Uk To Vet Check Point Winners In 2012 (15 Breeds)

[RuralPug]

Full story here:

Crufts news

Selected excerpts:

Ronnie Irving, Kennel Club Chairman, said: "The majority of people involved in showing dogs, including the 15 high profile breeds, are doing a good job in moving their breed forward and many judges are ensuring that health is paramount when they judge. This work should be applauded and recognised.

"Sadly though, a few judges in some breeds simply can't or won't accept the need to eliminate from top awards, dogs which are visibly unhealthy. Neither we who show dogs, nor the Kennel Club which must protect our hobby, can reasonably allow that state of affairs to continue. I hope also that monitoring the results of this exercise may even, in time, enable us to drop from the 'high profile' list some of those breeds which prove to have a clean bill of health.

"This move, along with the other health measures that we have put in place will help the Kennel Club to ensure that the show ring is, as Professor Patrick Bateson said it can be: a positive lever for change in the world of dogs."

Professor Steve Dean, Crufts Committee member and Senior Veterinary Surgeon, and a member of the Kennel Club General Committee, said of the new requirements: "The guidance which we will issue to Show Vets will focus on clinical signs associated with pain or discomfort which will come under the main headings 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. The fifteenth breed is the Chinese Crested where the principal issue will be the presence of skin damage arising from hair removal and thus signs of clipper rash or chemical insults to the skin will be looked for.

"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.

"By giving dog exhibitors and judges 12 months notice of the intent to have a veterinary surgeon examine the Best of Breed from each of the high profile breeds, we hope that judges will ensure that only healthy exhibits will come forward. Therefore the number of times dogs are excluded from the Group following veterinary examination should be minimal. For some of the breeds this will still be a huge challenge 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."

The Kennel Club confirmed that the detailed regulations to give effect to these new moves are currently being developed and will be published in due course.

1. The fifteen high profile breeds are as follows: Basset Hound, Bloodhound, Bulldog, Chow Chow, Clumber Spaniel, Dogue De Bordeaux, German Shepherd Dog, Mastiff, Neapolitan Mastiff, Pekingese, Shar Pei, St Bernard, French Bulldog, Pug and Chinese Crested.

2. Show vets will be given clear guidelines on the issues that need to be considered in deciding whether or not to allow a dog to proceed further into the Group competition. The vets will be directed only to prevent dogs from going forward if they are suffering from some clinical problem which obviously adversely affects the dog's wellbeing. They will not be permitted to exclude dogs merely for aesthetic reasons or because of exaggerations alone, unless these are causing the dog some adverse clinical effect on its health or welfare.

So if I'm reading it correctly BOB winners only will be tested only after they have been selected by the judge and the award will be withheld if they are disqualified by the vet.

Big incentive for the judge not to overlook any of these conditions. Animal lib in UK is saying it doen't go far enough ( gee what a surprise there).

So do you think that ANKC should put a similar scheme in place? Why? (Or why not?)

Edited left out the word "not" ooops!!!!

Edited January 10, 2011 by RuralPug

[Gayle.]

The hereditary conditions tested for in my breed wouldn't be able to be seen by a veterinary examination. I'd think the same goes for lots of breeds, which makes it a pointless exercise really.

In fact, it just ensures the judges have got good eyesight and know what a dog is.

[*Bones*]

I have spoken to someone from the ANKC. They raise no objections. The vet fees would need to be factored into the entries, it would only apply to big or important shows, and would only include group winners. I would llike to see it implemented.

[Sheridan]

The hereditary conditions tested for in my breed wouldn't be able to be seen by a veterinary examination. I'd think the same goes for lots of breeds, which makes it a pointless exercise really.

In fact, it just ensures the judges have got good eyesight and know what a dog is.

Ditto. Hereditary conditions in wheatens wouldn't show up on a vet exam. Both my wheatens pedigrees are 'littered' with pedigrees champion dogs listed on the open register of affected dogs as sire, dam, littermate of a dog that has died of a hereditary disease. A vet exam is meaningless.

[RuralPug]

The hereditary conditions tested for in my breed wouldn't be able to be seen by a veterinary examination. I'd think the same goes for lots of breeds, which makes it a pointless exercise really.

In fact, it just ensures the judges have got good eyesight and know what a dog is.

I agree that it is a pointless exercise if you assume they are trying to test for all hereditary conditions. Hopwever the article did make it clear that the vets would only be looking for easily visible stuff like lameness, severe ectropion/entropion, inability to exercise reasonably without breathing distress, etc.

My assumption is that it is more of a public relations exercise with the KC saying "look our winners don't have these conditions". They are trying to support their breeders I believe.

The question I am asking is do you think this is a right way to do it or not?

Hmmmm, and maybe some judges do need their eyesight checked?

[Rebanne]

It's a load of you know what. Skimming the surface. Throwing a bone to the animal libbers etc

[Gayle.]

If a judge is putting through a dog with a clearly visible health problem, they shouldn't be judging.

[Steve]

To consider that a vet check is being used to identify genetic conditions rather than spotting for symptoms and health conditions is a bit off track I think.

If I were going to do vet checks on dogs in this circumstance it would be basic stuff , stethescope, eyes, checking its breathing well etc.

The rest which can be tested for or not tested for via other methods would be left to the breeder to do before breeding.Im assuming the aim is to ensure the dog appears to be as much as possible - healthy on the day.

[Steve]

If a judge is putting through a dog with a clearly visible health problem, they shouldn't be judging.

Judges dont and cant check for heart murmurs or numerous eye conditions etc.

[Steve]

The hereditary conditions tested for in my breed wouldn't be able to be seen by a veterinary examination. I'd think the same goes for lots of breeds, which makes it a pointless exercise really.

In fact, it just ensures the judges have got good eyesight and know what a dog is.

I agree that it is a pointless exercise if you assume they are trying to test for all hereditary conditions. Hopwever the article did make it clear that the vets would only be looking for easily visible stuff like lameness, severe ectropion/entropion, inability to exercise reasonably without breathing distress, etc.

My assumption is that it is more of a public relations exercise with the KC saying "look our winners don't have these conditions". They are trying to support their breeders I believe.

The question I am asking is do you think this is a right way to do it or not?

Hmmmm, and maybe some judges do need their eyesight checked?

I think if they have already made up their mind they are going to do vet checks this is probably a good solution to having to check every dog. It eliminates some of the logistical issues especially considering how many dogs attend. I think its probably a good start but for me I think its only about half way to what Id like to see and to what will shut animal lib and the like up.

[Paptacular!]

If a judge is putting through a dog with a clearly visible health problem, they shouldn't be judging.

Judges dont and cant check for heart murmurs or numerous eye conditions etc.

Those kinds of problems aren't clearly visible though, which is what GayleK was trying to get at.

[BittyMooPeeb]

If a judge is putting through a dog with a clearly visible health problem, they shouldn't be judging.

But it happens all the time

[Steve]

If a judge is putting through a dog with a clearly visible health problem, they shouldn't be judging.

Judges dont and cant check for heart murmurs or numerous eye conditions etc.

Those kinds of problems aren't clearly visible though, which is what GayleK was trying to get at.

Yes I know there are more that are not able to be seen on the day than there are those which can but a heart murmur can be heard and several eye issues are able to be spotted with the naked eye.

[BittyMooPeeb]

The hereditary conditions tested for in my breed wouldn't be able to be seen by a veterinary examination. I'd think the same goes for lots of breeds, which makes it a pointless exercise really.

In fact, it just ensures the judges have got good eyesight and know what a dog is.

Ditto. Hereditary conditions in wheatens wouldn't show up on a vet exam. Both my wheatens pedigrees are 'littered' with pedigrees champion dogs listed on the open register of affected dogs as sire, dam, littermate of a dog that has died of a hereditary disease. A vet exam is meaningless.

The vet check in the UK is only for 15 breeds that have problems that can be detected by a vet.

I may need my flame suit, but I am glad of the steps being taken, and wouldn't mind seeing it implemented here. I dont like seeing dogs changed in ways that are detrimental to their health. I also dont like the presentation expectations of show dogs being such that the dog cant live a quality life and meet the standards. But I dont see that anything will be done about this in the near future. The opposite seems to be occurring in Australia as we follow the US trends of dog showing and opt for more, longer and shinier coat!

[RuralPug]

Yep, I think we all agree that this is not going to stop winning dogs with hereditary conditions being using for breeding by those who simply don't care. That's because we are in the know about these things.

It has to be a PR exercise and surely it is aimed at the general public. To my mind, it is throwing misleading information at Joe Bloggs in much the same way that the animal libbers do. Someone, somewhere seems to have decided in a small way to fight fire with fire, is how I see it.

Do you think it will be effective is helping to convince Joe Bloggs that pedigree dogs are not the completely disease ridden crippled creatures that recent AL publicity has made them out to be?

Or do you think it will have little or no effect?

[puglvr]

It is already happening . Last year at Crufts I watched the vet watching the judging of the Peke and Pugs. He was the judge that we had for our specialty the following week. He said that They examined the winning Peke to make sure he was fit enough to go through to group judging. So it is already happening. Funnily enough it was early March and still very cold but the also ran the airconditioning periodically over those two rings, to keep the dogs cool.

[WreckitWhippet]

It's a load of you know what. Skimming the surface. Throwing a bone to the animal libbers etc

my sentiments exactly

[poodlefan]

Personally I'd rather see random drug testing introduced for stimulants, sedatives and pain killers.

Vet opinion v breed standard is a road going nowhere. Better to amend breed standards first IMO.

[Bisart Dobes]

After judging - what a load of - - - - !!!

So what happens if a dog wins BOB & is then disqualified from competing further - does the RUBOB then be awarded the BOB and points and compete for the group ???

If this were going to be implemented and mean squat the vet check needs to be done prior to any judging.

This is like the Melb Cup runners getting a vet check at the completion of the race - :D

[WreckitWhippet]

Personally I'd rather see random drug testing introduced for stimulants, sedatives and pain killers.

Vet opinion v breed standard is a road going nowhere. Better to amend breed standards first IMO.

Yep, I'd like to see that :D