SkySoaringMagpie Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 [quote name='Telida Whippets' timestamp='1331246318' post=There is nothing about their dentition that precludes a healthy crestie from living a normal doggy life. They can eat, chew bones, clean their whelps, chew the umbilical cords, they can certainly bite if they desire. I shall have to ponder that. But some of them have no teeth. My guess is that perhaps there may be an alternate view that a dog with primitive detention that loses teeth at an early age may be considered a "health issue" by some outside the breed. And its only a guess but no other breed feature I can identify would promote veterinary interest Epilation for show ring preparation was what Jemima Harrison had in her sights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 [quote name='Telida Whippets' timestamp='1331246318' post=There is nothing about their dentition that precludes a healthy crestie from living a normal doggy life. They can eat, chew bones, clean their whelps, chew the umbilical cords, they can certainly bite if they desire. I shall have to ponder that. But some of them have no teeth. My guess is that perhaps there may be an alternate view that a dog with primitive detention that loses teeth at an early age may be considered a "health issue" by some outside the breed. And its only a guess but no other breed feature I can identify would promote veterinary interest Epilation for show ring preparation was what Jemima Harrison had in her sights. Thanks for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisovar Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I have never seen a young Crestie with no teeth, certainly some very aged ones, though even they can still eat chicken necks and such. But even with missing premolars and sometimes incisors they certainly can still eat normally including bones. I see where you are coming from though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisovar Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 [quote name='Telida Whippets' timestamp='1331246318' post=There is nothing about their dentition that precludes a healthy crestie from living a normal doggy life. They can eat, chew bones, clean their whelps, chew the umbilical cords, they can certainly bite if they desire. I shall have to ponder that. But some of them have no teeth. My guess is that perhaps there may be an alternate view that a dog with primitive detention that loses teeth at an early age may be considered a "health issue" by some outside the breed. And its only a guess but no other breed feature I can identify would promote veterinary interest Epilation for show ring preparation was what Jemima Harrison had in her sights. Good grief what a load of tripe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wuffles Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 [quote name='Telida Whippets' timestamp='1331246318' post=There is nothing about their dentition that precludes a healthy crestie from living a normal doggy life. They can eat, chew bones, clean their whelps, chew the umbilical cords, they can certainly bite if they desire. I shall have to ponder that. But some of them have no teeth. My guess is that perhaps there may be an alternate view that a dog with primitive detention that loses teeth at an early age may be considered a "health issue" by some outside the breed. And its only a guess but no other breed feature I can identify would promote veterinary interest Epilation for show ring preparation was what Jemima Harrison had in her sights. Good grief what a load of tripe Why? To the general public, epilation for a dog isn't normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisovar Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Telida Whippets' timestamp='1331246318' post=There is nothing about their dentition that precludes a healthy crestie from living a normal doggy life. They can eat, chew bones, clean their whelps, chew the umbilical cords, they can certainly bite if they desire. I shall have to ponder that. But some of them have no teeth. My guess is that perhaps there may be an alternate view that a dog with primitive detention that loses teeth at an early age may be considered a "health issue" by some outside the breed. And its only a guess but no other breed feature I can identify would promote veterinary interest Epilation for show ring preparation was what Jemima Harrison had in her sights. Good grief what a load of tripe Why? To the general public, epilation for a dog isn't normal. We are talking here about Vetting out animals that have serious health and conformation issues that need addressing, I don't think hair removal for the show ring really qualifies no matter how odd the public find it. Edited March 8, 2012 by Crisovar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 [quote name='Telida Whippets' timestamp='1331246318' post=There is nothing about their dentition that precludes a healthy crestie from living a normal doggy life. They can eat, chew bones, clean their whelps, chew the umbilical cords, they can certainly bite if they desire. I shall have to ponder that. But some of them have no teeth. My guess is that perhaps there may be an alternate view that a dog with primitive detention that loses teeth at an early age may be considered a "health issue" by some outside the breed. And its only a guess but no other breed feature I can identify would promote veterinary interest Epilation for show ring preparation was what Jemima Harrison had in her sights. Good grief what a load of tripe Why? To the general public, epilation for a dog isn't normal. We are talking here about Vetting out animals that have serious health and conformation issues that need addressing, I don't think hair removal for the show ring really qualifies no matter how odd the public find it. But isn't the point that these dogs are good examples of their breed? Which should mean they don't need to be altered in any way to win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkycat Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I've got my asbestos undies on. ;) You know what? I think this is a GOOD thing. I look at some of those targetted breeds and shake my head and my guess is I"m not alone. If a dog can't breathe without noise while at rest (and some dogs in these breeds can't) has exposed haw, massive skin folds etc, then I think breeders need to be "encouraged" to breed for less exaggeration. There was one of these breeds on the front of the Canine Journal some months ago and you could not see the dogs eyes due to the loseness of the skin on the head. Change won't happen without these kinds of decisions and I can only hope that folk here in Oz (and especially judges) heed the wake up call. About time the "more is more" school of breeding for features got quietly put to rest. I appreciate that judges are under a lot of pressure to maintain the status quo - far easier for an independent vet to be the 'bad guy' who gives others sound reason not to award exaggeration. Well said - I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted March 8, 2012 Author Share Posted March 8, 2012 Shouldn't the RUBOB get a chance to go up for Group? You'd think so but they may have a different system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisovar Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 [quote name='Telida Whippets' timestamp='1331246318' post=There is nothing about their dentition that precludes a healthy crestie from living a normal doggy life. They can eat, chew bones, clean their whelps, chew the umbilical cords, they can certainly bite if they desire. I shall have to ponder that. But some of them have no teeth. My guess is that perhaps there may be an alternate view that a dog with primitive detention that loses teeth at an early age may be considered a "health issue" by some outside the breed. And its only a guess but no other breed feature I can identify would promote veterinary interest Epilation for show ring preparation was what Jemima Harrison had in her sights. Good grief what a load of tripe Why? To the general public, epilation for a dog isn't normal. We are talking here about Vetting out animals that have serious health and conformation issues that need addressing, I don't think hair removal for the show ring really qualifies no matter how odd the public find it. But isn't the point that these dogs are good examples of their breed? Which should mean they don't need to be altered in any way to win? A whole different topic from this we could make a list a mile long of breeds that take show preparation to the extreme, but that does not make them unhealthy and unsound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 [quote name='Telida Whippets' timestamp='1331246318' post=There is nothing about their dentition that precludes a healthy crestie from living a normal doggy life. They can eat, chew bones, clean their whelps, chew the umbilical cords, they can certainly bite if they desire. I shall have to ponder that. But some of them have no teeth. My guess is that perhaps there may be an alternate view that a dog with primitive detention that loses teeth at an early age may be considered a "health issue" by some outside the breed. And its only a guess but no other breed feature I can identify would promote veterinary interest Epilation for show ring preparation was what Jemima Harrison had in her sights. Good grief what a load of tripe Why? To the general public, epilation for a dog isn't normal. We are talking here about Vetting out animals that have serious health and conformation issues that need addressing, I don't think hair removal for the show ring really qualifies no matter how odd the public find it. But isn't the point that these dogs are good examples of their breed? Which should mean they don't need to be altered in any way to win? A whole different topic from this we could make a list a mile long of breeds that take show preparation to the extreme, but that does not make them unhealthy and unsound. No, you're right on that one Crisovar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephone Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 You know what? I think this is a GOOD thing. I look at some of those targetted breeds and shake my head and my guess is I"m not alone. <br style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: verdana, tahoma, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(238, 242, 247); ">No, you are not alone at all :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lappiemum Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Firstly, why did they wait until after the BOB judging to vet the dogs? 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. Edited March 8, 2012 by Telida Whippets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Sniffalot Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Have not read the whole thread but are they disclosing the fault / faults which brought about the disqualifications ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Have not read the whole thread but are they disclosing the fault / faults which brought about the disqualifications ? I sure hope so. I think published reasons will be very important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lappiemum Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Firstly, why did they wait until after the BOB judging to vet the dogs? 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...... Edited March 8, 2012 by lappiemum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted March 8, 2012 Author Share Posted March 8, 2012 I think the reason to do just the BOB is threefold. One is to be seen to do the right thing. The next is not to have to vet check 26,000 dogs. And, the most important one, is to make a point, not just to the competitors but also to the judges. They are making the point that judges should not reward extremes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) 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. Crufts is HUGE!!! Have you ever seen a cat show with over 5,000 cats entered? FYI, here is the list of the conditions under which exhibitors enter wrt vet checks. Interestingly, reasons for disqualification will NOT be published. Edited March 8, 2012 by Telida Whippets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lappiemum Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I think the reason to do just the BOB is threefold. One is to be seen to do the right thing. The next is not to have to vet check 26,000 dogs. And, the most important one, is to make a point, not just to the competitors but also to the judges. They are making the point that judges should not reward extremes. 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..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now