From the makers of Pedigree Dogs Exposed, the latest news and views regarding inherited disorders and conformation issues in purebred dogs.
Compared to the Working Neapolitan Mastiff you showed in PDE2, that dog is an embarrassment. Heck, compared to the scrotum on an 80 year old elephant, that dog is an embarrassment.
Well, you would think no one could argue with that!!! But.....Sure they will.
Do you actually have permission to post these photos because I think not. You think you have done a good thing? You have ruined it for the good breeders and exhibitors in this country who strive to do the very best for their dogs. All you have done the last two days is post pictures of dogs (which you don't have permission to do anyways) and slate the good people who are working hard to preserve and better the breeds.
Lex:You do not need permission to post pictures taken in a public venue. The UK copyright laws are very clear in this regard. She has not "ruined" anything - the people breeding for this exaggerated appearance did that. Think about it this way - there wouldn't be anything to post/videotape/photograph IF THE PROBLEMS DIDNT EXIST.
Except it is not a public venue, it is on private property at a private event, to which the public are entitled to entry for a fee.
Permission only needs to be sought if the person posting the photos was not actually the photographer.If, however, the blog owner is not the photographer they they could find themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit.
To clear up any confusion, organisers of private events can have any rule they like regarding photography, these are the most pertinent ones I think [ from the form which has to be filled in by anyone taking photos at the show ] '2c) No film/photographs to be taken or published which shall containanything obscene or libellous or defamatory or infringe anyintellectual property right or any right whatever of any person(including the Kennel Club); or which may be to the detriment ofthe dogs taking part in the event, the Kennel Club or any visitors;or which may be prejudicial to the good image of the Kennel Clubor which would if made public lead to adverse publicity for theKennel Club or cause damage to the Kennel Club or bring thereputation of the Kennel Club or its members and/or visitors intoquestion''3c) Not to film/photograph any specific dog without the consent of theexhibitor and to inform the exhibitor of the intended use of suchphotographs and where the photographs may be published egspecific websites and so on.'Presumably the photographer [ who was not JH as it happens, not on some of them anyway ] did fill in and submit the form to the KC and did ask permission of the handlers concerned and let them know where the photos were to be used ? If not, they exhibitors and the KC have the right to sue as it happens - just so no one continues to believe nor dole out misinformation on the subject ;)
good mastiff breeders don't breed these unfit for purpose mastiffs, the only wrinkles they should have are to direct the blood away from there eyes, these breeders should not be breeding these pathetic excuses of mastiff, but then it should never have won b.o.b
Lex, I agree that the whole attitude of these postings is way too gleeful -- just waiting in anticipation of dogs being failed. It's more than a bit creepy, imho. Would be far nicer if there were some constructive criticism and a few photos of dogs owned by breeders who are doing the right thing, but I guess that's not the real goal here. This blog is delighting the anti-breeding AR people everywhere.That said, you really don't need the owner's permission to post photos you have taken yourself, and I imagine (or would hope, anyway) these photos have been taken by friends of this blog. When you are in a public arena such as this, you are basically agreeing to be photographed by spectators, and you have no control over what they do with their photos. So you basically "pays your money and takes your chances."
The dog looks ill. If the owner had eyes like that she would be in bed in considerable discomfort, not trotting round a show ring.
That DOG is a beauty who meets the breed standard - until recently changed - and looks like a Neo is supposed to look. A Neo with tight skin and tight eyes is NOT a Neo. It is a different dog. Unless you own, are a Neo specific Vet, or breed these dogs you have no business speaking to their health or their appearance. If you do not like the droopy eyes, get a different dog. Personally I think poodles are stupid looking, so I don't own one. But I also don't post about their health and conformation as it is not my area of expertise. The dog above was the BEST of all the Neos, accordingly what they are saying is that NONE of the neos were healthy. That is WRONG.
this dog is a disgrace these dogs where war dogs and are meant to be fast and run long distances and live to a good age,this dog is not of breed standard but of what most people in the UK think they should look like, ban all breeders that breed these dogs.
THE AGONY AND THE ECSTACY.... nice juxtaposition.
Lex, go read UK copyright laws about photographs, no permission needed to take & publish photos of dogs. That topic has been covered.Just received this from a friend in the USFrom: Dennis SprungSent: Friday, March 09, 2012 08:44 AMSubject: Re: Any advice for Bulldog Club of America (BCA) and theother targeted breeds??We should prepare a statement after all facts are in. However you canassure and share with everyone that AKC will NEVER allow any suchpractice to occur. Our Parent Clubs own their respective standard andwe support them 100 percent. Furthermore a Judges' decision is finaland we respect that as well. The situation is a very disappointing onehere from the point of view of breeders, exhibitors and judges andfanciers from around the world. In summary while our PCs have a rightto be upset and concerned I will never allow this wrongful practice inAmerica. Never!!!Dennis Assuming this is genuine looks like the yanks will stay on the slow road to health reforms.
We stay on the slow road to everything here.... we can't even agree on health reform for humans.
Seriously? That's the best defense the show sheeple could come up with?First it was "but the vet used a TORCH!" as if painful hereditary conditions are acceptable as long as they're not visible without a torch...And now it's "but you don't have permission to use those photos!" As in, stop using that photographic EVIDENCE to prove beyond a doubt that this dog has an eye conformation that is unhealthy, uncomfortable (to say the least) and clearly should NOT be considered for breeding.Hey sheeple - face it, you're on the LOSING end of this one.As you should be.
I would assume "sheeple" run in a flock, but I don't see that many replies here... maybe they are just ignoring you? You must be terribly disappointed. Maybe give it a day or two before trying another witty riposte.
I have to ask, did the judge use a torch also?
I confess, my knowledge of Neos is miniscule.But, I had to look at the larger picture to figure out what was going on with that dog's MOUTH, as well.
I am not a Show Sheeple as you put it. I don't actually show dogs. However I am involved heavily with dogs and working with them aswell. I have two Show Type Springer Spaniels who are more than happy to go out working with my Working type Springers so your post a while back about Show Springers not being suitable for work is absolute nonsense. With regards to the other comments regarding the photography. There was a very interesting piece on this blog a while back regarding the Kennel Club tightening their regulations on photography and video use and this is from the KC's own regulations "Specific dogs may be photographed only with the approval of the exhibitor"So yes. I highly doubt that she has the permission of the exhibitor in this case and Anon. I completely agree that the blog is too gleeful. The fact that she has been posting in anticipation of something being wrong with these dogs doesn't really point to a loving caring dog owner as far as I am concerned. The dogs involved had all the relevant health tests done, the Clumber Spaniel had been eye tested and had come out CLEAR. Fact of the matter is. The MAJORITY of the Show World are hell bent on IMPROVING their breeds. With this ridiculous circus that has been going on this weekend, I wouldn't blame the decent breeders to walk away from the Kennel Club and Crufts. Now the puppy farmers and back yard breeders can muscle their way in and completely overrun the country with badly bred dogs who are not health tested and whose breeders are only in it for the money. Congratulations. Hope your very proud of yourself Jemima. You might have just completely ruined it for the health of dogs in this country. Glee on that prospect.
Are you kidding me? It is the show world that is hell bent on ruining dogs in pursuit of ribbons. Just look at the historical photographic record. These dogs did not start out looking like physical train wrecks! Please show me photographic evidence that 50 years ago there was a Champion German Shepherd with a kink in its back. How is that healthy?Instead of complaining about what has been done to these dogs through selective breeding for more and more exaggerated features, let's complain that someone took their pictures. Seriously? That's your defense?I have a GSD. She was bred by a hobby breeder. She has a flat back, proper rear end, and when viewed from the rear while she's working, her hocks don't wobble. The ranch where we're learning herding says it's refreshing to see one up on their feet instead of flat on their hocks.
The glee you sense is not schadenfreude. It's the sort of amazement that comes from pushing and pushing and pushing for reform, and thinking you're pushing against an immovable object. Then, suddenly, seeing a major step forward. No doubt this could have been done better, and I feel very sorry for exhibitors whose prize dogs have been DQ'd. There are battles to come, and some dogs that were at the top may only be kept on top by their owners parting from the KC . . . who knows. . . the KC may reverse course.
Lex, your post is spot on.
The good breeders wont go anywhere as they are actually happy to know their plainer not of such an extreme type dogs may actually get a look in now instead of deformed cripples winning.
... Yes. One blogger on the internet will single-handedly bring about the demise of all dogs in the UK. I can totally see that happening.(And yes, that is meant to be sarcastic.)Also, how can someone NOT be anticipatory of dogs failing the vet checks when some of have been bred to exaggeration? Show Springers have gotten off light compared to the state of Neos these days.
If the majority of these breeds breeders try to get healthier breeds instead of winning shows, we would not be in this shit. Must we choose between these "reputable" breeders who destroyed several fine breeds or puppy farmers/back yard breeders, I honestly dont know who to chose. But I do not understand why we can not choose the third option breeders who are actually prepared to breed healthy, functional dogs
Lex said:'Fact of the matter is. The MAJORITY of the Show World are hell bent on IMPROVING their breeds.'The fact of the matter is that it has been the majority of the Show World that has 'improved' breeds to such an extent that they have become the conformational and genetic train wrecks that the Show World is now so desperate to 'improve' by doing more of the same. And yes, I have read the independent, peer-reviewed science as opposed to unsupported and unsupportable kennel club mythology.
Anonymous GSD owner - It's not just the show world that is ruining dogs in the pursuit of ribbons. Have you seen some of the physical train wrecks that are the champions of the Field Trialing world? I'm an English Cocker owner and there are quite a few working type lines that produce dogs with godawful conformation and absolutely no type. Do they win? Yes, but they don't even look or hunt like your traditional Cocker while doing so.Any breed of dog that is strictly bred for the sake of winning competitions in environments they were never originally meant for - e.g. the conformation ring or competitive field trialing - is going to end with a dog with exaggerated features.
Only last summer a facebook campaign forced the KC to back down over its hard line on the use of hairspray and chalk in preparing a dog for showing. In fact there really wasn't much of a fight, the KC folded like a house of cards. We could very easily see something similar now.Many here don’t relate to the fact that dog show community is just that, a community of people with a shared hobby. You might look at the breed rings and just see the dogs, dogs that all too often look plain "wrong" in your eyes. Someone into showing sees the people with their dogs; a few strangers but far more who range from nodding acquaintances to long time friends. It would be foolish not to expect there to be sympathy and empathy for the people affected by the failed vet checks;- owners, breeders, handlers and judges. Many moderate voices in the dog world regard the disqualifications as a fiasco. Triumphalism now will only galvanise anger at what they regard as the shabby treatment of decent dog folk. I want to keep focus on the dogs and move debate forward to totally scrapping breed features that contribute to health and welfare issues;-to do that we need the breeders on board, if not full converts than at least grudgingly accepting the necessity for change. They’ve had a taste of outside scrutiny, they hate it and they’re in a mood to ensure this stops here and doesn’t happen at the other Championship dog shows that follow on from Crufts. We must do all we can to support the concept of independent vet checks and keep this precedent alive. That means supporting the KC although, in the case of a few voices here, I suspect the cause would be best served if they just shut up.
"..hell bent on IMPROVING their breeds" And what are those improvements?? The improvements indicative of line-breeding or inbreeding?? The culling of pups to maintain the vanity of those pretentiously mandating THEIR breeds?? To rationalize standardization of THEIR breeds against that of puppy mills is but to show the two extremes of wrong doing with regards to the welfare and health of dogs. You paint a garbage bin..it's still a garbage bin. Improvements..please.The clubs need new blood..human and dog alike.
I am not going to attempt address the points in your nonsensical post, , but I would point out that you seem unfamiliar with the eye tests and what a "clear" certificate means. FYI this is what the British Veterinary Association say "The eye scheme currently relates to conditions involving the eye itself and not those involving the tear ducts, the eyelids or other surrounding structures. Therefore hereditary eye conditions of the lens, retina and other internal structures are listed, whilst eyelid conditions such as entropion, ectropion and distichiasis are not. These latter conditions are of importance, but because of their extremely complex nature and the paucity of scientific evidence relating to their degree of heredity, they are not included in the Scheme at present."
Good on Crufts! Any person with half a brain can see that poor dog has something very wrong with it's eye lids (and it's skin and it's lips/mouth and it’s ....). Maybe the breeders and judges will now start to see and call physical defects for what they are. Well hope springs eternal I guess.
Imagine having pink eye every day of your life, and imagine it being much worse.And you'll know what that dog goes through every single day of its life.
Yes, there is definitely Cognitive Dissonance going on with these breeders / show people. They simply cannot see what the rest of us see.
Nothing is wrong with that dog's eyes. The breed is supposed to look like that. This is not to say that some Neos have eye problems, but not these. The droopy eye is part of the breed. The loose skin is part of breed. The lumbering run is part of the breed. Attempting to make a Neo look like an English Mastiff is not the answer. Forcing breeders to have their dogs checked by qualified vets in a comprehensive manner IS a better solution than vets that are checking for what the judges have already said is the BOB doesn't make any sense. Again, the dog does not have pink eye, nor is there anything wrong with its lips and mouth (and NO, I am not the breeder). A physical defect is different than a physical attribute you find unattractive.
Jemima, I would like to refer you to one of my favourite West Wing quotes: "Now, we have laws, and they are difficult and they have to be enforced and it's right that they're enforced. But we do not *strut* ever."The last line and picture on this article is gloating, it is obnoxious and frankly I thought you were better than that. It is not journalism, it is an episode of the Simpsons with Nelson standing around pointing and going "Har-har!", glorying in other people's misery. Please leave the bitchiness, snarking and juvenile behaviour to the Terrier-dude in future; this is not the way to get your message across.
I don't think the show ring photo is gloating ... Here the problem is perfectly illustrated. We have a judge that is emphatically showing who the winner is and the winner is reacting with glee. And both have been confirmed wrong by the KC appointed Vet. Perfectly illustrated.
"Please leave the bitchiness, snarking and juvenile behaviour to the Terrier-dude in future; this is not the way to get your message across"I see none of that with Jemima on this blog - I see PLENTY of it with those people who are attempting to defend the indefensible. The vitriol that is coming from sections of the show community on this,is utterly despicable. Nobody on here is "gloating" - we are far too concerned about the welfare of those poor dogs to indulge in any sense of triumphalism - we are simply delighted that after years of inaction, the KC is finally standing up to the nasties who are defiantly stating that nobody is going to tell them what they can and cannot do to "their" dogs, regardless of any suffering the dog is being subjected to.
And in 20 years, when no one has dogs because you made sure that the breeding of dogs was taken away from us, what will you do then? You hate and blindness disgusts me. You are just as shameful as the kennel club you have bullied into caving for you. I am glad you are "across the pond" because if I were in same the same country as you, it would not be pretty. I would fight your claims and hate with every once of my being.
So....anyone who thinks dogs should not be deliberately bred to have painful conformational defects wants the breeding of dogs to cease? I'm not following your logic.
There were dogs, companion and working dogs, for many thousand years before the kennel clubs, breed clubs and closed registers were even thought of. And there will be companion dogs and working dogs long after dogs shows have gone into oblivion. Dogs with health issues should not be rewarded.There is still a long way to go, but I do applaud the KC for taking this first step and I hope it will make breeders and judges think about what they are doing.
This seems like such a blanket statement. I think if anything good comes out of taking peoples dignity away in such a harsh manner, it would be a hope for it to be stronger oppinions and actions for testing. Though I have to say pedigreed dogs when paired with non pedigreed dogs have far more testing. Also to consider dog owners who are willing to travel and go through great expense to keep their dogs true to the breed also typically ( though not always) also fight between themselves a lot.....one of the topics of competition...testing. ironic isn't it? The group who must hold the torch (rightfully so) is the group who typically practices this topic to exhaustion and to their last pennies. There is a terrible misconception the people who are in the show ring are the ones laughing all the way to the bank. When the opposite is usually true. The people who don't care about testing, breed indescrimanently, and do not re-invest in the breed you will rarely find at shows. All this to say there are SO many people in the show world that are just as passionate about health issues that could lead this into so much more than a war between two organizations. Instead I would hope to see unity and steady progress. True health issues to start and as those are crossed off the list more and more issues can be brought to light and delt with.
The show people will tell you IMPROVING their breeds is exactly what they have been doing for the last few decades, trouble is no-one can see that those improvements are not to the benefit of the dogPlus its no good going on about eye tests as they are purely for the eye diseases such as PRA not constructional eye problemsAnd yes I do show...but I want reform for the dogs, not many replies on this blog have ever made me feel sorry for the hunan element , they have a choice
I cannot speak for UK but in Canada and the U.S., when an ophthalmologist examines the eye he also notes condition of eye lids, including third eye lid, cornea, Uvea, lens, vitreous as well as the fundus. So at least HERE they are checked for more then just CEA/PRA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nce-dNjYt5Ihttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeDg9DdbvH4&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki2jeHquJa4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bvSCbOh4YIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVyFSTYY7zg&feature=relatedPuppy Mills In the US clips.
I watched the Neo Dog Open Class and CC ringside yesterday. I thought the judged awarded the 1st in Open and the CC to the least crippled dog. Unless I was mistaken whilst watching the group judging last night, the Newfoundland who won the Working Group, also had ectropian. I'm all for the vet checks, but surely if ectropian is considered a serious enough health problem to merit disqualifying the Clumber, then it should mean disqualification for all other affected breeds, not just those 15 high-profile breeds? It must be infuriating for the Clumber owner to have her own dog disqualified, only to then watch another dog with the same ectropian win his group.
I quite agree. If it's serious enough to check for in one breed it must surely be serious enough in all? Or are we just going to be breedist and say that eyes only matter in certain breeds?The labrador BoB was heavily overweight, which is contrary to the revised breed standard, so why wasn't that disqualified also?
I am still having trouble believing this is really happening.The problem of health in closed-registry dogs is huge and in the larger scheme of things, this is only a small step towards the solution; however, I believe the psychological leap that has been made is huge. I am a harsh and unrelenting critic of the kennel club system and I take nothing back, but I like to think I am fair. So here it is:The KC have reviewed breed standards and made an effort to tackle conformation issues that are detrimental to health. They have instituted regulations regarding inbreeding and dogs unable to give birth naturally. They registered an LUA Dalmatian and have put into writing that they 'will… work with breeders and breed clubs to look at suitable outcrossing programmes...’. And now this. They have stunned their critics and incurred the wrath of many of their members and supporters by refusing to reward obvious health problems. I believe it is now up critics of the closed-registry kennel club system to acknowledge that the KC have behaved courageously and made efforts to address our complaints. There are many caveats that we could make but this is not the time for them. It is time for us to offer support and thanks, unequivocal and unqualified. That includes those of us who are not from the UK because the KC has now proven that change can be made and there may even be hope for those of us elsewhere who want to change the system. Given the courage the KC, and their appointed vets, have shown, anything less would be ungracious.
Yes the KC are working hard should be acknowledged for this. What they are up against though is the breed / show fraternity that are outwardly talking to the KC, working with the KC etc but saying between themselves that they will just do / say what the KC want to hear and carry on breeding the way they want to.
I agree whole heartedly with Sarah. When they do make positive steps we need to show them that we are behind them. Over the next few weeks I'm sure there is going to be a major backlash against the KC from breeders and show people, we need to show the KC the majority of public opinion is in favour of health checks and the other changes the KC have introduced!So well done the Kennel Club.
I'd love to know how we can do that in a co-ordinated way because I completely agree with you. The Kennel Club will have its mettle tested in the next few months and we should support them.
I was thinking this same thing: We need to put our support of the KC's courage into writing and post it so it reaches the most eyes. I am not sure just posting our support here will do that. Where can we write, and to whom at the KC should receive our thanks for their courage? God knows the angry breeders will be letting them have it. I'd love to know.thanks
I've lived with this breed for many years now and can confirm that they suffer for their looks. Look up the term 'Cognitive Dissonance' which accurately describes Neapolitan Mastiff breeders and showpeople. I've heard many a breeder / showperson / breed club member actually say defiantly that they will completely ignore anything that the KC tells them to do, that the breed is 'theirs' and they''ll simply tell the KC what they want to hear. I think that the proof of this attitude was in the ring yesterday...
Oh, just another example of how much 'breed people' care about the dogs...http://www.uknmc.org.uk/newrescue.htm
Another example of how incestuous the whole damn world of dog showing is...Have a look and see who the President of the Neapolitan Mastiff Club is. Look familiar? Ring a bell?http://www.uknmc.org.uk/newthecommittee.htm
The guy on the stop the pde group came up with a super compromise which would benefit everyone. A three vet panel with two checking the bob winner. if both of those fail the dog then thats the end of it. if they disagree then the third comes into play sounds like a good one to me.
oh my goodness, why are so many of you people so darn predictable, and repetitive. Breeders are working incredibly hard on all health issues related to the neapolitan mastiff. This is not a simple task and wont be acieved overnight. What, and who is plainly at fault here are the KC themselves, who adopted a degree of acceptance for the type of this breed, exagerration was good, and degree of haw acceptable. Now this is to change, and Im not going to argue the rights or wrongs of this other than to say for fiarness sake if nothing else, the KC shuld close its doors to all the questioned breeds highlighted for change for the next 10 years to give ample time and space for these breeds to be brought in line for the healthier type it now demands. This will never happen of course as they stand to lose too much money, and kudos. They believe they are an untouchable unit, because ultimately they have the final say, however having been there yesterday and seen the turn out, this years show was far less well supported than ever Ive seen.If you people are going to bandy on about the rights and wrongs of certain breeds, then why dont you do so from an informed position rather than one of ignorance, how many of you were there yesterday? and how many actually saw these regal dogs up close? not many Ill hazard a guess. Perhaps you could also give some thought as to what the KC have done themselves - demanded changes (after they deemed the requirements for type) and continue to accept the cash, knowing that no dog fits the new type, as yet. Farcical.
Apart from the ranting, I agree with the point about closing registration from any of the 15 at-risk breeds for at least 10 years. The clubs keep bleating how long it's going to take, well let's hold them to it.
There is another take on this. Just maybe there actually are dogs out there that could pass vet checks but they didn't qualify for Crufts because judges insisted in rewarding their narrow ideas about "type" regardless of the negative effects on the dog's health. I'm not saying the "turning around the supertanker" argument is totally without foundation, there is clearly a big element of truth to it. There is also a lot of truth in the old adage that the Kennel Club never bred a single litter...I'm afraid the breeders/exhibitors did that all by themselves. Yes, condemn the KC for letting unhealthy exaggerations develop but never imply they caused them. In many cases breed standards have remained the same for decades whilst breeders have produced ever more exaggerated dogs.The acceptance of responsiblity and even old fashioned remorse from breeders and breed clubs would not go amiss.
Sarah, I would gladly help demonstrate to the British KC that the step they took when they decided to vet check on Cruft´s BOB winners was very much appreciated by very many. Of course the inveterate show minority will make a loud noise... but they are not the KC, they are not the majority of people interested in dogs, and they most definitely are not the breeds.Will there be a Support the KC group on Facebook?
I don't do social networking (too many privacy issues) so it won't be me organising a Facebook group. I'd love to join some kind of organised response, though.In the meantime, I hope the KC is inundated with emails and letters of support. I've already sent mine. The KC has put its money where its mouth is - I know everyone likes to pretend that money doesn't come into it but the reality is that it does, and I suspect the KC is going to take a heavy hit. Those who support what they are doing should join and pay the fee. I've checked their website and it looks as though non-UK residents can join as affiliates.http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/kcaffiliatesNon-UK residents need to email: email@example.com. I've already sent that email too.
The Crufts facebook page has been overrun by Bulldog supporters. Personally I'd look at showing support in more traditional ways...how about old fashioned letters (ok emails) to the editor of the dog press? firstname.lastname@example.org
Interesting to see how the sycophants who were praising the KC to the skies a few weeks ago for their video Dogs - A Healthy Future are now turning on the KC because they are putting into practice what they were preaching. QWhat these people want is for the KC to put out a message to the puppy buying public that KC registered dogs are healthy, but they dont actually care whether the dogs really are healthy or not. Apparently the conspiracy theory is that KC are now controlled by Animal Rights activists and/or Jemima ! Mind bogglingAnd yes, I was at Crufts , with dogs
Basset seems to have failed. Three guesses why.
Guessing? Speculation is for amateurs.
Well done KC. I don't believe we should ever have got to a position where this had to happen, but if judges can't pick a healthy AND typey dog for BOB then as least finaly the KC has a grown a pair of (fully descended!)testciles. I hope the judges and exhibitors take the time to understand why the dogs failed. It will take time to improve breeds just as it takes time to ruin them ....I hope we see Neo's in the Crufts Group line up again really soon in a healthier but still recognisable form.And I would love to see all BOB's vet checked at all champ shows. Those with healthy show dogs have nothing to fear :-)VP
Anonymous 18:13, if I was a breeder of any of those 15 breeds I would call for an outright breed boycott of Crufts not a single representative of those breeds shown in it period, I would make sure to spread the word to the other 14 as well. I would also get the word out to the non covered breeds as well asking them to join the boycott so that the show would be cancelled due to no entries period. The boycott would go on until the vet checks were done away with. Humiliating people in public, robbing them of their dignity, robbing them of their money, demeaning their dog in public shame on KC.
For me, this does seem to be one of the more eventful Crufts.The complaints about the veterinary failures, defending the indefencible, are just laughable and then there's the boycott of the breed judging by male owners of my own breed, only for the last one standing to go group 1 for the first time ever.You just can't make this stuff up.
The dog world is well aware of Jemima Harrison's antipathy towards certain breeds and her success in conflating breeders who unethically produce animals with genetic disease with those that produce breeds of a type she doesn't like. Sadly the KC has not had the courage to stand up to the pressure of Jemima and her cronies and so has disqualified a number of Best of Breed winners from Crufts for minor cases of ectropion. Breeders and lovers of so far unaffected breeds should remember Pastor Martin Niemoller;s quotation on the Nazis:First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Socialist.Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.
Oh for pete's sake, this is a dog beauty contest! You totally undermine your argument by comparing Crufts to Nazi's! And I would be careful of bringing up Nazis's by the way. But since you did....The Westminster Eugenics Show http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/205141/westminster-eugenics-show/jonah-goldberg
Firstly there is a link between Crufts and Nazi beliefs (they both believe that there is an aesthetic ideal which society should aspire to)But that is not the point of this blog.People have the right to be 'gleeful' that a sick animal was not allowed to win! They SHOULD be gleeful that improvements to Crufts are being made. We want dogs (regardless of what breed they are) to be healty, do you take issue with that?
well you are correct .. Nazis would never stand for even a minor health fault and would have had those dogs "suffering" from it' killed.. maybe that is the "final solution' the AR's here are looking for.. There can be "no faults allowed" as some one here said "health is absolute".. what ever that means.. if you apply that to people none would pass. .. to dogs.. few..but to Nazis who want only perfection.. sure why not..
Oh my god, 07:57, way to miss the point. We aren't PETA douches, we don't want dogs killed, we just want the next generation of dogs to suffer less. And lol when you call us Nazis, considering that the nazis were all about pure blood and getting rid of "mongrel" races. We don't want perfection. Perfection is a stupid and unrealistic ideal. We just want the next generation of dogs to be able to live long, healthy doggy lives with their owners.
I can barely make out the Neo's eye in the picture! Have to say i'm impressed with the KC for making such a bold statement. Hopefully this won't just be a one off and that vet checks like this will continue well into the future until the 15 high profile breeds are at a better place health and looks wise. I'm shocked as always by the minority breeders/show people who are up in arms about the move, stating such things as the KC should have ignored the "anti breed purists". Hopefully with a new and upcoming generation of breeders/show people & judges, the opinion of the "old school" lot on FB will be a thing of the past, much the same as the failing health of these certain breeds profiled. Louise
I know it seems harsh to declare that a dog does not meet health requirements after it has been declared BOB, but I think it has to be this way. It’s not about vindictively enjoying the public humiliation of judges and breeders, though I can’t say I feel any sympathy for those that have brought dogs to such a wretched state. If the KC really wants to make a stand, it has to use independent vets that it appoints itself and has confidence in. It is impractical to do this other than at the show itself, and it is impractical to examine every dog entered before it goes in the ring.The problem with accepting health clearances provided by vets before the show is that, with all due respect to vets, there are too many who could cave in to pressure: young vets who are new in the profession and trying to make their way; established vets associated with the breed who may be influenced by friendships, the Old Boy Network and breed club pressures; and a few who are just plain corrupt or incompetent. Trust me, if the KC accepted pre-competition clearance, strangely enough every dog would be declared free of problems, no matter how glaringly obvious it may be to the rest of the world that something is deeply wrong.The vets in question also need to know that if they fail a dog, the KC will stand behind them. The vets are going to receive a lot of the proverbial too and they have to be in a strong position to survive it.The health clearance has to be done at the point the dog is declared a champion. My one criticism is that I think that in all fairness, it should be standard practice for every BOB, not just a few.
with all due respect to vets???? really you are trashing vets trust YOU.. I think not you ask that we accept the vets opinion at the show.. but then say the public should be the judge of anything else,... including dogs who have passed health checks by =certified processionals.. trust you? LOL
Anon 08:00 of the inimitable writing style (yes, you do identify yourself with your writing style, which, I have to say is up to your usual standard, as are your reading comprehension skills and logical sharpness):While the vast majority are honourable professionals, there will always be an accommodating vet to be found. It must be true – I heard it from a breeder and its on record for you to check it out for yourself. I refer you to the comments made by that charming Rhodesian ridgeback breeder in PDE regarding finding a vet to kill her perfectly healthy ridgeless puppies. Now, don’t you think that if a breeder can find a vet who will understandingly kill her puppies because they don’t meet a breed standard, a breeder could also find a vet who would view conformation required health problems with a sympathetic eye?By the way, I wasn't aware that 'processionals' could be certified and give health checks - the last time I came across one was in church. You learn something new every day.
To the intellectual who posted this comment: "This blog is delighting the anti-breeding AR people everywhere" I would just like to say - PMSL. Are you serious? AR? Really? Since when did scientifically proven studies of canine genetic health (or the lack of it)and the subsequent welfare issues being inflicted on man's best friend equate to AR?
This is not directed at ALL breeders. Just those who are so offended at what has happened at Crufts this year. This is a simple little film I just found on youtube that Ms Harrison DIDN'T make: http://youtu.be/Hex00WjSobE - so 'show breeders', let's see. Is it really JH you have a problem with? Or is it the fact that mother nature has finally bitten you back for unleashing such a monumental catastrophe in the gene pool by playing God? And something that will take decades to rectify, if in some cases it can be rectified at all. If you can still find a good argument in favour of what man has done to some of our best loved breeds after watching this, then we can only draw the conclusion that any negative comments about PDE2 or JH are based on hysteria and fear because she's had the guts to be the one to publicly expose your failings as the compassionate and ethical breeders you claim to be. http://youtu.be/Hex00WjSobE
Sometimes little wrongs reflect big wrongs, and things can escalate, at least from the perspective of the people who suffer from the wrong. The Nazis that took away those other people thought they were doing something good, and eventually things deteriorated all the way to genocide. Well-meaning people could bring about the end of breeds that have lasted for hundreds of years. It.a like the American soldier in Vietnam who said, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it". Each of these breeds have people who love it, but vilification by the self-righteous could put an end to a breed by blackening its reputation to potential future owners. The cited animals were not suffering from hideous afflictions; the Mastiff owner was told by the vet who failed it that there was no need to visit her own vet!
@Anon--Since when did scientifically proven studies of canine genetic health (or the lack of it)and the subsequent welfare issues being inflicted on man's best friend equate to ARCan Jemima or yourself point me in the direction of the scientific study re the Chinese Crested regarding shaving
Do you know this lady does not test her own show dogs eyes??? With regards to this someone i know of must have seen this and put this to her in email:> Considering that it is reccommened by the AGPAW and the breed clubs ALL Flatcoats especially those older ones MUST be health tested for GLAUCOMA why have you not had Massie tested? As we all know this is an eye disease which will cause blindness. There is a very simple and inexpensive test run by the KC/BVA for all those who love the breed to have their dogs tested for this dreadful condition, this is whether they are show dogs or pets. I find it incongruent that you can at once attack others for not taking health seriously when you have not done so yourself. THE REPLY Thank you for your concern about Maisie.As I am sure you know the Gonioscopy test reveals merely if your dog has a predisposition to glaucoma, not if they have it. It is a useful indicator, then, of how carefully you may have to watch for signs of glaucoma, but there's nothing you can do - no pre-emptive action you can take to stop it developing. With or without the test, all you can do is watch, wait, hope that it doesn't manifest, but be prepared to take swift action should they suddenly show any signs. I would have tested Maisie if I had ever bred from her, but I have not (and she is spayed). Both Maisie's parents and all four grandparents have been tested and are clear. I think she is pretty safe. That said, I watch my dogs like a a hawk and they are with me almost all the time so I would certainly spot glaucoma symptoms pretty quickly. In fact, I suffer from (secondary) glaucoma myself so am more than aware of what a horrible and painful condition it can be. BUT THIS LADY DOES NOT TEST HERSELF WHAT A HYPOCRITE!!!
How very very sad that people continue to argue and defend the disgusting mutilation of dogs. Shame on you for questioning anything that will only improve animal welfare. I don't even pretend to know what I'm looking at in a 'pedigree' dog as I've only ever adopted mutts BUT even I can see these animals are an abomination and things need to change. All for the glory of a little red ribbon and a shiney cup??? Very very sad.
LOL Thanks Anon for this reply from JH=== That said, I watch my dogs like a a hawk and they are with me almost all the time so I would certainly spot glaucoma symptoms pretty quicklyYes but ya cannot spot them running towards an electric fence Maybe ya would be better practicing what ya are trying to preach and test yar dog
For those of you attacking Ms. Harrison for comparing the purebred dog fancy to eugenicists and the Nazis, the President of the Pekingese Club of America claims that people like Jemima are going to bring about another Holocaust. I don't remember her saying anything like that at all about anyone.http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/the-paranoid-rantings-of-the-president-of-the-pekingese-club-of-america/
Ha ! Of course there will be those who can argue with this. The cognitively defunct, psychopaths and egocentrics. Who else! Nobody who truly cares about dogs will have any objections. Certain breeders created this, therefore they can darned well breed these exaggerations back out! I feel sorry for those who would have once loved this breed, and who have walked away over the years as things took on this strange appearance.
It seems the people who started this to stop hurts have enjoyed the taste of blood. Very few people seem to look for answers less than a special tacular victory. Doesn't seem much different than the goals of the breeders they are trying to stop. Seems a fair, more constructive answer may have been to have the opportunity to have the same vet look at the dog BEFORE entering the ring. Could even be charged for the opportunity. But to allow someone to win and then publicly humiliate them just seems like more of the same. People who like the fight. More than the effect. Very sad both sides could work together.
Wouldnt the world be perfect if both sides could?... All I want is for breeders to start breeding dogs that lack all the health issues they seem to be plagued with these days... it will be for the betterment of all breeds to have firmer stipulations in the breedstandards for all breeds that any health issue even a minor one should render the dogs unsound... breeders are supposed to be breeding to enhance the breed... this should include health also yes? But I totally agree.. any critisms towards the breeders should be handled delicately and constructive in nature, and at the same time breeders should be open to constructive critism and make positive moves towards change..... If this could happen it will be so much better for our dogs and us as pet owners....
I am a cat person, and know very little about dogs. I do feel though that mucous membranes of the eyes and the mouth should not be visible - these membranes by their very nature are internal structures, which need to be kept moist by bodily fluids. This surely can't be comfortable for the dog?
hello cat Person,Don't jump on the Jemima bandwagon too quickly how long before a PCE?Do you think cats are free from health defects?How about breeding for exaggerations hmmmm let me think spynx or maybe munchkins have I given you a new idea Jemima I would obviously want a fee but it might get you back on a mainstream channel.Or how about doing a humans exposed the species with the least inbreeding and the most hereditary problems.
I find it infantile for you to some how gloat, in what you percieve to be, her short lived victory. Neapolitans do not receive CC, nor would ever be serious contenders in a group. So to achieve BOB at Crufts Is the pinacle of this Lady's hopes and aspirations. She went to a great deal of effort and expence I'm sure bringing her dog from Belgiun and had a professional handler. I'm quite sure she entirely unaware of this blog(thankfully so) and she went home to Belgiun elated with her sucess and bemused by the kennel club position. She would be used to showing her dog under FCI standards and rules in mainland europe . Her own sense of pride and victory is for her to judge, not you.
Evidently one moment of elation over someone finally listening to the idea that something needs to be done for the health of all breeds has been taken so out of context... I agree it probably wasnt the best way to point the step towards change out... As a Neo owner who adores the breed, I hope breeders move towards breeding less exaggerated looking dogs and start breeding more for health... But the suggestion to get a Neo specific vet to me really seems borderline laughable... I mean what does that mean? Sorry if I am mistaken but I find myself asking where exactly will I find such a vet as a pet owner as the only vets that I am aware of anywhere around my part of the world have all studied and trained in their professions at the same place. Perhaps I should then be flying my pets across the globe to europe where its apparent such vets who have extensively trained and studied soley to specialise only on neos exist. But then I am almost certain that this wouldnt really be necessary as its apparent from some of the comments in this blog that the breeders are actually more versed in animal health conditions and treatments than an experienced and professionally trained vet. Maybe I should just consider taking my dog to a breeder who's dogs win at every show when it needs vetting, after all the opinions of some of the commentors suggests that a breeder whos dogs are deemed to look pretty will know far better than even the most qualified of vets and having been told that my neo is not show quality or type, and even as far as being suggested that he (though registered) is a bandog, whatever, I only brought him as a pet quality dog in the first place on the limited register, I find it funny to think that his titled show quality sister (same litter) who is more wrinkly has several health issues with her skin and yet he the "unsound for show pup" doesnt. So he was sold to be desexed as no good for breeding or show (their loss is my gain) and she will continue to be shown and bred from.... hmmnnnn food for thought..... Oh and as for the comment that if you don't like droopy eyes buy something else.... my boy has droopy eyes, but nowhere near to the extent as droopy as the show dog shown here, also nowhere near as red and inflammed looking... I know I know you claim that their eyes are supposed to be like that, but I failed to find anywhere in the breed standard that their eyes should be dark red and inflammed looking... I mean I totally could be wrong so I am happy to stand corrected and you are more than welcome, infact I encourage anyone to point out highlight and post the chapter in the breed standard for neos that states their eyes should appear red and inflammed... And personally I prefer the dog who has the eyes that are the normal pinkish colour that my boys are, but then hey what would I know I am just a pet owner.....