Interesting News Out Of Crufts

[The Spotted Devil]

I'm sorry to harp on about the Clumber but I am trying to understand....haw refers to the 3rd eyelid or nictitating membrane NOT the conjunctiva which is exposed when the excess skin causes the eye to form a "v" shape which I suspect is what the vet picked up. Allowable in the standard and having read the extension I don't think the justification is sufficient. Nor do I think heavy ears and loose skin allow the dog to scent better. Correlation does not equal causation. Perhaps I am wrong and if there is evidence please point me in the right direction. I am open to ideas :)

I do agree that the process was deeply flawed.

Edited March 17, 2012 by The Spotted Devil

[Aidan3]

Thanks for the tips, TessnSean. In future when someone makes a deeply offensive accusation of me, I'll be sure to keep this definition mind.

Lol

[Crisovar]

Why is it wrong of anyone to point out bad breeding?

It is all in the execution.

For what it is worth the Interview with the Clumber Spaniel...that woman showed far more grace and dignity than the KC deserved.

Your complaint is that we're saying it wrong? Seriously?

If you want to think that Sheridan I cannot stop you.

You think this has all been handled well then fine that is your opinion, many don't share it.

As an aside though read all the threads Sheridan....read all the generalisations..read all the insulting comments...and then tell me that all everyone is doing is just nicely pointing out that some breeders have issues that they need to deal with. Since apparently it is ok to add one of these in :laugh: just to sweeten the blow you can have one of them too.

[TessnSean]

Unless there is past history Aidan2' the insult has gone right over my head. I see where Jed has said don't treat me like a fool but not where it says you are a fool.

The full run down the exhibitors point of view on the Peke examination is on Exhibitors Choice. . There is also a press release from one of the vets. Dog news TV is providing a lot of comment as is Our Dog. All the information is there if you want to go and look and read the documents at the top of the page, there is so much information from eye witnesses.

Crisovar said what I should have said. What those who were there we're saying. It is all about the execution. I have not seen one person write that they don't agree that there should be health testing. No one thinks that bad health practices should not be wiped out. Anyone with any respect for the future of purebred dogs should feel that way.

[Jed]

TessnSean, I looked for your FB group. Couldn't find it.

Which group, Sheridan?

[TessnSean]

TessnSean, I looked for your FB group. Couldn't find it.

Which group, Sheridan?

There is a closed group called Exhibitors Choice & Voice. It is not 'my' group. I am just one of almost 6000 members. I am intrigued though how you dismissed it Sheridan as Jemima H fodder when you couldn't find it.

I don't make outlandish statements on hearsay. If I say something happened, it will be by reading the first hand account from people who were present. Not my best friend was with the breeder when she said x and she told me. Worthless.

I also inform myself from the other side and read many AR blogs. Plans are afoot to target all long coated breeds. Get rid of any breed that requires that 'awful' (their words) hand stripping practice for many breeds. The dogs scream and bleed after being held down and stripped out don't you know.

Did you know that it is common practice for the ASPCA in the US to cut off the tips of the ears of cats and dogs that come from their shelter so they know which ones have been de-sexed? Have any of you taken the time to read Ingrid Newkirk and the PETA policy on dogs? All I can see is that the AR groups want all purebred dogs gone and the bickering amongst the people who should care and band together is helping the cause.

[megan_]

No one here is a PETA supporters. The people here care about purebred dogs, but many aren't prepared to say there aren't serious problems with some breeds (not all dogs in that breed, but a fair few are winning shows).

I don't believe that doing nothing will protect purebred dogs. Yes, they are in danger but not because the KC acted, but rather they acted way too late.

[The Spotted Devil]

Did you know that it is common practice for the ASPCA in the US to cut off the tips of the ears of cats and dogs that come from their shelter so they know which ones have been de-sexed?

I am aware that this is common practice for feral cats as part of the Trap - Neuter - Release program in the US. 1/4 inch of the left ear tip is removed under under general anaesthetic during spay/neuter surgery and is done so to prevent feral cats that are part of a colony cared for by humans being targeted for trapping. Whether TNR is a successful program is another matter entirely. I am not aware that this is done for socialised cats and dogs.

Edited March 17, 2012 by The Spotted Devil

[Sheridan]

TessnSean, if it's a closed group how do you expect me to see it? You have made some deeply unpleasant remarks about me in this thread on the basis of me using a bit of hyperbole. I have no idea who you are or why you've become fixated on me in this thread but I have no interest in huffing and puffing back at you. If you want a response that is in your vein, I'm afraid you're out of luck. Best wishes to you.

Edited March 17, 2012 by Sheridan

[~Anne~]

No one here is a PETA supporters. The people here care about purebred dogs, but many aren't prepared to say there aren't serious problems with some breeds (not all dogs in that breed, but a fair few are winning shows).

I don't believe that doing nothing will protect purebred dogs. Yes, they are in danger but not because the KC acted, but rather they acted way too late.

.

Well said.

I'm still awaiting widespread evidence of breed clubs in Australia taking initiative to correct the issues seen in specific breeds. Enough of the softly softly too. This needs substantive action in some breeds.

[~Anne~]

Puggles attested that pugs were very sickly,breeders attest here that they are not sickly. Apparently a lot of pugs are sickly. There seems to be a fine line between healthy and sicko,. Could breeders be stepping over that line accidentally/on purpose?

Should pugs be banned? Should the standard be changed to call for a nose at least 10cm long?

But, pugs were mentioned in the doco as having screw tails which caused problems, yet they seemed to have the same tails 100 years ago.

Gee gosh, I haven't seen my old name used for some time. :laugh:

Now, when you want to mention my name and claim things I have said, please be careful to actually state fact and not a deviated version to satisfy a poor memory or worse.

I have evidence, facts and proof of the issues I have seen in the purebred Pug. There are also many Pug breeders who acknowledge those same issues. The difference is I am not hog tied by my peers for stating what the problems are. The most I risk is being abused by the clueless, ignorant or judgemental or those who simply disagree with my views, on dog forums. I am free to say as I please and I wish those breeders could as well. Sadly though, the purebred world isn't open to discussion, and certainly not to any real change at the best of times and those who speak up are labelled unkindly and unfairly.

The best feature, and the single most redeeming feature of the Pug breed is its character. The essence of the Pug is its character. This is one of the rare characteristic that has remained true it seems for hundreds of years.

Ive come to a point where I think the Pug will change. The change will be forced. I'd rather see a proactive approach instead being taken so that the change is controlled by knowledge but I feel this will not be the way it rolls.

[TessnSean]

TessnSean, if it's a closed group how do you expect me to see it? You have made some deeply unpleasant remarks about me in this thread on the basis of me using a bit of hyperbole. I have no idea who you are or why you've become fixated on me in this thread but I have no interest in huffing and puffing back at you. If you want a response that is in your vein, I'm afraid you're out of luck. Best wishes to you.

You asked me where I got my information and I told you. I don't expect you to do anything. If you are interested in reading what is being said, then you send a request to join, same as I did.

Any remarks that you found so deeply unpleasant, well what can I say? You made fun of me. I didn't find that was particularly nice. Now I am huffing and puffing. I am not going to be baited any further because I simply won't be back in to general again.

[BJean]

Wonderful post Jef. Pity ther is no like button. There are those who deliberately choose to read between the lines of what I wrote and place a meaning that was never said or intended.

This was posted on another forum I frequent

I think this describes what's happening right now.

First they came for the docked breeds and I did not have a docked breed so I said nothing. Then they came for the short nosed breeds and I did not have a short nosed breed so I said nothing. Then they came for the short legged breeds and I did not have a short legged breed so I said nothing. Then they came for my breed and there was no one left to speak out for us. (apologies to Pastor Niemoller and all Holocaust victims)

I know a poster called Sheridan on other pages I go to. She is funny, witty and intelligent. She can discuss a wide range of things and make strong points. She is a very popular poster because she never mocks anyone. She never resorts to sarcasm as she says it about the lowest form of wit.

The DOL Sheridan is definitely nothing like the other Sheridan I know.

Perhaps you ought to read the DOL rule about personal attacks.

From Sheridan ...

the perennial sweetcake

Edited March 18, 2012 by lilli

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Two internet sources for the statement from Alison Skipper, one of the examining vets. It's a pity dogworld couldn't do her the courtesy of setting out it out with paragraph breaks because I can't get some people to even consider reading anything posted on Harrison's blog:

http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/crufts-vet-alison-skipper-has-her-say.html

http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/67384

"One of the few positive things about being one of the two independent vets at the centre of this controversy is that I am, at least, independent. What I am about to write is my own opinion, and nobody has told me what to say, or even asked me to say it. Most of the other big players in this story have a vested interest of some kind: they are important people in the Kennel Club, or the British Veterinary Association (BVA), and so can’t speak completely freely, or they are well known people within the dog world, such as important judges or exhibitors.

"Will Jeffels and I are not any of these things: we trained as vets because we like animals and wanted to work with them, and we volunteered to be the first vets implementing the new show checks because we supported the initiative and decided – rashly, perhaps – to get involved. I haven’t even seen Will for 20 years or so – we didn’t meet during Crufts – but we are united in our willingness to stand behind the reforms. I grew up on the fringes of the dog show world. My mother took out our family affix in 1952, and was a regular breeder during the 1950s. I’ve been coming to Crufts since it was at Olympia, with the clickety- clackity old wooden escalators up from the tube station. I’ve been a small animal vet for 22 years, and have had pedigree dogs of my own throughout this time.

"I used to be very active in Australian Cattle Dogs, and was one of the driving forces behind an international effort in 1996 to source samples to develop a DNA test for PRA in the ACD; this was rewarded by the development of a gene specific test by OptiGen in 2004.

"I wrote the veterinary column for Our Dogs for over five years. I am currently (unless they kick me out over this) a member of four breed specific canine societies. At the moment, I have four dogs of smaller breeds. Over my time in dogs, I’ve done a bit of showing, including at Crufts, I’ve bred three litters (with one DIY caesarian!), and I’ve done club level agility for several years. I work in a small animal practice with lots of dog breeder clients, including some successful show kennels, and a large proportion of working dogs. However, I have never shown dogs seriously, and the one time I judged a match at a fun day, I realised that judging was not for me. 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. Personally, I see nothing wrong in the ethical production of pedigree dogs, except perhaps for the argument that there aren’t enough good homes out there for the dogs there are already. A healthy, happy pedigree dog obviously has as good a quality of life as a healthy, happy mongrel. However, nobody is compelled to breed pedigree dogs. It’s something we all choose to do. And it seems to me that, if we are choosing to bring new dogs into the world, it’s only right that we should do what we can to produce dogs who are not physically prevented from having a good quality of life.

"As has often been stated, there are two problems with this that are undeniably more of an issue with purebred dogs than with cross breeds: the various genetic issues that afflict different breeds, and the issues of health and welfare that relate directly to exaggerated conformation. For some years, ethical breeders have made huge progress in improving welfare through the various schemes for monitoring inherited disease. This is hugely important, and has clearly helped to improve lives for thousands of dogs; breeders should be proud of what they’ve achieved in this area.

"But inherited disease is only one side of the coin, and until recently, the other side of the coin, the problems caused by extreme conformation, has been rather overlooked within the dog fancy. The two sides are quite separate; a breed can have very moderate conformation and be plagued by serious inherited disease issues, such as the Cavalier, or it can be relatively healthy in terms of invisible problems and yet have clear issues with some aspect of its body structure.

"This high-profile breed scheme is a hugely important step towards reducing the problems associated with extreme conformation. Nobody ever said, "Oh good, I’ve produced a puppy which is going to suffer pain as a result of the body shape I chose!”, but it’s all too easy to overlook chronic low-level discomfort, and I think it’s undeniable that some breeds are associated with issues of this kind. Dogs that have always had exposed, irritated inner eyelids aren’t going to scream with pain or stop eating because their eyes hurt; they don’t know any differently, but surely the same dog would have a better quality of life if its eyelids fitted better to the eyeballs. It must be better to be a Pug who can chase its friends in the park than to be a Pug that struggles to walk along a path. Surely these things are not in dispute, or they shouldn’t be.

"The brief that Will Jeffels and I were given by the KC was very clear: we were not meant to assess conformation in the same way as a judge would, and we were not meant to penalise a dog because of any aspect of its shape or structure, unless we felt that attribute had led to a problem with its health or welfare. So we couldn’t reject a dog just because it had a short face or lots of skin folds, for example, or because we didn’t like the way it moved; only if it had trouble breathing, or a skin infection, or was lame, as a result of its structure.

"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: if we had been assessing a group of Borzois or Cairns or Dalmatians I don’t think any would have failed. Obviously, I am bound by professional confidentiality and cannot comment on any of the dogs I examined. The owners are not so bound and I would be happy for any of the owners of the dogs I examined to make public the form I signed, in its entirety. I wrote several comments on most of them, and many of the comments I wrote were positive, even on dogs I failed. I have enormous sympathy for the owners of the dogs that were failed. It must have been disappointing, embarrassing and humiliating, and it gave me no pleasure at all to do it.

"There are several general points from the examination process, however, which I think are worth emphasising. Firstly, there are many possible reasons for failure. Some of them may be temporary: lameness, for example, may have gone by the next day, but one fundamental rule of veterinary certification is that you can only attest to what you see before you at that moment; you cannot speculate on what the animal might have looked like five minutes earlier or five minutes later. Also, as with judging, there may be problems that are found on close examination of a dog that would not be visible from the ringside. Secondly, it’s obvious from the photographs on the Internet that some of the BOB winners which failed were indeed of more moderate conformation than some other dogs within that breed. It must have been particularly galling for those owners to fail. However, we weren’t being asked to judge whether a particular dog was better than the breed average; we only examined the winner, and if the winner still had a problem that affected its welfare on that day, our task was to say so.

"If it displayed the least extreme conformation in its breed, then the judge had done the best job they could from the stock available, whatever the end result; and if the winner showed far more moderate conformation than would have been the case a few years ago, then that is still to be praised, even if there was still a problem.

"One thing that I am angry about is that the media coverage is focused so exclusively on the dogs who unfortunately failed. I wish there were more attention on the dogs that were passed. 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. For example, even Jemima Harrison has written positively about the winning Bloodhound on her blog, which is remarkable. I was really glad to see ‘my’ Bloodhound in the big ring, moving soundly and with eyes free from discomfort. That’s what it should all be about.

"It’s natural that emotions should be running high; change is often difficult. And it’s inevitable that there will be teething problems in a new and unprecedented process. Everyone who was involved in this endeavour will have learnt from it, and certainly there are some aspects of it that can be improved.

"Will Jeffels and I strongly feel that the initiative is worthwhile, and we are continuing to support the KC in its efforts to promote healthier conformation. Dog showing is a sport, a hobby. The world would still spin on its axis if there were no dog shows. If we choose to spend our leisure time, or in some cases our careers, in the world of dog showing, we should remember that we wouldn’t be able to do it without the dogs, and the least we can do in return is to choose healthy body shapes for them to live their lives within.”

[~Anne~]

It seems very well written and very objective. It explained a few things for me and put the debate firmly in its place. I think sometimes we all lose sight of the points of discussion because of the emotions involved.

I feel sad that this Vet is bearing the brunt of all this.

Thanks for posting!

[goldchow]

I agree Anne, she has explained it very well, made several things clearer for me and agree that there should have been more made of those breeds who passed scrutiny.

[Dame Aussie]

I also agree, there was nothing there that I disagreed with or thought was out of line. This is a good thing

[Erny]

Sounds sound, reasonable and objective to me too. Going by that, it has nothing to do with the breed standard - it has to do about the health and wellness of the dog. Seems fair enough, although I'd can imagine how it would be hard to accept by those who were marked with a 'x'. But that's the name of the 'game' isn't it? Or should be.

[Crisovar]

How do you explain the multitude of clear certificates from specialist ophthalmologists?

[SkySoaringMagpie]

How do you explain the multitude of clear certificates from specialist ophthalmologists?

Are we talking about a specific case or cases where the people have disclosed the vet sheet? I think I recall seeing one vet sheet that owners had disclosed, no idea where tho'.