lappiemum

yep, its usually just to confirm that you have babies on the way. its never reliable for numbers though - my own view is that you take the number that they give you at week 3/4 and then double it LOL It can also be useful to determine if a bitch is absorbing litters - so if you have a decent number (say 5 or 6) early on, but at whelping you end up with 2 then you know you have issues with your bitch carrying through (it may be progesterone related, or have some other cause). So it can be a diagnostic tool in that sense too.

it could also be the fleas reacting to the treatment :)

Looks like April is getting more popular!

But wouldn't that depend on the opinions of the individual vets? The KC rules state that that its perfectly acceptable for a dog to be cleared at one show, but disqualified at another, so it appears to have taken this into account. It does note that if there were multiple disqualifications of the same dog then it would be investigated by the KC.

Crufts is HUGE!!! Have you ever seen a cat show with over 5,000 cats entered? That's PER DAY :laugh: Almost 28,000 dogs entered (that includes sporting dogs etc.), but somewhere around the 23,000 entered in breed..... they are only checking 15 breeds, so I would imagine its a little less than 23 000 they would need to look at, if they wished to implement the vet checking system. ;)

If that's a case then it makes a mockery of the protocol. How did you find out? I breed bulldogs and have friends that are over there - also I am on the facebook pages of friends of the owner, it is nothing more than a sad political stunt - there is a facebook page in support of her owner - just search for Team Jenny, the profile pic is of her winning Bulldog of the Year Given what lappiemum cited from the DQ for bulldogs: 'damage (scarring or ulceration) to the cornea caused by e.g. facial folds, distichiasis, ectopic cilia, poor eyelid anatomy', what exactly caused the 'pin-prick scar'? An old injury was said but was it an actual injury or one of the above? If it was the dog bumping into something, for instance, that's easy to prove, isn't it? I think its a mute point now, as to what caused the problem - it has been said on the facebook site that the dog has a clear eye certificate that is current. A difference of opinion by vets, I guess - which is what my initial post was about. How will they ensure consistency and fairness - if accurate, these owners/breeders of this bitch thought they did everything correctly, but this has come out of the blue, I would say. They must be reeling, I do feel for them. By the same token, I agree we need to ensure that the dogs in the ring are the best, and healthiest, examples of the ring - esp at this level. Its very, very unfortunate, for all concerned, and I don't see how this issue can be resolved now. At least, if the vet check had occured prior to the entry, there would have been only dogs in the ring that were eligible to go on if awarded a BOB. As it stands, there won't be any representatives of either of these breeds now for their groups. Not good for the breeds, and not good for Crufts.

I agree Telida Whippets - there is a lot of noise at the moment, its when the dust settles that we shall see what becomes of this (if anything). From what I have seen, at least one of the affected parties is alledging that this decision was politically motivated - I would like to think this is not so, but it could be that in the rush to justify their new, tough system, things may not have been thought through completely and as a result, the process as it currently is, has some problems.

According to the KC PDF paper the vet is supposed to check for the following things with bulldogs (link http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/12708/SH102HPvetsurgeoninfo.pdf) Bulldog The breed is prone to respiratory distress. Obesity may also be noted and may contribute to signs of respiratory unfitness. N.B hyperthermia appears to be relatively common in this breed. * Ectropion or entropion are considered to be conformational defects that are disqualifying signs * Damage (scarring or ulceration) to the cornea caused by e.g. facial folds, distichiasis, ectopic cilia, poor eyelid anatomy * Respiratory difficulty due to soft palate or small (pinched) nostrils * Dermatitis associated with facial wrinkles or at the tail root due to a tightly ‘screwed’ tail * Hair loss or scarring from previous dermatitis * Lameness

This is going to end badly, I suspect. According to the "Team Jenny" facebook page, the bitch had a current clear vet certificate for eyes, but was disqualified for an old eye injury that is not genetic. The vet examined the eyes with a tourch/flashlight, not any medical instrument. There is already some discussion on court action. Whether it happens or not, this is what I was alleuding to in my earlier posts.

But what is extreme? It may sound odd, but the judges that gave the BOB to these dogs were told to look for examples of extremism, and they thought these dogs - who were later disqualified - were sound enough to award. Again, it is a single vet opinion, and so be it. But I just think that there are better ways to deal with this issue, that is all. I get the feeling that the KC's approach is that you can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs - but they should also be prepared for any ramifications down the track. Its a double edged sword they are using. oh, and that statement made me nervous as it may be interpretted as undermining the validity of the opinion of the vet. It could be used to challenge that opinion later on. But why is a better way to deal with it vet examining all dogs before entry? Because if they aren't fit for entry, they don't go it. Thats it. Well, the fallout is starting already internationally - link below is to a Westminster perspective. The disqualified pekanese is from the same kennel and is related to the BOB winner at Westminster this year. http://www.bestinshowdaily.com/blog/2012/03/crufts-campaign-against-the-purebred-dog/comment-page-1/#comment-4477 BTW - I support improving health in all our breeds - and if some standards need to be revised to do so thats fine. But I am not sure how effective this approach is going to be in the long run.

:thumbsup:

But what is extreme? It may sound odd, but the judges that gave the BOB to these dogs were told to look for examples of extremism, and they thought these dogs - who were later disqualified - were sound enough to award. Again, it is a single vet opinion, and so be it. But I just think that there are better ways to deal with this issue, that is all. I get the feeling that the KC's approach is that you can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs - but they should also be prepared for any ramifications down the track. Its a double edged sword they are using. oh, and that statement made me nervous as it may be interpretted as undermining the validity of the opinion of the vet. It could be used to challenge that opinion later on.

Kind of skips completely over a few other causes of action but I"m still not sure having your dog disqualifed is a direct impact on YOUR reputation. At crufts, I think it may ;)

Steppenwolf - this is from the Monash Vet Clinic website - its worth a read http://www.monashvet.com.au/use_of_frozen_semen.htm (they promote TCI's - I have heard that your SA clinic prefers surgical but I am not sure as I haven't looked into it myself).

oh, this would make me nervous... 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.

But that is my point - being seen to be doing the right thing is precisely that - being seen... Again, they do it with cat shows. Each dog needs to check in at registration. This would be one more step. Come on, if we could put a man on the moon people I'm sure they can check these dogs - even if its just in the 15 identified breeds.....

I don't know but I can think of two reasons: * Economy - breed entries in some breeds number in the hundreds. The time it would take to vet every entry would be considerable. * Impact - if you want to send a message that the best of the best needs rethinking, this is how you'd do it. It ain't just breeders/exhibitors that will be impacted by this decision.. I imagine the judges that put those dogs up wouldn't be enjoying it either. If vetting/potential disqualification were a condition of entry acknowledged by exhibitors, I can't see what legal action they have at their disposal. Sorry, but if they can manage it for major cat shows, why can't they do it for dogs? I once stood in line with a friend who had entered her cat that the Sydney Royal - they did it in stages, with a number of vets, and it all went smoothly. At our royals, you need to check in - if you had a couple of vets there doing the check, it wouldn't be impossible to get through everyone. As for impact, I would have thought it better to assess all dogs, rather than one from each breed. What if the RUBOB had health issues? That still has an impact. Yes, being notified about the rules for disqualification would have been a condition of entry. However, having the reasons published internationally (and it based on one opinion) and the potential damange to a kennel is not something, I imagine, was in the fine print. ETA - actually, I note that they only do a vet check on the BOB winner from 15 'identified breeds'. Apparently there are no health issues in other breeds - what a relief......

I agree that checking for health is important, and the premise that judges have a responsiblity in this is fair, to a degree (noting they are experts on the standard, and not veterinary health). However, I think that while at first glance this 'tough stance' taken by the KC appears admirable, I think there are a few questions. Firstly, why did they wait until after the BOB judging to vet the dogs? I would have thought that, if they were serious about health issues, they would vet the dogs at check in - like you have with cat shows. This way you would be checking all entrants - not just one per breed - and any issues there could be dealt with prior to the show. By only vet checking the winners, it appaers to me to potentially be more of wanting to appear to be 'doing the right thing' that than actually doing the right thing....so, the question is, was this 'vet check' intended to address the serious issue of breed health, or was it more for publicity and the reputation of the KC (and to allieviate criticism aimed at the KC and Crufts from a certain 'documentary')? And when talking about reputations, imagine you are the owner/breeder of the disqualified dogs. I understand one is a champion. Not only did the KC media statement name the breeds, but it named the actual dogs too. Now, many people might say, good, they deserve to be named and shamed if they are breeding animals that are in poor health. And on the surface, I would agree. However, this is the opinion of one vet, and if they have opinions that conflict with that assessment from other reputable vets, where does it leave them? Opinion is a grey area, and this may have an effect of the reputation of the kennels they are from. The KC have taken what they consider to be a strong stance on this issue, but the manner in which they have done so may leave the KC open to possible legal action. Even when agreeing to the rules and conditions of entry, making public a disqualification in such a way that it may effect a breeder's reputation (and future prospects) is not something I would have thought that many would agree to. Maybe I am wrong, but a disqualification and reputation (effectively, moral rights) are two different issues. Just some points to consider.

We're expecting a Lappie litter on or around Good Friday/Easter Saturday.....! (Hopfully the bunny will be bringing more than eggs!) Dam is Tasha (Janoby Clear Future) and sire is Janoby's kennels Elliot (Ch. Janoby Becauase I Am). Expecting black, tan and white colours.

I really, really need a like button

via DogsVic website; “The show committee is very pleased to announce that because of their popularity a few of years back the international judging panel will include Mr Luis Pinto Teixeira (Portugal), Dr Richard Meen (Canada), Dr John Reeve-Newson (Canada) and on this occasion they will be joined by Mr Gerardo Paolucci (Argentina).”

Hi Partipaws- for your girl that had the c section, its probably a good idea to have her looked at by a repro specialist - there are a number of reasons a bitch can fail to concieve or fail to carry a pregnancy through. On the prog testing - did you do it all the way through or only to get a base line? Sometimes levels can rise very quickly, and your window of opportunity can close on you just as quickly. The only way to be sure is to have a scan or an x-ray - it may be that there is a singleton so it would be best to be prepared, just incase. Finally, there is the case of absorption, which can happen for a lot of reasons. However, you would have had to taken your girls in for confirmation of pregnancy around week 3 - 4 to track that.

the Jalina one is good for pregnant bitches ;) - helps with the bacteria in the gut too

Hi Nat&James - welcome to puppy parenthood ;) and be rest assured that your puppy is completely normal LOL. You know when parents bring home a new baby from the hospital, and it cries all night and you see perfectly normal, lovely people looking like zoombies after a week or so? Well, the good news is that this is easier than dealing with that, if you go about it the right way. Sleep deprivation isn't fun so there are some things you can do. My first tip would be forget the outside dog idea - I know that a lot of people feel strongly about this, but dogs are pack animals and its just not natural for them to be stuck outside while the rest of their 'pack' is elsewhere. The neighbours don't appreciate it much either. Certainly, have areas that are no-go areas, and have boundaries, but don't stick the poor pooch in the backyard all day and night by itself - that's just inviting disaster (and mooncraters in your garden). You can do the controlled crying technique, or you can simply bring said pup into your room (in a crate) - puppy will be happy he is with you - but you will need to do a couple of toilet trips during the night. Work on a max of 3 - 4 hour intervals to start with and these will stretch out until he is older and can go the full night. If you don't want to do the midnight wee walks, then have said pup in an area where he can toilet - not in his crate or bedding, as no-one likes sleeping in their own poop I recommend setting up a puppy pen, with a crate/area for sleeping, and newspapers and puppy wee pads ;) . There is a HEAP of information and advice out there but a good place to start is having a read of this http://www.dogstardaily.com/training/raising-puppy - I don't agree with it all 100% but its a good place to start ;) As for the crying, he is a baby, so you have to expect it. You can have all the blankets and ticking clocks you like, but he wants to be near you. So you can either tough it out (and be really nice to your neighbours) with the controlled crying, or you can bring him in with you and go into a crate. I'm a softie so I'd go with option b. I also like my neighbours LOL.

I agree with this. I think sometimes it's easy to forget how intimidating some breeders can come across to puppy buyers, whether they're the no-nonsense type or not. goodness, you may not know this but sometimes puppy people can be intimidating too - esp late night calls demanding a particular puppy who's photo they have just seen on the website! LOL