Interesting News Out Of Crufts

[mita]

You say, SSM, that you're not sure this is the right way to force change.

It seems ham-fisted to me, to allow dogs to enter the show-ring, in the first place, if a vet is going to examine and disqualify AFTER they've won.

In fact, it seems counter-productive to send the message, yes we allow dogs that will fail a vet test into the actual show ring.

When it would sound more rational to say we screen dogs for any vet vetoes, so only those that get the OK are allowed into the show ring.

It's still not clear on what grounds the vet has 'failed' that pekingnese. I'm even assuming that there is only one vet. Frankly, there needs to be at least a second vet. And a schedule of target areas relevant to health, mobility & function drawn up and distributed to exhibitors, ahead of time (if that isn't done already).

Change not only needs to be done, but it needs to be seen to be done with some sensible, transparent due process.

Edited March 9, 2012 by mita

[Salukifan]

You say, SSM, that you're not sure this is the right way to force change.

It seems ham-fisted to me, to allow dogs to enter the show-ring, in the first place, if a vet is going to examine and disqualify AFTER they've won.

In fact, it seems counter-productive to send the message, yes we allow dogs that will fail a vet test into the actual show ring.

When it would sound more rational to say we screen dogs for any vet vetoes, so only those that get the OK are allowed into the show ring.

It's still not clear on what grounds the vet has 'failed' that pekingnese. I'm even assuming that there is only one vet. Frankly, there needs to be at least a second vet. And a schedule of target areas relevant to health & mobility drawn up and distributed to exhibitors, ahead of time (if that isn't done already).

Change not only needs to be done, but it needs to be seen to be done with some sensible, transparent due process.

So what's the message to be given?

"Only a 'healthy' dog should be shown?"

Or "just because a dog wins, doesn't mean its 'healthy'"

I think its the second one that exhibitors need to grasp first. I hope the first message will be the conclusion exhibitors reach for themselves.

Bear in mind that the KC hasn't implemented this just for Crufts - its now the rule for EVERY KC show.

And as for vets to examine every entrant. Bags not be the exhibitor footing the entry fees to cover that contingency. Imagine how long it would take to vet every dog entered at a show prior to judging.. or how expensive it would be to have sufficient vets to do the exams in a timely manner.

[megan_]

I think there should be 2- 3 vets, who are specialists (ie know a lot about physiology). Due to privacy, we won't know why the dogs were disqualified unless the owner wants to let the world know - which I doubt they would.

While it is ham fisted, the purebred world has had a long time to fix these issues, and there hasn't been significant progress. They had a choice to do this or have it done to them via government regulation.

As for vetting afterwards, I think it sends a much more powerful message to both competitors and judges. If it was all behind closed doors, breeders left without notice etc then the message would not have been as powerful. People could just say "we felt unwell so we left".

It is wrong to breed dogs that have problems breathing. Full stop.

[Bjelkier]

Somewhere in the mess of quotes earlier in the thread is some discussion about the difference between extreme preparation and extreme breeding. I think extreme preparation can also not be in the interests of the dog's health and welfare. I can't comment on Cresteds as I don't own them, but dogs with excessively long coat are one example.

As for the current shit storm, you know, I'm not sure this is the right way to do it, but to date people have shown they are incapable of making changes without someone using a stick of some kind. If this is what it takes to stop people breeding dogs that sound like a steam train at rest, let alone on the move, well, perhaps this is what it has to take.

I agree.

[mita]

So what's the message to be given?

"Only a 'healthy' dog should be shown?"

Yes, at the premier dog show, Crufts. Based on some agreed upon schedule of targeted areas & process.

To illustrate the best of the best on show.

And to push what changes are now expected, from the top.

Edited March 9, 2012 by mita

[Salukifan]

So what's the message to be given?

"Only a 'healthy' dog should be shown?"

Yes, at the premier dog show, Crufts. Based on some agreed upon schedule of targeted areas & process.

To illustrate the best of the best on show.

However, bear in mind that I'm sure those exhibitors think their dogs ARE healthy. And its the minds of exhibitors that need to be changed.

I can see Peke breeders looking at pups now.... and hope they'll be thinking.. maybe "Nose not too short, broad, nostrils large and open" means that pup with the slightly longer muzzle that I would have petted out before might be my best bet for Crufts in a year or two after all.

We need revolution not evolution in such thinking and if the big sticks are what it takes to get it then that's all to the good IMO. Dogs stand to benefit from this - in tangible ways.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Telida Whippets

[SkySoaringMagpie]

You say, SSM, that you're not sure this is the right way to force change.

It seems ham-fisted to me, to allow dogs to enter the show-ring, in the first place, if a vet is going to examine and disqualify AFTER they've won.

In fact, it seems counter-productive to send the message, yes we allow dogs that will fail a vet test into the actual show ring.

When it would sound more rational to say we screen dogs for any vet vetoes, so only those that get the OK are allowed into the show ring.

It's still not clear on what grounds the vet has 'failed' that pekingnese. I'm even assuming that there is only one vet. Frankly, there needs to be at least a second vet. And a schedule of target areas relevant to health & mobility drawn up and distributed to exhibitors, ahead of time (if that isn't done already).

Change not only needs to be done, but it needs to be seen to be done with some sensible, transparent due process.

Look, I don't know enough about this to do much more than pose more questions, but both you and Dog Geek have talked about the blunt nature of this approach. If I've learned anything from my time in dog world, it is that many dog people are impervious to tact and diplomacy, and even to direct speech and facts. Just look at some of the GSD threads we've had here. The KC would have known exactly what kind of hornets nest it was kicking when it set this into play. I suspect part of what is going on is transparency as well as expense. The lower level the vet checks, the more vets with varying opinions, and the easier it might be to establish corrupt workarounds. The higher level the vet checks, the more visible they are, the harder they are to influence and the greater impact they have. Plus it sets the onus back on the breeder not to present an iffy dog, rather than them relying on getting through a lottery of lower level checks. I do agree that perhaps a panel of independent vets might be the best way to go.

As someone has already posted, we are never going to know the grounds on which the dogs were failed, but there are strong arguments for privacy just as there are strong arguments for disclosure - I would have to think about it quite a bit more before deciding which way I was going to fall. I suspect disclosure would involve some fundamental changes in dog world culture that people would have to sign up to when they enter shows so that they have a choice about whether to enter and risk disclosure, or not enter and maintain privacy. My main concern with non-disclosure is that I'm already seeing people saying on FB that the reasons they were given were minor and not related to extreme breeding. We have no way of verifying that and we all know from more mundane refusals back here that the exhibitor version of events and the judge version of events rarely bear much resemblance to each other.

Edited March 9, 2012 by SkySoaringMagpie

[alpha bet]

It is a condition of entry into horse shows/competitions that all animals could be subject to testing. Generally this is more about taking a swab to ensure there is no drugs being used but often it can be used to vet horses for soundness.... In fact for many of the competitions there are regular vet checks throughout the comp before you can move on. These are generally to ensure the horse is not lame nor having trouble breathing or for heart. There is often two and sometimes three vets involved, depending upon the standard. Have judged at many horse comps and it is impossible to have the time to really check each horse, so unless there are very obvious signs it is not up to the judge as the judge is not a vet. However judges can ask an animal to be removed and then a vet can be called.

I would expect that at Crufts there was a few Vets on the panel and if dogs did not pass a basic health test, breathing, heart rate, temperature test and soundness in movement the panel would have failed the dog. I doubt very much if they were judging the dog on anything to do with their looks or structure, it would have been purely a health test.

The testing is not a 2 minute test, for an accurate test you might require perhaps a 15 minute time slot - if crufts had 5000 dogs that would take over 1,200 HOURS to complete..... who could afford or even find the time. Running a health check on all the winners would be the best option.

Im personally glad to see this implimented

[mita]

So what's the message to be given?

"Only a 'healthy' dog should be shown?"

Yes, at the premier dog show, Crufts. Based on some agreed upon schedule of targeted areas & process.

To illustrate the best of the best on show.

However, bear in mind that I'm sure those exhibitors think their dogs ARE healthy. And its the minds of exhibitors that need to be changed.

This is why I say, despite confidentiality issues, it needs to be known on what grounds that the pekingese got a vet veto (or any other dog, for that matter).

There needs to be a schedule of what's targeted in these health/function examinations.....so that why vetoes are given can be reported on to exhibitors.

It would highlight the areas where change is being insisted upon....or you're out. And provide statistics.

For all I know, something like this could be planned. It certainly should be more than an ad hoc process.

ADDED: alpha bet, what you posted is in the direction of a specific schedule relating to health/function vet checking

SSM, I just read your second post. My criticism of the 'after show' vet test was not on the grounds of bluntness but on the grounds that it doesn't reflect a preventative process that could be built into the system.

Like you, a lot of what I'm saying is very speculative. I don't even know if some plans are already in train.

There are real issues around confidentiality of the professional vet examination that need to be sorted. And even rights of appeal for second opinions.

But exhibitors need a schedule & need to be reported back to on what changes are being aimed at, by vet examinations. And the carrot & stick are access to the show ring.....or not.

Edited March 9, 2012 by mita

[emilee]

she is a stunningly sound bulldog bitch who was DQ'ed for a pin prick scar on her eye from an old injury. She was also Bulldog of the Year 2011 and a very worthy winner

[Salukifan]

This is why I say, despite confidentiality issues, it needs to be known on what grounds that the pekingese got a vet veto (or any other dog, for that matter).

There needs to be a schedule of what's targeted in these health/function examinations.....so that why vetoes are given can be reported on to exhibitors.

It would highlight the areas where change is being insisted upon....or you're out. And provide statistics.

For all I know, something like this could be planned. It certainly should be more than an ad hoc process.

The KC have left it to the exhibitor to publish that information if they chose to do so.

But I reckon a fair proportion of Peke folk in the UK show scene could take an educated guess....

Bit like here really.. lame dogs win under the right judges and with the right handlers. If the KC protocol was in place here, I wonder if such dogs would be entered at all.

I'll have to say this though - that vet is clearly made of very tough stuff. My guess is that a Committee process was involved in the decision and I take my hat off to each and every one of them.. not a job for the faint of heart.

[Salukifan]

she is a stunningly sound bulldog bitch who was DQ'ed for a pin prick scar on her eye from an old injury. She was also Bulldog of the Year 2011 and a very worthy winner

If that's a case then it makes a mockery of the protocol.

How did you find out?

[Sheridan]

So what's the message to be given?

"Only a 'healthy' dog should be shown?"

Yes, at the premier dog show, Crufts. Based on some agreed upon schedule of targeted areas & process.

To illustrate the best of the best on show.

And to push what changes are now expected, from the top.

But again, Mita, as per my previous post: with some breeds how do you know if a dog is healthy? And as per my other post, this also sends a message to the judges because it isn't just breeding for extremes, it's rewarding the extremes and this last is right down to the judges. They put up extremes, they should have a whopping great kick up the arse, too.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

she is a stunningly sound bulldog bitch who was DQ'ed for a pin prick scar on her eye from an old injury. She was also Bulldog of the Year 2011 and a very worthy winner

Interesting. I hope someone poses the question to the KC about scars and vet checks then. Some of the hound breeds are routinely shown at Crufts with scars on their bodies and some standards explicitly permit "honourable" hunting scars.

We'll wait and see what Sunday brings I suppose tho' I expect a vet would be looking for scars that indicate previous surgery rather than injury scars? I'm no bulldog expert tho'.

Edited to say I'm a numpty, should have realised that scars aren't an issue in of themselves, but alleged signs of previous surgery or damage to the eye arising from poor conformation might be.

Edited March 9, 2012 by SkySoaringMagpie

[whiskedaway]

There's two differences in opinion in this thread, I can see both sides. Maybe (and I haven't really thought about this, there could be massive problems with it) upon reaching maturity, all dogs should be assessed by a panel of vets for soundness. If they fail the vet check, they aren't able to be shown or bred from again (for example, here they'd be downgraded from main to limited register). It wouldn't be quite so public as being refused BOB based on a vet check.

[lappiemum]

she is a stunningly sound bulldog bitch who was DQ'ed for a pin prick scar on her eye from an old injury. She was also Bulldog of the Year 2011 and a very worthy winner

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.

[emilee]

she is a stunningly sound bulldog bitch who was DQ'ed for a pin prick scar on her eye from an old injury. She was also Bulldog of the Year 2011 and a very worthy winner

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

[mita]

So what's the message to be given?

"Only a 'healthy' dog should be shown?"

Yes, at the premier dog show, Crufts. Based on some agreed upon schedule of targeted areas & process.

To illustrate the best of the best on show.

And to push what changes are now expected, from the top.

But again, Mita, as per my previous post: with some breeds how do you know if a dog is healthy? And as per my other post, this also sends a message to the judges because it isn't just breeding for extremes, it's rewarding the extremes and this last is right down to the judges. They put up extremes, they should have a whopping great kick up the arse, too.

I agree with you, Sheridan. That's why I've said there needs to be some agreed upon vet exam schedule drawn up.....a checklist. Listing what exactly is being targeted as a 'healthy/mobile/functional' dog across a range of dogs types.

That would put a searchlight on conformation features that put mobility & healthy function into peril. So you're right, it would provide lessons for judges.... With, hopefully, more reason to change, filtering down.

But all that is easy for me to say. The devil would be in the details. And I find the issue of confidentiality to be a real hot potato.

Just saw what lappie posted about the possibility of court action. Not surprising, if there's no appeal or second/wider opinion built into the process. Nor an actual list of what conditions will be checked for possible veto.

Edited March 9, 2012 by mita

[lappiemum]

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

[Mags]

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.

Totally agree with the above post.

If they are naming dogs they should be stating why imo - and I hope the vet knows the breeds (how often do vets with little knowledge of a breed make comments that do not take into account breed characteristics) and has made sound decisions would hate to be him/her if the decision they have made is challenged and found lacking after the KC named the dogs - the issue of compensation rears its head when you are naming specific individuals as being unsound (without even detailing why) given the damage that does to a breeders reputation. Vetting at cat shows is totally different all animals are checked and animals are put out for pretty obvious things that could potentially affect any cats and may be contagious and have the potential to be transmitted to other cats at the show.