And again - why does this breed have the best nose?


I am just being curious....I really am not sure what it is you are asking here. Not trying to argue....really!! Is it your feeling that the bloodhounds tracking ability is due only to their ears and wrinkles?


----------



## hast

JohnnyBandit said:


> <snip>
> And yes there are more Labs, GSDs, etc working in scent work than Bloodhounds. But... Most of the GSDs, Mals, etc are generalists. And most of the Labs are doing scent location work.
> 
> There is a HUGE difference between a K9 rolling up on a scene shortly after the suspect disappeared or a couple of hours after a kid went missing...... And days old tracks, pursuing a fugitive that has a big head start and is doing everything they can to hide their scent trail......
> 
> The heavy and hard work still falls to the Bloodhounds. Not every area has Bloodhounds. They are expensive to keep and are specialists. They track. The do not find drugs, do not clear buildings, no bite work... They follow a scent to its source.
> <snip>


When I lived in Florida I rode with the Posse. We did a lot of things, but mostly search and rescue work. The Sheriff's departement also had several K9 teams, one of them a bloodhound. We were, more than once, mounted and followed the bloodhound (several times because he was closest) tracking a suspect. When we came to the bush, the wild areas where the underbrush isn't cleaned and taken care of by people we had to wait for one of the GSD teams, the bloodhound couldn't walk though all that underbrush with all his loose skin. He was later replaced with yet another GSD.

I have followed this thread on and off when I've had time. This makes me feel sad for our show dogs and also for us here on the forum. I feel very sad that I have lost the respect for some of the members here, the ones I used to seek out for advice and take really seriously, as some of the most caring most knowledgeable in dog psychology.


----------



## houndies

hast said:


> When I lived in Florida I rode with the Posse. We did a lot of things, but mostly search and rescue work. The Sheriff's departement also had several K9 teams, one of them a bloodhound. We were, more than once, mounted and followed the bloodhound (several times because he was closest) tracking a suspect. When we came to the bush, the wild areas where the underbrush isn't cleaned and taken care of by people we had to wait for one of the GSD teams, the bloodhound couldn't walk though all that underbrush with all his loose skin. He was later replaced with yet another GSD.
> 
> I have followed this thread on and off when I've had time. This makes me feel sad for our show dogs and also for us here on the forum. I feel very sad that I have lost the respect for some of the members here, the ones I used to seek out for advice and take really seriously, as some of the most caring most knowledgeable in dog psychology.


How did all his loose skin stop him from going through the underbrush?


----------



## houndies

juliemule said:


> sorry about her eyes. That's great about her tracking. Good pups will show this hunt behavior as well. When testing, for drive, I'll have someone play with the pup, run and hide, wait a few minutes, and the pup should start tracking. This is with any breed. Its instinct, if they have it.


Thank you Julie she is starting to chase a ball with her nose now as well. I grew up with a lot of different breeds of dogs. I have never seen such a strong drive as being so scent driven so naturally.
x


----------



## Rescued

Pawzk9 said:


> *Besides, Jemmy's face isn't nearly as ugly unless she's wearing a fright mask for her Ingrid persona*..


Just rude. Why in the world would you stoop to this level?



Pawzk9 said:


> That was not why he was disqualified.


I didn’t say it was. The (then)current argument and the basis for the DQ are two different topics- skin and eyes.



Pawzk9 said:


> Looks like it has a lot more ticking. Maybe not. But in any case, the eye doesn't look "painful" It just looks loose.


If you had bothered to actually watch two minutes of the video instead of hinting that I’m not able to discern the “difference” between two dogs (actually one dog…) you would notice that approximately 1:44 is where the screenshot was taken.



Pawzk9 said:


> I admitted I _might_ be mistaken about it being the BOB dog.


"Looks like it has a lot more ticking. Maybe not." is an admittance? Between you calling someone ugly and this, I'm beginning to wonder...


----------



## juliemule

JohnnyBandit said:


> It is not bologney..... Prove it or I call BS...
> 
> And yes there are more Labs, GSDs, etc working in scent work than Bloodhounds. But... Most of the GSDs, Mals, etc are generalists. And most of the Labs are doing scent location work.
> 
> There is a HUGE difference between a K9 rolling up on a scene shortly after the suspect disappeared or a couple of hours after a kid went missing...... And days old tracks, pursuing a fugitive that has a big head start and is doing everything they can to hide their scent trail......
> 
> The heavy and hard work still falls to the Bloodhounds. Not every area has Bloodhounds. They are expensive to keep and are specialists. They track. The do not find drugs, do not clear buildings, no bite work... They follow a scent to its source.
> 
> There are Bloodhound teams that get flown in all over the country in certain situations.
> The county I live in and the counties around me all maintain Bloodhounds. In fact our county was the last of the counties to add Bloodhounds to their K9 unit. They added them because they were tired of borrowing dog handler teams from neighboring counties when their regular duty K9 dogs fail. The head/training officer in our county, whom I have known my entire life, took on one of the current Bloodhounds. His other dog had just retired, so he took on this specialist dog as his partner. He regularly goes out on loan to other departments that do not have a Bloodhound.
> 
> The reason this is..... Bloodhounds are the best at what they do. Anyone that states that a GSD, Mal, Labs, does just as good has never been around when one worked.
> 
> And the skin folds, ears, etc are a part of what make them the best.


Most mals, labs etc, are specialists, not generalists. There is a distinct odor of human remains. Bury animal vsw human remains, watch a trained specialist. Or one tooth, years old, on a five acre field. Or a small amonth of cocaine in a warehouse. A finger in a lake. A trace of gasoline in an apartment complex charred remains.
then tracking and trailing. That's one scent. Dogs can be scent specific, discrimination, or general if they don't know who to look for. Add time. Moisture. Barometric pressure. Surface. Cross contaminants. Crouched vegetation and disturbed dirt. 
Its nit as simple as following foot steps. Scent spreads and pools. It all depends on conditions, no two tracks will ever be the same. Dogs trail on cold tracks, where scent pools with moisture, resurfaces with cooler temperatures, catches on vegetation, skips large areas, and the dogs will be quite far from where the actual foot steps were laid. 
This is where's the importance of the handler comes into play, being trained in mantracking, stride sticks, transfer of material, vegetation and dirt disturbances. Actually someone trying to cover their tracks are much easier to trail, due to perspiration, loss of skin cells, earth depression, and vegetation disturbances. 

Yes there are alot of factors in odor recognition, scent discrimination, detection, and tracking, trailing, or air scenting. Ears and wrinkles just aren't one of them.


----------



## hast

houndies said:


> How did all his loose skin stop him from going through the underbrush?


His loose skin was snagged by briars, sharp palmetto, and other low growing stuff that make the police departments use dogs and horses to get through those areas. The GSD's handled it much better.


----------



## houndies

hast said:


> His loose skin was snagged by briars, sharp palmetto, and other low growing stuff that make the police departments use dogs and horses to get through those areas. The GSD's handled it much better.


I have never seen loose skin snagged by anything - interesting...


----------



## wvasko

houndies said:


> I have never seen loose skin snagged by anything - interesting...


I've seen dogs slash ears in briars etc while Quail hunting in southern IL. Would that qualify as loose skin.


----------



## houndies

wvasko said:


> I've seen dogs slash ears in briars etc while Quail hunting in southern IL. Would that qualify as loose skin.


Are ears loose skin? I have had the misfortune of seeing a whippet cut it's stomach open on barbed wire.


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> Just rude. Why in the world would you stoop to this level?
> 
> . Maybe not." is an admittance? Between you calling someone ugly and this, I'm beginning to wonder...



wonder away.


----------



## Pawzk9

juliemule said:


> http://www.dogforums.com/general-dog-forum/109953-help-increased-aggression-towards-new-post.html
> Ears and wrinkles just aren't one of them.


And yet, many experts think they may be. Can you provide us with an expert opinion that says they are definitively not?


----------



## Pawzk9

hast said:


> His loose skin was snagged by briars, sharp palmetto, and other low growing stuff that make the police departments use dogs and horses to get through those areas. The GSD's handled it much better.


And you know that generalizes to all bloodhounds and their handlers? One dog, one handler does not a trend make.


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> He really is gorgeous! And out of curiosity (since I was examining the toplines of all those ACD's)- would my mutt dog have what is considered a roach back? I know you can't judge him to any breed, but if he was walking down the street and you saw him, is that something that would come to mind? Just trying to figure out if I'm looking at the right part of the back in the other dogs you posted. And as far as rear angulation, do you want the back hocks to be further out than the actual rear of the dog (in ACD's at least)?


I know you didn't ask me, but its on public forum. I would suggest that he is high in the rear with a steep croup - roaches are usually further forward and is quite underangulated. But he's cute anyway.


----------



## Pawzk9

spanielorbust said:


> I like the idea of conformation certificates myself. Does the UKC use this system, or is it just the FCI?
> 
> SOB


But the FCI is frought with inconsistencies as well. And the dogs are not less extreme than dogs in AKC or the KC.


----------



## Rescued

Pawzk9 said:


> I know you didn't ask me, but its on public forum. I would suggest that he is high in the rear with a steep croup - roaches are usually further forward and is quite underangulated. But he's cute anyway.


I appreciate your input too! Especially since (we think?) he's got some border collie in there somewhere. I'm trying to find a picture of him all grown up... for some reason his head just DID NOT grow like the rest of him did. Everyone always says "Oh what a cute dog! His head is a bit small isnt it..." :redface:


----------



## JohnnyBandit

hast said:


> When I lived in Florida I rode with the Posse. We did a lot of things, but mostly search and rescue work. The Sheriff's departement also had several K9 teams, one of them a bloodhound. We were, more than once, mounted and followed the bloodhound (several times because he was closest) tracking a suspect. When we came to the bush, the wild areas where the underbrush isn't cleaned and taken care of by people we had to wait for one of the GSD teams, the bloodhound couldn't walk though all that underbrush with all his loose skin. He was later replaced with yet another GSD.
> 
> I have followed this thread on and off when I've had time. This makes me feel sad for our show dogs and also for us here on the forum. I feel very sad that I have lost the respect for some of the members here, the ones I used to seek out for advice and take really seriously, as some of the most caring most knowledgeable in dog psychology.


One dog having problems is ancedotal...


My county has four
http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/A-Z-Directory/K/K9-Unit.aspx

Polk County has two...
http://www.polksheriff.org/InsidePCSO/LE/WestRegion/Pages/K-9.aspx

Pasco County has one.
http://www.pascosheriff.com/websmart/pasco/static/K9Kennel.htm

Hardee ONLY uses Bloodhounds. No bite dogs. There is a long story behind that. And they have a maximum security state prison in that County. The Prison has Bloodhounds too..
http://www.hardeeso.com/departments/k9/index.html


Additionally the Mounted Posse and other volunteer attachments maintain dogs as well. 

They are used all the time....


----------



## JohnnyBandit

hast said:


> His loose skin was snagged by briars, sharp palmetto, and other low growing stuff that make the police departments use dogs and horses to get through those areas. The GSD's handled it much better.


I have run hounds in Florida my entire life in Florida... Some with looser skin than others....Never had a problem of significance. Have I seen dogs get cut a bit now and then. Sure I have. But not enough to stop a dog..... But then again, if a dog has enough drive you could dang near cut off its legs and it won't stop.....

A GSD being a double coated dog does have a little extra protection... I suppose anyway..... I can tell you this..... When it is Hot..... GSD's suffer and struggle. And it is hot most the year. Bel Mals do much better....


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Rescued said:


> He really is gorgeous! And out of curiosity (since I was examining the toplines of all those ACD's)- would my mutt dog have what is considered a roach back? I know you can't judge him to any breed, but if he was walking down the street and you saw him, is that something that would come to mind? Just trying to figure out if I'm looking at the right part of the back in the other dogs you posted. And as far as rear angulation, do you want the back hocks to be further out than the actual rear of the dog (in ACD's at least)?
> 
> (I know the vest sort of impedes the view and its a puppy picture, but its the best picture of him to the side that I can find)


He is jacked up in the rear a bit and does not have much in the way of angle. Does he normally stand with his rear feet that far under him?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

juliemule said:


> There is a distinct odor of human remains. Bury animal vsw human remains, watch a trained specialist. Or one tooth, years old, on a five acre field. Or a small amonth of cocaine in a warehouse. A finger in a lake. A trace of gasoline in an apartment complex charred remains.
> .


Yes I am aware of this.... Not what I was refering to when I said generalist.... It is awful expensive to maintain a dog for departments. So dogs are cross trained. They do bite work, bomb detection, narcotics......

Bloodhounds don't do that.....They track.... People if that is what you want them for.


----------



## juliemule

Pawzk9 said:


> And yet, many experts think they may be. Can you provide us with an expert opinion that says they are definitively not?


 No. Just as I stated its not a fact, but a theory. I did t say that do not help. Only that it is not a proven fact. 

Just as its not a fact that a pointy ear will do better at detection. Seems lime they do, as you don't see bloodhounds as narcotic dogs (I am sure it is possible, just not the norm).

Most departments use single purpose dogs now. They are getting away from the do-it-all dogs. It is no more expensive to train single vs multi purpose, as departments share training aids, resources, and areas. The main factor, is liability. Lawyers pick apart dogs trained on multiple odors. The dogs are extremely effective, have seperate alerts, but its usually not in the best interest of the department. 

Some still use patrol dogs, and dual purpose. Most arson dogs are completely specialists. Most cadaver, really anything anymore. Detection and tracking are different that most mals or gsd can easily do both. The hounds usually can't however. The dogs that are used in detection cross trained are pretty well old school now. Tracing, detection, and apprehension are often combined with good enough dogs though.


----------



## Rescued

JohnnyBandit said:


> He is jacked up in the rear a bit and does not have much in the way of angle. Does he normally stand with his rear feet that far under him?


LOL, all the other pictures I poured over that are saved on my computer are even worse in regards to his rear... I don't want to hijack this thread with my mutt but next time I go home I'll post some pictures in another thread because I'm really curious about what "conformation" people think when they see weird dogs.

And if anyone else wants to answer- what do you think a better way to go about this whole health thing would be? We know the KC did it wrong, but what would be the right (a better) way?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

juliemule said:


> No. Just as I stated its not a fact, but a theory. I did t say that do not help. Only that it is not a proven fact.
> 
> Just as its not a fact that a pointy ear will do better at detection. Seems lime they do, as you don't see bloodhounds as narcotic dogs (I am sure it is possible, just not the norm).
> 
> Most departments use single purpose dogs now. They are getting away from the do-it-all dogs. It is no more expensive to train single vs multi purpose, as departments share training aids, resources, and areas. The main factor, is liability. Lawyers pick apart dogs trained on multiple odors. The dogs are extremely effective, have seperate alerts, but its usually not in the best interest of the department.
> 
> Some still use patrol dogs, and dual purpose. Most arson dogs are completely specialists. Most cadaver, really anything anymore. Detection and tracking are different that most mals or gsd can easily do both. The hounds usually can't however. The dogs that are used in detection cross trained are pretty well old school now. Tracing, detection, and apprehension are often combined with good enough dogs though.


Umm..... I just posted the K9 units from some of the largest departments in one of the largest states in the country...... MOST of those dogs fill duel roles..... EXCEPT for the Bloodhounds....

And here is a very large department.....
The Canine Detail is an element of the Field Operations Division's Specialized Operations Section and is composed of 2 Sergeants and 18 handlers. The Canine Detail provides their higly trained canine teams to protect the citizens and visitors to Miami 24 hour-a-day, 7 days-a-week. The canine teams specialize in interior and exterior searches, evidence searches, narcotics and explosive searches and detection and any situations that require physical security capabilities which will increase the safety of officers confronting theatening situations. Additionally the detail provides specialized support for tracking and locating missing persons. *With the exception of 2 bloodhounds used for the missing persons searches, all of the dogs are initially trained for basic street utility work. Then depending upon the dog’s temperament he is either cross-trained in narcotic or explosive detection. The dogs live with their handlers and ride along with the handlers as they perform their police duties.* 

http://www.miami-police.org/patrol_support.html

And what about other places?
In this twenty week training period, a new handler and a untrained canine are teamed together and undergo a strenuous program during which the teams are instructed in: *basic obedience, agility, handler protection, either narcotics or explosives detection, tracking, building searches, v*eterinary first aid, and land navigation – map and compass course. The students are required to pass all aspects of training to receive certification. Upon completion of the Canine Handlers Basic School, the teams are sent out on patrol and receive re-certification bi-annually at the Training Facility
http://www.troopers.ny.gov/Specialized_Services/Canine_Unit/

I can go on and on.... In police work.... The only thing they are shying away from is cross training explosives and narcotics. Although some still do that.


----------



## juliemule

JohnnyBandit said:


> Umm..... I just posted the K9 units from some of the largest departments in one of the largest states in the country...... MOST of those dogs fill duel roles..... EXCEPT for the Bloodhounds....
> 
> And here is a very large department.....
> The Canine Detail is an element of the Field Operations Division's Specialized Operations Section and is composed of 2 Sergeants and 18 handlers. The Canine Detail provides their higly trained canine teams to protect the citizens and visitors to Miami 24 hour-a-day, 7 days-a-week. The canine teams specialize in interior and exterior searches, evidence searches, narcotics and explosive searches and detection and any situations that require physical security capabilities which will increase the safety of officers confronting theatening situations. Additionally the detail provides specialized support for tracking and locating missing persons. *With the exception of 2 bloodhounds used for the missing persons searches, all of the dogs are initially trained for basic street utility work. Then depending upon the dog’s temperament he is either cross-trained in narcotic or explosive detection. The dogs live with their handlers and ride along with the handlers as they perform their police duties.*
> 
> http://www.miami-police.org/patrol_support.html
> 
> And what about other places?
> In this twenty week training period, a new handler and a untrained canine are teamed together and undergo a strenuous program during which the teams are instructed in: *basic obedience, agility, handler protection, either narcotics or explosives detection, tracking, building searches, v*eterinary first aid, and land navigation – map and compass course. The students are required to pass all aspects of training to receive certification. Upon completion of the Canine Handlers Basic School, the teams are sent out on patrol and receive re-certification bi-annually at the Training Facility
> http://www.troopers.ny.gov/Specialized_Services/Canine_Unit/
> -
> I can go on and on.... In police work.... The only thing they are shying away from is cross training explosives and narcotics. Although some still do that.


I misunderstood what you meant by cross trained. Detection, tracking and patrol are seperate things, multi purpose dogs. 

I though you meant the were cross trained in cadaver/narcotics or arson/narcotics. I handle dogs in all of the above. For police department, two actually, sheriff department, search and rescue, and disaster. We track, trail, work narcotics, hrd, explosives, and some on arson.
I think our terms are a little off, but same meaning. 
I have been involved with le dogs for fifteen years, tracking, narcs, patrol. More recent have added hrd and explosives. You may enjoy the working dog forum, its almost all LE with some herders, and some SAR, many protection and sports. Its a different world though.


----------



## Pawzk9

Rescued said:


> LOL, all the other pictures I poured over that are saved on my computer are even worse in regards to his rear... I don't want to hijack this thread with my mutt but next time I go home I'll post some pictures in another thread because I'm really curious about what "conformation" people think when they see weird dogs.
> 
> And if anyone else wants to answer- what do you think a better way to go about this whole health thing would be? We know the KC did it wrong, but what would be the right (a better) way?


I've already stated my view on that at least a dozen times. Better judge's education and oversight (AKC has reps at most shows, not sure about the KC) and requiring health clearances on ALL dogs who want to enter conformation shows. No discrimination and no Nazi tactics.


----------



## begemot

You know you're losing ground when comparing your opponents to Hitler actually seems like a good idea. That's my rule of thumb.


----------



## sassafras

Almost 1000 posts before we got Godwin'd. Not bad at all.


----------



## wvasko

houndies said:


> Are ears loose skin? I have had the misfortune of seeing a whippet cut it's stomach open on barbed wire.


Well that's same question I asked. 

Dog's are same as people, accidents can happen no matter what type of work bred for, bad or good breeding. It's life. I had a dog running in a field trial that crossed a small shallow pond and sheared a pad completely off.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

sassafras said:


> Almost 1000 posts before we got Godwin'd. Not bad at all.



Yes and a bit ironic.... Because the AR crowd uses the Hitler tactic all the time.
The Klan too... When it comes to purebred dogs.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

wvasko said:


> Well that's same question I asked.
> 
> Dog's are same as people, accidents can happen no matter what type of work bred for, bad or good breeding. It's life. I had a dog running in a field trial that crossed a small shallow pond and sheared a pad completely off.


I never knew the briars and palmettos were a big concern. I have always been more concerned with a hog's cutters, rattlesnakes, gators, and cow hooves. 
Silly me for not worrying about sticky briars and palmettos.....


----------



## wvasko

JohnnyBandit said:


> I never knew the briars and palmettos were a big concern. I have always been more concerned with a hog's cutters, rattlesnakes, gators, and cow hooves.
> Silly me for not worrying about sticky briars and palmettos.....


and what happens if a dog catches a cold or has a tummy ache. Oh My!!!!!


----------



## JohnnyBandit

wvasko said:


> and what happens if a dog catches a cold or has a tummy ache. Oh My!!!!!


I strickly forbid my dogs from getting any of that nonesense. 

No soure tummys, kennel cough, etc.

If they even THINK about sneezing, they have to do laps around Gestapo Headquarters.


----------



## wvasko

JohnnyBandit said:


> I strickly forbid my dogs from getting any of that nonesense.
> 
> No soure tummys, kennel cough, etc.
> 
> If they even THINK about sneezing, they have to do laps around Gestapo Headquarters.


I do remember making a dog break some ice to get a goose years ago and he was even shivering when he came back, but he had the goose cause he knew no goose, no dinner.


----------



## Pawzk9

hast said:


> I feel very sad that I have lost the respect for some of the members here, the ones I used to seek out for advice and take really seriously, as some of the most caring most knowledgeable in dog psychology.


Maybe you should consider why you thought they were worthy of respect in the first place, and consider that losing respect for someone over a valid difference of opinion is not a really good thing.


----------



## houndies

Pawzk9 said:


> I've already stated my view on that at least a dozen times. Better judge's education and oversight (AKC has reps at most shows, not sure about the KC) and requiring health clearances on ALL dogs who want to enter conformation shows. No discrimination and no Nazi tactics.


I think plastic surgery and mandatory spaying and neutering on all 15 of these useless mutant dogs so all the evil show breeders can't breed anymore. And send the bill for all this surgery to the KC care of Jemmy


----------



## hast

Pawzk9 said:


> And you know that generalizes to all bloodhounds and their handlers? One dog, one handler does not a trend make.





JohnnyBandit said:


> One dog having problems is ancedotal...
> <snip>


Where did I generalize or say that it was anything but anecdotal? I stated my experience, nothing more nothing less.



Pawzk9 said:


> Maybe you should consider why you thought they were worthy of respect in the first place, and consider that losing respect for someone over a valid difference of opinion is not a really good thing.


It's not the difference in opinion that made me loose my respect for those individuals, it's their snippy tone and lack of respect for other's opinions. It _IS_ possible to show respect for people while at the same time disagree about specific issues.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

hast said:


> Where did I generalize or say that it was anything but anecdotal? I stated my experience, nothing more nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the difference in opinion that made me loose my respect for those individuals, it's their snippy tone and lack of respect for other's opinions. It _IS_ possible to show respect for people while at the same time disagree about specific issues.


Since I am not the only one that commented on it...... It must not be just me......But it sure looked like you were attempted to use your experience with a single dog as a significant indicator on Bloodhounds ability to work.


----------



## begemot

sassafras said:


> Almost 1000 posts before we got Godwin'd. Not bad at all.


LOL. I guess that's the silver lining.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

begemot said:


> LOL. I guess that's the silver lining.


Whenever someone is heartless enough to bring up a Nazi analogy, you know they're grasping at straws.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Whenever someone is heartless enough to bring up a Nazi analogy, you know they're grasping at straws.


As tasteless as it was..... I based on the history of this thread it was more than likely a case of frustration by the person that posted it.....


----------



## Rescued

JohnnyBandit said:


> As tasteless as it was..... I based on the history of this thread it was more than likely a case of frustration by the person that posted it.....


So was the "ugly" comment out of frustration too? I'm certainly not an angel, but some things are just uncalled for, especially when the majority of posters have refrained from stooping to that level.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

> As tasteless as it was..... I based on the history of this thread it was more than likely a case of frustration by the person that posted it.....


Very interesting considering you weren't impressed with our cultural differences. By the way using Nazi analogies is against the rules.



Rescued said:


> So was the "ugly" comment out of frustration too? I'm certainly not an angel, but some things are just uncalled for, especially when the majority of posters have refrained from stooping to that level.


Agreed. And I cannot _STAND_ Ingrid, complete hypocrite..But that's another thread. Not impressed I was scolded for using a cultural term (showie) from my _own country_ because it was 'derogatory' and 'talking down' but 'Jemmy' isn't talking down to someone? Suggesting every person who doesn't agree with you needs glasses isn't?

I think the rules should apply to everyone, not just those who agree with you.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Rescued said:


> So was the "ugly" comment out of frustration too? I'm certainly not an angel, but some things are just uncalled for, especially when the majority of posters have refrained from stooping to that level.


Which "ugly" comment do you refer to?


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Rescued said:


> So was the "ugly" comment out of frustration too? I'm certainly not an angel, but some things are just uncalled for, especially when the majority of posters have refrained from stooping to that level.


I meant to quote Johnny with my first comment, sorry!



JohnnyBandit said:


> Which "ugly" comment do you refer to?


The one where if Jemmy was Ingrid she's need to wear a mask to hide her ugliness.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Very interesting considering you weren't impressed with our cultural differences. By the way using Nazi analogies is against the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. And I cannot _STAND_ Ingrid, complete hypocrite..But that's another thread. Not impressed I was scolded for using a cultural term (showie) from my _own country_ because it was 'derogatory' and 'talking down' but 'Jemmy' isn't talking down to someone? Suggesting every person who doesn't agree with you needs glasses isn't?
> 
> I think the rules should apply to everyone, not just those who agree with you.


I am not condoning it.... I am just stating my opinion of why the poster may have said it.....


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

JohnnyBandit said:


> I am not condoning it.... I am just stating my opinion of why the poster may have said it.....


And I'm just saying it's interesting how you justify that but claimed a term used in my country by showers was 'derogatory.'


----------



## Rescued

AussieNerdQueen said:


> I meant to quote Johnny with my first comment, sorry!


:violin: 

I just hate when my perception of someones intelligence and the validity of their points is compromised because they chose to take a demeaning tone. I may not be very old, but I'm old enough to have sufficient experience in methods of delivery that aren't condescending- and believe it or not, they actually get your point across better.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> And I'm just saying it's interesting how you justify that but claimed a term used in my country by showers was 'derogatory.'


I did not justify anything..... I just said, why I think Pawz said it..... 

On the "showies" thing..... I said it sounded off but also said I could care less if you used it. You explained where it came from and I left it alone....


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

JohnnyBandit said:


> I did not justify anything..... I just said, why I think Pawz said it.....
> 
> On the "showies" thing..... *I said it sounded off but also said I could care less if you used it.* You explained where it came from and I left it alone....


Actually you said you found it derogatory.

My father is Jewish and for a good portion of my life I was raised a Jew. I'm completely disgusted by the comment made and there really is no justification. Being frustrated people don't agree with you is no justification at all. Ever. Under any circumstances.

My point is you're saying 'I understand even if i don't agree' whereas my own culture was deemed offensive by a few as talking down to others. Fair enough, I may have my own opinions on that but I'm not going to disrespect people if they find it offensive.

Multiple people have stated the use of 'Jemmy' and helpfully suggesting everyone needs glasses is talking down, yet that's okay because some posters agree. I fail to see the logic in this. The rules should apply to everyone.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Actually you said you found it derogatory.
> 
> My father is Jewish and for a good portion of my life I was raised a Jew. I'm completely disgusted by the comment made and there really is no justification. Being frustrated people don't agree with you is no justification at all. Ever. Under any circumstances.
> 
> My point is you're saying 'I understand even if i don't agree' whereas my own culture was deemed offensive by a few as talking down to others. Fair enough, I may have my own opinions on that but I'm not going to disrespect people if they find it offensive.
> 
> Multiple people have stated the use of 'Jemmy' and helpfully suggesting everyone needs glasses is talking down, yet that's okay because some posters agree. I fail to see the logic in this. The rules should apply to everyone.


Yes..... I am well aware of what I said.... In fact if you will remember, I was not the first to say it.... I was agreeing with Xeph.... And again.... I stated BEFORE you ever responded, that I did not care if you used it. 

Personally..... I think you are getting a little over worked up over the comment.... 

But in the spirit of good will..... I will apologize to you for MY comment concerning Gestapo Headquarters.... That comment was directed at Wvasko... Who I was cutting up with. (Wvasko and myself have a long history of cutting up) 

That being said...... After having walked past PETA protests in which they have been dressed as Klan, In full Gestapo Gear, as blood drenched mutilated animals.......

And having emails sent to me that threatened my life, the life of my wife, and pets - naming names, helping a friend pick up ten road killed animals out of his driveway (we do not know who sent these and did this but we were in the middle of a very hot local issue and against various animal rights groups) 

And.... Almost having a bucket or what I assume was red paint on me in Chandler Arizona buy a guy in a Meat is Murder tshirt when I was walking into a wholesale meat industry trade show....

A comment or two said on an internet forum is not going to rattle me.... No matter how off color.....

I suppose I am jaded.... Long since past jaded more likely...


----------



## begemot

I'm right there with you, ANQ. I think it's ultimately up to the mods to decide how to approach it.

Johnny, I have no idea why you are such a target to so many people, but I fail to see how these examples relate to the issue at hand, since no one here has advocated a pro-PETA, anti-pet stance. Unless you just meant to provide examples of how you are hard to rattle?


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

JohnnyBandit said:


> Yes..... I am well aware of what I said.... In fact if you will remember, I was not the first to say it.... I was agreeing with Xeph.... And again.... I stated BEFORE you ever responded, that I did not care if you used it.
> 
> *Personally..... I think you are getting a little over worked up over the comment.... *
> 
> But in the spirit of good will..... I will apologize to you for MY comment concerning Gestapo Headquarters.... That comment was directed at Wvasko... Who I was cutting up with. (Wvasko and myself have a long history of cutting up)
> 
> That being said...... After having walked past PETA protests in which they have been dressed as Klan, In full Gestapo Gear, as blood drenched mutilated animals.......
> 
> And having emails sent to me that threatened my life, the life of my wife, and pets - naming names, helping a friend pick up ten road killed animals out of his driveway (we do not know who sent these and did this but we were in the middle of a very hot local issue and against various animal rights groups)
> 
> And.... Almost having a bucket or what I assume was red paint on me in Chandler Arizona buy a guy in a Meat is Murder tshirt when I was walking into a wholesale meat industry trade show....
> 
> A comment or two said on an internet forum is not going to rattle me.... No matter how off color.....
> 
> I suppose I am jaded.... Long since past jaded more likely...


Are you Jewish? Because if you are, you'd never say I'm over reacting. If anything I'm holding back a great deal. It's never just a comment on an forum when those sort of comments come up. If I started throwing around the N word would the black members of our community be over reacting, even if it just a comment on an internet forum?

Interesting how you say I'm over reacting yet your justification for all the talking down in this thread is you've had bad experiences with PETA. Do you not see the irony in that? I can't be offended by something that is against the rules because you and others been bullied by an AR organisation?

Oh, okay.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

begemot said:


> *I'm right there with you, ANQ. I think it's ultimately up to the mods to decide how to approach it.*
> 
> Johnny, I have no idea why you are such a target to so many people, but I fail to see how these examples relate to the issue at hand, since no one here has advocated a pro-PETA, anti-pet stance. Unless you just meant to provide examples of how you are hard to rattle?


I agree, I reported the post and have refrained from responding, I just find the justification so hurtful I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Back on topic...I'm too lost to get back on topic LOL. 

What would be the best way to approach the minority of bad show breeders that doesn't involve self-policing? I only say that because I don't believe we can any more.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

begemot said:


> I'm right there with you, ANQ. I think it's ultimately up to the mods to decide how to approach it.
> 
> Johnny, I have no idea why you are such a target to so many people, but I fail to see how these examples relate to the issue at hand, since no one here has advocated a pro-PETA, anti-pet stance. Unless you just meant to provide examples of how you are hard to rattle?


You fail to see how anything you choose not to agree with relates to the issue at hand.... 

And that is where I disagree...... The mandated testing at the shows and the support there of.... IS a pro peta stance...... Have you seen any of their propaganda lately? They are touting this as a first step....

The answer to the other is easy..... I am a hunter, fisherman, grew up in a ranching family, have ranched myself, am in the wholesale meat industry, a dog owner and.... Have been politically involved in conservation issues concerning hunters and fishermen as well as being politically involved in dog owners rights.


----------



## So Cavalier

> The mandated testing at the shows and the support there of.... IS a pro peta stance......


Uh....no......just because people would like to see healthy, moderate dogs, they do not necessarily support a pro PETA stance. I certainly don't. BTW if you get Whole Dog Journal, there is an interesting guest editorial. The author agrees with the stand the KC is taking.

The conformation community needs to take a step back and look at what is happening. If they do not make changes, changes will be forced on them. I would like the changes to come from within, but I doubt that will happen.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

So Cavalier said:


> Uh....no......just because people would like to see healthy, moderate dogs they do not support a pro PETA stance. BTW if you get Whole Dog Journal, there is an interesting guest editorial. The author agrees with the stand the KC is taking.
> 
> The conformation community needs to take a step back and look at what is happening. If they do not make changes, changes will be forced on them. I would like the changes to come from within, but I doubt that will happen.


I don't know if the changes CAN come from within, I think it's too late for that given the 80's fiasco but I truly does hope it happens. SM is a serious issue in Chihuahuas too.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Are you Jewish? Because if you are, you'd never say I'm over reacting. If anything I'm holding back a great deal. It's never just a comment on an forum when those sort of comments come up. If I started throwing around the N word would the black members of our community be over reacting, even if it just a comment on an internet forum?
> 
> Interesting how you say I'm over reacting yet your justification for all the talking down in this thread is you've had bad experiences with PETA. Do you not see the irony in that? I can't be offended by something that is against the rules because you and others been bullied by an AR organisation?
> 
> Oh, okay.


I have never been bullied by AR or anyone else..... And there is no irony.....

But in any case. I never said you could not be offended.... I understand why you are.... I just said at this point, I thought you were over reacting.... I still do..... 
I offered you an apology for my comment to Wvasko.... Whether you choose to accept it or not is up to you..... In either case it was sincere...


----------



## Rescued

JohnnyBandit said:


> You fail to see how anything you choose not to agree with relates to the issue at hand....
> 
> And that is where I disagree...... The mandated testing at the shows and the support there of.... IS a pro peta stance...... Have you seen any of their propaganda lately? They are touting this as a first step....
> 
> The answer to the other is easy..... I am a hunter, fisherman, grew up in a ranching family, have ranched myself, am in the wholesale meat industry, a dog owner and.... Have been politically involved in conservation issues concerning hunters and fishermen as well as being politically involved in dog owners rights.


Will someone please explain to me why this has anything to do with PETA? I'm tired of people using that as a front to label things as "the beginning of whatever." PDE does *not* associate with PETA! This is like saying that the NRA is the reason Treyvon was shot......um no?!?! both have to do with guns, but thats about where the similarity ends.

I'm tired of people labeling this health testing as pro-PETA. they arent even in the same country! And just like I can hunt, shoot animals, own a gun, and still respect wildlife....why am I not allowed to respect purebreds, mutts, whatever without being labeled AR?

/rant.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

JohnnyBandit said:


> I have never been bullied by AR or anyone else..... And there is no irony.....
> 
> But in any case. I never said you could not be offended.... I understand why you are.... I just said at this point, I thought you were over reacting.... I still do.....
> I offered you an apology for my comment to Wvasko.... Whether you choose to accept it or not is up to you..... In either case it was sincere...


No need to apologize, you didn't say it, I was just debating my point of view on the comment with you, no hard feelings and I hop vice versa even though we are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Bit OT but my ex's parents breed heelers and their boy who holds an AU Championship looks just like your boy. 



Rescued said:


> Will someone please explain to me why this has anything to do with PETA? I'm tired of people using that as a front to label things as "the beginning of whatever." PDE does *not* associate with PETA! This is like saying that the NRA is the reason Treyvon was shot......um no?!?! both have to do with guns, but thats about where the similarity ends.
> 
> I'm tired of people labeling this health testing as pro-PETA. they arent even in the same country! And just like I can hunt, shoot animals, own a gun, and still respect wildlife....why am I not allowed to respect purebreds, mutts, whatever without being labeled AR?
> 
> /rant.


I think labelling everyone who wants to see change as an AR nut is just doing the _real_ AR nuts job for them. Tunnel vision is never good, especially when it affects so many of us who ALL don't want to see the fancy destroyed.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

Rescued said:


> Will someone please explain to me why this has anything to do with PETA? I'm tired of people using that as a front to label things as "the beginning of whatever." PDE does *not* associate with PETA! This is like saying that the NRA is the reason Treyvon was shot......um no?!?! both have to do with guns, but thats about where the similarity ends.
> 
> I'm tired of people labeling this health testing as pro-PETA. they arent even in the same country! And just like I can hunt, shoot animals, own a gun, and still respect wildlife....why am I not allowed to respect purebreds, mutts, whatever without being labeled AR?
> 
> /rant.


peta, HSUS, etc did not start this mess.... But they are hailing it and jumping on the bandwagon....
So while they were not initially involved.... They have been shown a new game...... A game they will play here in the U.S. The AKC is stronger than the KC though. 
And Peta is a worldwide organization with a UK branch. They have run anti Crufts ads in the UK for many years. 

The dog community has not figured out what the Hunting and fishing community figured out many years ago. Almost too late. 

AR LOVES internal squabbles. Hunters had a long history of sqaubbling amongst themselves. The bowhunters, rifle hunters, etc. Dog hunters versus non dog hunters. Same thing went on among fishermen. Peta and other animal rights groups saw that and exploited it. They would attack one thing that was not real popular.... Bowhunting for bear in a certain state, running deer with dogs, etc. The hunters that did not participate in those activities did not stand behind their fellow hunters. And AR got a lot of victories.... Finally people woke up. Its interesting that you brought up the NRA. Because they were instrumental in getting people to put aside petty differences and stand together. 

Which is why in the US you do not see nearly as much anti hunting activity as you did say in the 1980's and early 1990's

Right now the dog community squabbles.... Over petty things.... 

This thread is a PERFECT example..... I don't think aside from one or two people, ANYONE has said, there should be no testing. Virtually no one has opposed mandated testing....

There is ONE basic difference in opinion on this ENTIRE thread that has now gone 50 pages....One... A single difference....Whether or not the way the KC brought this about was a good idea or in the best interest of the dogs....

That is it.... 50 plus pages.....


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> No need to apologize, you didn't say it, I was just debating my point of view on the comment with you, no hard feelings and I hop vice versa even though we are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
> 
> Bit OT but my ex's parents breed heelers and their boy who holds an AU Championship looks just like your boy.
> 
> 
> 
> I think labelling everyone who wants to see change as an AR nut is just doing the _real_ AR nuts job for them. Tunnel vision is never good, especially when it affects so many of us who ALL don't want to see the fancy destroyed.


Its fine..... BTW I have been LOLing at many of your comments....Another time I may tell you....


----------



## JohnnyBandit

That is why most of the AR focus has flipped over to pets, domestic animals, farming, etc. The hunters, etc united, got their ducks in a row, and became well financed... Probably was not that difficult with the NRA involved. 

But the dog people, horse people, farmers, livestock producers, those in exotic pets, etc....are all splintered apart..... 

The NAIA gets it......


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

JohnnyBandit said:


> Its fine..... BTW I have been LOLing at many of your comments....Another time I may tell you....


Laughing _at_ me or laughing _with_ me? 

In regards to your other post I think that it's not about how the KC handled it, many of us all agree that it was handled poorly. I know for me at least the concern is instead of looking towards the future we're arguing about petty things like torches and whether they're medical equipment or not, and whether the vet is biased etc etc.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

JohnnyBandit said:


> That is why most of the AR focus has flipped over to pets, domestic animals, farming, etc. The hunters, etc united, got their ducks in a row, and became well financed... Probably was not that difficult with the NRA involved.
> 
> But the dog people, horse people, farmers, livestock producers, those in exotic pets, etc....are all splintered apart.....
> 
> The NAIA gets it......


We don't have the NRA and the AR nuts can't stop us from hunting. I'm unsure in America but here we have soooooo many farmers they just don't stand a chance, so sadly they moved straight onto domestic pets.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

BTW.... My boy goes back to some well known Australian Lines. His maternal Grand Sire was an Oman's dog. A line from AUS. His paternal grand dam is a Hobnoch bitch also hailing from He also has some Landmaster dogs in his pedigree. Also an AUS line that is still actively bred. And he goes back to very famous AUS dogs Wooleston's, Little Logic. etc. 

In fact he more fits the AUS lines than most of the US lines.... But his breeder grew up in AUS.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Laughing _at_ me or laughing _with_ me?
> 
> In regards to your other post I think that it's not about how the KC handled it, many of us all agree that it was handled poorly. I know for me at least the concern is instead of looking towards the future we're arguing about petty things like torches and whether they're medical equipment or not, and whether the vet is biased etc etc.


Not at you just LOLing.... About me being Jewish.... No I am not. And my family changed the spelling of the name (my branch did anyway) many generations ago. But my name was originally a jewish name. and there is a branch of my family, I am not super closely related to but close enough we end up at the big family reunions, that is Jewish.....


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

JohnnyBandit said:


> Will your dog stand rock still with no reaction while a perfect stranger goes over every inch of their body? Moving the head to different angles, Opening the mouth to look at the teeth, running their fingers deep into the dogs mouth, lifting the feet, straightning the tail, touching the sexual organs, etc etc etc?
> 
> Your dog cannot shy away, cower, growl, snarl, snap, etc, go into a submissive position, lay down, turn around, get jumpy, etc. pull away, etc... Anything more than some tail wagging (too much of that is BAD in my breed)
> 
> Will your dog ignore someone walking up from behind, and not be reactive when that person touches them?
> 
> I would bet money it wouldn not allow all these things......
> 
> And more than that...... You have no idea if the judge (assuming you have never been in front of that judge before and often you have not been. You may have heard something about the judge) is going to handle your dog like a sack of potatoes they are trying to throw in the back of a truck, is kneading bread dough, or touching it as if they would a baby.
> 
> Some judges have a heavy hand, some are rough, some are gentle, etc.... But it does not matter...... Your dog has to stand there....
> 
> T


Is it just me, or does this rub anyone else the wrong way? Since when is standing still in the face of all kinds of poking and prodding some kind of virtue in a dog? Can you explain why it would be? To me, this goes against everything that a dog is supposed to do and be. I wouldn't stand still while someone did this to me, and I wouldn't want my dog to, either.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

JohnnyBandit said:


> BTW.... My boy goes back to some well known Australian Lines. His maternal Grand Sire was an Oman's dog. A line from AUS. His paternal grand dam is a Hobnoch bitch also hailing from He also has some Landmaster dogs in his pedigree. Also an AUS line that is still actively bred. And he goes back to very famous AUS dogs Wooleston's, Little Logic. etc.
> 
> In fact he more fits the AUS lines than most of the US lines.... But his breeder grew up in AUS.


My ex's dogs came from one of those lines. Small world!



JohnnyBandit said:


> Not at you just LOLing.... About me being Jewish.... No I am not. And my family changed the spelling of the name (my branch did anyway) many generations ago. But my name was originally a jewish name. and there is a branch of my family, I am not super closely related to but close enough we end up at the big family reunions, that is Jewish.....


I respect that but I lost most of my paternal family in the Holocaust. Perhaps I am too sensitive but it does bring up painful memories of my father's grief.

My grandparents changed their name too when they immigrated here, but now I go by my mothers name.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Is it just me, or does this rub anyone else the wrong way? Since when is standing still in the face of all kinds of poking and prodding some kind of virtue in a dog? Can you explain why it would be? To me, this goes against everything that a dog is supposed to do and be. I wouldn't stand still while someone did this to me, and I wouldn't want my dog to, either.


I agree. It's discouraged to train a dog not to growl because then there are no warning signs for a bite, I don't view this differently. I still remember how wide my eyes went when I saw a dodgy judge manhandling a tiny (in my opinion, far too tiny) Chihuahua.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

AussieNerdQueen said:


> We don't have the NRA and the AR nuts can't stop us from hunting. I'm unsure in America but here we have soooooo many farmers they just don't stand a chance, so sadly they moved straight onto domestic pets.


Well that is just the thing... When this went down..... It was very heated and people who are passionate got up in arms.... But even the breeders in the UK have now backed off.... The new Canine Alliance in the UK has said, ok...Lets get together..... Lets move forward.... There is going to be testing, there needs to be testing, lets get together with the KC and figure out a reasonable way to do this..... Now the breeders are on board(MOST in MOST breeds were already testing anyway) But the KC has decided it is going to dig its heels in..... The powers that be at the KC are not ready to admit that this was not the way to do it. 

Thankfully.... Well I am in the US..... But..... in any case..... To get ANYWHERE in my breed, you have to test. The national breed club is VERY proactive on that. So even those that want to take shortcuts test. Heck if you do not test, and you have a top dog, they are likely to advertise your dog is not tested out.... The bottom line in our breed is.... If you do not test, no other breeders will work with you... And no matter how good you think your line is... To be successful you HAVE to work with otehr breeders. Only way to get new blood in your lines. You HAVE to have outcrossed breedings on you create a genetic bottleneck. And since most people only keep a few dogs, so it does not take long...


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

JohnnyBandit said:


> Well that is just the thing... When this went down..... It was very heated and people who are passionate got up in arms.... But even the breeders in the UK have now backed off.... The new Canine Alliance in the UK has said, ok...Lets get together..... Lets move forward.... There is going to be testing, there needs to be testing, lets get together with the KC and figure out a reasonable way to do this..... Now the breeders are on board(MOST in MOST breeds were already testing anyway) But the KC has decided it is going to dig its heels in..... The powers that be at the KC are not ready to admit that this was not the way to do it.
> 
> Thankfully.... Well I am in the US..... But..... in any case..... To get ANYWHERE in my breed, you have to test. The national breed club is VERY proactive on that. So even those that want to take shortcuts test. Heck if you do not test, and you have a top dog, they are likely to advertise your dog is not tested out.... The bottom line in our breed is.... If you do not test, no other breeders will work with you... And no matter how good you think your line is... To be successful you HAVE to work with otehr breeders. Only way to get new blood in your lines. You HAVE to have outcrossed breedings on you create a genetic bottleneck. And since most people only keep a few dogs, so it does not take long...


I have many friends in the UK and I've never heard they don't test?


----------



## JohnnyBandit

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Is it just me, or does this rub anyone else the wrong way? Since when is standing still in the face of all kinds of poking and prodding some kind of virtue in a dog? Can you explain why it would be? To me, this goes against everything that a dog is supposed to do and be. I wouldn't stand still while someone did this to me, and I wouldn't want my dog to, either.


In CGC... your dog has to welcome being groomed by a stranger. The premise here is that the dog being agreeable to standing for a groomer or vet.

This is the Same thing.... Just more of it.... A large percentage of dogs fail CGC's here.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Is it just me, or does this rub anyone else the wrong way? Since when is standing still in the face of all kinds of poking and prodding some kind of virtue in a dog? Can you explain why it would be? To me, this goes against everything that a dog is supposed to do and be. I wouldn't stand still while someone did this to me, and I wouldn't want my dog to, either.


Additionally.... Do you protest when a doctor examines you? Does your dog protest at the vet? I teach everyone I train the stand for examination. Until last year I never did any conformation training. But I always taught it as part of basic obedience. I teach my own dogs very young. Vets always love my dogs because I give a command and my dogs stand there. No squirming, no protests, etc. when I started conformation..... All I added was making sure the dogs place their feet properly. It was easy with Merlin because he naturally free stacks. My vet laughs because if he moves a foot while examining him, Merlin will move it back perfectly.


----------



## Crantastic

AussieNerdQueen said:


> I agree. It's discouraged to train a dog not to growl because then there are no warning signs for a bite, I don't view this differently. I still remember how wide my eyes went when I saw a dodgy judge manhandling a tiny (in my opinion, far too tiny) Chihuahua.


The point of show handling is not to teach a scared or uncomfortable dog to put up with manhandling when it would really rather snap (and I don't like to see judges be rough with a dog, either; thankfully, I rarely see this). The point is to train and condition a dog before the shows (in handling classes, for example) so that standing for a judge exam (or a vet exam, for that matter) is no big deal. It goes back to what I said about temperament -- a dog with a bad temperament, that's overly nervous or snappy or can't tolerate being touched by a stranger, isn't going to do well in the ring. There are some breeds, like Johnny's ACDs, where the dog is not expected to (actually not _wanted_ to) be friendly with the judge. But they shouldn't want to take the judge's hand off, either.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Crantastic said:


> The point of show handling is not to teach a scared or uncomfortable dog to put up with manhandling when it would really rather snap (and I don't like to see judges be rough with a dog, either; thankfully, I rarely see this). The point is to train and condition a dog before the shows (in handling classes, for example) so that standing for a judge exam (or a vet exam, for that matter) is no big deal. It goes back to what I said about temperament -- a dog with a bad temperament, that's overly nervous or snappy or can't tolerate being touched by a stranger, isn't going to do well in the ring. There are some breeds, like Johnny's ACDs, where the dog is not expected to (actually not _wanted_ to) be friendly with the judge. But they shouldn't want to take the judge's hand off, either.


Fair enough, it's one of those things that depends on the judge/vet/groomer. You get gentle ones and bad ones.


----------



## Crantastic

Also, being in the ring is something the dogs should enjoy. If they don't, you can't really fake it -- you can't force a dog to keep its tail up and its ears alert as it goes around the ring or stands for examination.


----------

