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

[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.

Yep, I'd like to see that :D

Happens in most other forms of competition involving animals. I'd love to see it in the dog performance sports. I'd add nerve blockers and steroids to the list too.

Edited January 11, 2011 by poodlefan

[Janba]

The answer to testable hereditary problems is for those results to be listed on the dogs rego papers as is now going to be done for border collies and there are guidelines as what matings are allowed.

[The Spotted Devil]

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

Happens in most other forms of competition involving animals. I'd love to see it in the dog performance sports. I'd add nerve blockers and steroids to the list too.

I must be living under a rock :D Do you think that happens much???

[jr_inoz]

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

But they do... Saw a dog limping around the ring get put up BIG recently...

[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.

Yep, I'd like to see that

Happens in most other forms of competition involving animals. I'd love to see it in the dog performance sports. I'd add nerve blockers and steroids to the list too.

I must be living under a rock :D Do you think that happens much???

Much? I'd hate to hazard a guess but I'm sure it happens. Never underestimate what some folk will do to win.

We could probably add hormones to the list too.

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that some judges couldn't tell sound/good movement if they fell over it. My breed (Whippets) is a case in point. They aren't meant to single track or go round with their knees up under their chins but I've seen it awarded. And yes, I've seen clearly lame dogs awarded too in a range of breeds. Must be looking at the handlers gait

Edited January 11, 2011 by poodlefan

[Staranais]

I reckon it's a PR exercise. If they were geniunely interested in making sure their winners were very healthy, they'd do better to check vet records to see what the dogs have been treated for in the past. Many nasty things can have a strong hereditary component yet not show up on a casual vet exam. I'm thinking of things like elongated soft palate (can be surgically resected), eyelid issues (can be surgically fixed), excess skin (same), shoulder OCD (same), predisposition to GDV, etc.

Of course, that raises the issue of how much veterinary intervention a dog is allowed before the dog is eliminated. Do you eliminate the dogs that has had to have surgery for a GDV (and risk eliminating the dog that just got a GDV from sheer bad luck), or keep them in (and risk having your champion be strongly predisposed to bloat)? etc, etc. Opens a can of worms.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Staranais

[vetrg]

In the UK a vet is meant to inform the Kennel Club if they perform any "appearance altering procedures" to a registered dog. I ahve usually tried to do so and once asked the KC what they did with my letters. apparently they are filed and only referred to IF the winner of a show has a query raised!! what a waste of my time. I have done eyelid surgery on 2 top show winning sharpei stud dogs who must have accounted for 200 plus pups between them. If they are picked up by this examination all to the good.

[Staranais]

In the UK a vet is meant to inform the Kennel Club if they perform any "appearance altering procedures" to a registered dog. I ahve usually tried to do so and once asked the KC what they did with my letters. apparently they are filed and only referred to IF the winner of a show has a query raised!! what a waste of my time.

I reckon. I thought shows were supposed to be about breeding good dogs according to the standard, anyway, not surgically creating dogs that matched the standard. ;)

[Gayle.]

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 ;)

Yes, I've seen it happen. And I stand by that. He should not have been judging.

[Gayle.]

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

But they do... Saw a dog limping around the ring get put up BIG recently...

I saw one win a dog challenge (and it was a very competitive breed that usually has large classes)....dunno if it went any further because I was so disgusted I didn't watch any more. The dog was very clearly lame, the bloke standing next to me commented on it and he was as disgusted as I was.

[BittyMooPeeb]

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?

So you think that because ALL possible conditions cant be detected, that we should just not bother with trying to eliminate any of them ;) . This seems like a cop-out to me.

[becks]

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.

Breed standards have been amended already in those breeds.

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 -

We don't award reserve best of breed, just dog and bitch ticket and their reserves. However, in the OP report, there was no mention of the ticket being removed from the dog, should it fail to be able to go into the group - so we could still have multi ticket winning dogs with health problems.

Our champ shows get a couple of thousand dogs each day of the show - that would be a lot of dogs to have vet checked at the start of judging, we also run about 30 or so rings at the champ shows - that would take a lot of vets to get through any sort of meaningful check up. Show entries are already high enough, add on all those vet fees and it would kill off the show world.

The answer to testable hereditary problems is for those results to be listed on the dogs rego papers as is now going to be done for border collies and there are guidelines as what matings are allowed.

These test results are sent to the KC who have them available to view online, just go to their website and type in the correct registered name of a particular dog.

I reckon it's a PR exercise. If they were geniunely interested in making sure their winners were very healthy, they'd do better to check vet records to see what the dogs have been treated for in the past. Many nasty things can have a strong hereditary component yet not show up on a casual vet exam. I'm thinking of things like elongated soft palate (can be surgically resected), eyelid issues (can be surgically fixed), excess skin (same), shoulder OCD (same), predisposition to GDV, etc.

Of course, that raises the issue of how much veterinary intervention a dog is allowed before the dog is eliminated. Do you eliminate the dogs that has had to have surgery for a GDV (and risk eliminating the dog that just got a GDV from sheer bad luck), or keep them in (and risk having your champion be strongly predisposed to bloat)? etc, etc. Opens a can of worms.

Owners are supposed to report to the kennel club any operation that alters the natural conformation of the dog, trouble is, if the owner does that, they know the dog will be banned from being shown.

Just how would you suggest these vet records are shown at each show??

[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?

So you think that because ALL possible conditions cant be detected, that we should just not bother with trying to eliminate any of them . This seems like a cop-out to me.

Good heavens was I really that unclear? No that is not what I think at all. I don't think I said anything like that? ;)

To rephrase then: My opinion is the KC know as well as we do that simple vet checks at shows are extremely unlikely to prevent or even deter unscrupulous or uncaring people from breeding with affected dogs.

Therefore I assume that this a propaganda thing trying to counter AL's propaganda. Whether or not it will succeed in its aim I am unsure, and whether or not it would be a good thing or the ANKC to start a similar propaganda move was what I was actually canvassing.

On the other issue you raised, I strongly support all breeding stock being tested for health conditions that need to be eliminated from the breed, and that all matings should only take place with due regard to the results of those tests and that those results should be freely available to potential puppy purchasers or persons to whom you are offering the use of your stud dog. I don't see a once-over by a vet at the show as the equivalent to testing though it may have value in other ways.

If you are assuming that such a once-over is at least a step in the right direction and should be encouraged for that reason, you may have a valid point, however I think strongly encouraging and promoting testing would be a better way to proceed, with the end aim of mandatory testing where clear by DNA proven parentage didn't apply. However that's a whole other thread...

I hope that was clearer? ;)

[Staranais]

I reckon it's a PR exercise. If they were geniunely interested in making sure their winners were very healthy, they'd do better to check vet records to see what the dogs have been treated for in the past. Many nasty things can have a strong hereditary component yet not show up on a casual vet exam. I'm thinking of things like elongated soft palate (can be surgically resected), eyelid issues (can be surgically fixed), excess skin (same), shoulder OCD (same), predisposition to GDV, etc.

Of course, that raises the issue of how much veterinary intervention a dog is allowed before the dog is eliminated. Do you eliminate the dogs that has had to have surgery for a GDV (and risk eliminating the dog that just got a GDV from sheer bad luck), or keep them in (and risk having your champion be strongly predisposed to bloat)? etc, etc. Opens a can of worms.

Owners are supposed to report to the kennel club any operation that alters the natural conformation of the dog, trouble is, if the owner does that, they know the dog will be banned from being shown.

Of course they are supposed to, that doesn't mean they do so.

Just how would you suggest these vet records are shown at each show??

Why on earth would I suggest any such thing?

Edited January 11, 2011 by Staranais

[shortstep]

This was just sent to me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...vets-inbreeding

Health checks for Crufts entrants are too little too late

Vets appointed by the Kennel Club cannot make up for more than a century

of inbreeding and selection for form over function

*

o Jemima Harrison

o guardian.co.uk, Friday 7 January 2011 18.30 GMT

Vets appointed by the Kennel Club cannot make up for more than a century

of inbreeding and selection for form over function

This week the Kennel Club announced that from Crufts 2012, it will no

longer be enough for show dogs to look the part. In order to earn the

top prizes, 15 of the most "troublesome" breeds will have to pass a vet

check too.

It must be astonishing to anyone outside the weird world of dog shows

that animals with obvious health problems could ever win. But it's a

depressing fact that dogs that are lame, have sore eyes, skin problems

and even breathing issues can be rewarded by judges. This is sometimes

because the health issue is so ubiquitous in the breed that judges no

longer see it as abnormal – red and baggy eyes in bassets and

bloodhounds, for instance – or because the judge believes that "type"

(the essential "essence" of a breed as defined in the breed standard) in

some way overrides a corneal ulcer or obvious respiratory distress......

NAIA News

National Animal Interest Alliance

So I guess this confirms what the above posts in this thread have been saying, that dogs are being put up tio win that are visably sick dogs.

Very sad.

Edited January 14, 2011 by shortstep