Friday 16 March 2012

Crufts vet Alison Skipper has her say

Alison Skipper is one of the two independent vets appointed by the KC to conduct the vet checks on the Best of Breed winners of the 15 highlighted breeds at Crufts.

She and Will Jeffels are, variously, being accused of being either useless or animal rights activitists intent on bringing down pedigree dogs.  Of course the truth is rather less exciting.  It turns out that Alison Skipper is an experienced general practice vet with a life-long interest in pedigree dogs. We also know that Will Jeffels was the show vet at the UK Toy Champ Show last year.

I can't imagine what the last few days have been like for both of them.

Here Alison Skipper has her say.

"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.”  

63 comments:

  1. why weren't these dogs disqualified sooner?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. what a well thought out and well written letter. Hats off to her whichever side of the divide that you fall

      Carol

      Delete
    2. They were not DQ'd earlier because they HAVE their health clearences. But I guess 1 vet who checks a dog briefly knows better than eye experts...

      Delete
    3. Because it wasn't a vet judging, but a show judge, who doesn't seemingly have the same experience in what health issues may have affected the animal as the vets did

      Delete
    4. I have been troubled for some time by the fact that many dogs suffer a lesser quality of life because of breeders selectively breeding for exaggerated features that affect the dog's health and comfort. In my opinion, this practise is clearly unethical and unkind to these poor creatures who have no say in the matter. I am so relieved to read that something is finally being done to awaken people to how wrong this is. I thank the KC and these two veterinarians for their efforts and urge them to stand by their principles, maintain their integrity and remain firm in the face of this controversy. Change may be slow to come, but if it is the right thing, which I strongly believe it is, positive change will prevail in the end.

      Delete
    5. absolutely you couldn't have put it better

      Delete
    6. I am another dissenting voice and I too am really ANGRY about what happened.
      If these Vet checks need to go on then they should be done before the breed is shown... Not after. Taking a BOB away after the fact de-values all that a BOB means and the judge's opinion. Moving forward as more and more breeds are included in this "watch list" there will need to be very specific, objective and measureable guidelines developed for each breed which defines how the Vets will make their decisions. Subjectivity must be removed to be fair to all. There must also be a venue for a breeder to protest an outcome also prior to showing.

      Delete
    7. Politics, sometimes it doesn't matter about the dog but who is on the end of the leash...need I say more.

      Delete
  2. Hoping that ms. Skipper perhaps will read this, and as I don´t know whether the emails I posted to Dog World´s editor and to Steve Dean will in any way reach her, I repeat myself: Thank you!

    For sheer courage to do what is right, for the proffessional integrity of acting upon what you actually see, regardless of circumstances and predictable unpleasantness - thank you.

    For standing up for dogs´right to live in uncomplicated bodies - thank you.

    For helping an important dog organization begin to set right the things that are not right now with the way dogs are bred and looked upon - thank you.

    I never thought I´d be astounded and happy to hear news from a dog show, but I was, as many, many others were. Well, you and Will Jeffels made it happen. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hear, hear. I don't know Will Jeffels but have had the privelege of knowing Alison since she qualified. A more thoughtful, balanced and logical person would be hard to find. When I heard that she was one of the Vets involved I knew that the dogs would get a fair check. She has no "axe to grind" other than the health and well-being of dogs. I know it gave her NO pleasure to have to disqualify any dog and that she was thrilled to see the dogs she passed taking part in the big ring. The bloodhound in particular was a joy.

      Delete
    2. I totaly agree with this post 100%.

      Delete
  3. Sorry, I forgot: the Swedish Veterinary Association yesterday published a message on their web site in strong support of the veterinary checks at Cruft´s. i hope ms. Skipper is aware of how much appreciation she and her colleague have earned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I heartily second Bodil Carlsson's words, applaud the KC for this courageous scheme and Alison Skippern for one of the most sensible postings I have read in a long time.

      In spite of the unreasonable but expected oppsoition I hope the KC will stick to its guns and that other, similarly professional vets will be found for the other championship shows in the future.

      Delete
  4. "One thing that I am angry about is that the media coverage is focused so exclusively on the dogs who unfortunately failed"

    Just like this blog, then.

    You get a word of praise later on, but does that cancel out your several postings of condemnation of the dogs? Personally I don't think so - where are the individual posts about all the other HP breeds - the ones which passed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, if you had actually read these posts in their entirety instead of skimming to find the things that outraged you, you might have noticed that Jemima has tried to be even handed about this. Credit where credit was due and criticism where it wasn't.

      Delete
    2. Even the vet was astonished that Jemima had said something good about the bloodhound; that shows just what a reputation for one-sided spite she's developed for herself, and how refreshing that perhaps she's learning a bit of balance! Hopefully the improvements, as with the bulldog, will continue!

      It's worth pointing out that the examining vets were supposed to examine the dogs in exactly the same way that the judge does, to check that the judge is doing all that's possible under the circumstances. That means about 2 minutes per dog, using only hands and eyes. Spending 20 minutes on the examination anduUsing a torch to examine the eyes, although people here are mocking the protests about it, immediately puts them outwith their remit and makes the examination unfair.

      Delete
  5. A very well written piece by a brave and professional vet willing to stand up for what she believes in

    ReplyDelete
  6. *Applauds*

    I really can't add anything, she's right!

    Pamela

    ReplyDelete
  7. What a commendable thing she has done, and she has very articulately expressed and defended her actions.

    I say well done!

    From what I could see and from what I've read it looks like the DQ'ed dogs were rightly DQ'ed. Except the bulldog. Based on what's been revealed so far, I still think this year's bulldog disqualification was a casualty of the well-intentioned vet checks.

    ReplyDelete
  8. yes, thankyou, thankyou so much for doing this difficult and controversial task. <3

    ReplyDelete
  9. I felt slightly more guilt free watching crufts this yr knowing that any animal which was successful in reaching the groups stage was deemed healthy by an independent vet. My only bug bear is my sadness in not seeing a healthy example of these dogs in the group stages. Would it not have been possible for the next possibly healthier example of these breeds to be put through,so that people could then have some sort of breed (healthy) standard to compare. Buyers of these breeds will never know what to look for now when buying a puppy,as there was no representative of a healthy dog in the show ring at crufts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not all BOB winners were checked by the vets, Only 15 deemed by the Kennel club to high profile were. All the others could have been unhealthy - we will never know!

      Delete
    2. There aren other, possibly more instructive and comprehensive ways of finding out what a healthy example of the breed of your choice is than seeing it briefly prance around the Arena at n Crufts.

      Delete
  10. I am so pleased the KC has done this, and the vets were brave enough to carry out the task...
    I have been very anti KC for so many years, for exactly the reason that they positively encouraged inter-breeding by what they were asking of the breeds.
    However, I have to say, I think considering the KC has followed this path for so many years, I am surprised they didn't give more warning of their intent to follow this route, (Please correct me if I am wrong), to allow and support the breeders to get to grips with the new, long needed rules.

    ReplyDelete
  11. A well- thought out and written piece Ms Skipper, you and Mr.Jefels deserve a round of applause for standing up in a very invidious position and stating what you feel is right.

    Many breeders will have their noses out of joint for a while but it's their own fault for not policing their own sport better for so many years.

    I do feel for the 'responsible' (I find this an oxymoron having spent my life rescuing their throw-aways) breeders who have done their best to have their own dogs tested and bred healthily but there is always someone to get the sharp end - it's just been the dogs turn for the last twenty-odd years.

    Although I am delighted to see the changes, Crufts is only one very small part of the picture and we need to find a solution to the puppy farms too.

    Backyard breeders are a mixed bunch. A lot of them are amazingly ignorant of any genetic knowledge (one so-called Springer breeder didn't know the difference between the 'Show-type' as opposed to the busy little workers popular as sniffer dogs - just said , 'oh we don't show them'.....)but I know some of them do put just as much research and testing into their own dogs as do show-breeders.

    For me, we should be encouraging people to adopt the millions of unwanted dogs in the kennels and rescues. I have rescued all but two of my ten or so(pedigree!)dogs and one of those 'good show pedigree' pups was dead with SM before 12 weeks.

    I have at present a rescued 'good' Pedigree Mini Poodle with HD and ED and some PL. He's two years old but behaves like he's ten because of chronic pain.
    This has not come a moment too soon for me and my little dog.
    Well done Ms Skipper!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well done for having the guts to take on the task. A rational, well written piece that evoked understanding, empathy and respect.

    H

    ReplyDelete
  13. Very well written and gives the other side. I would actually like to see when a dog QUALIFIES for Crufts, they would have to pass breed specific testing, regardless of profiled breed or not to be able to even submit entries to crufts. So the results must be submitted with the entry. Also once results submitted, to go onto a public database where it can be verified by others if need be.

    ReplyDelete
  14. And so she is at odds with the veterinarians who performed health checks on the Clumber and the Peke prior to Crufts and other vets including veterinary opthalmologists who tested them after and PASSED them as healthy? How many checks and at what expense do you expect breeders to go to just to prove their dogs are healthy functional examples of their breed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you read it again she states vets can only certify what they see at that moment. if the dog had an eye infection , was lame or could not breath when she saw it it was her job to note that on the certificate , not to ask the owner what the dog was like last week or say oh come back tomorrow it might be better then.

      also opthalmologists do not usually certify entropion

      Delete
    2. I have not seen what I would call a "functional" Pekingese in the shown ring since Danny was Best in Show at Crufts in 2003---and even befre then---nor have I seen a pug with a nose sufficiently long for it to breathe nornally.

      Delete
    3. and that Dorothea is exactly why some breeders are not happy with the vet checks; thyey see it as a slippery slpope and know that the likes of you will never be appeased no matter what is done!

      The Vet at Crufts examined the Pug and clearly it decided that it was perfectly healthy. Yet that is not enough for you, and you make a sweeping generalisation that no pug can breath normally.

      This is just another step towards the AR and Peta agenda that Jemmima insist she does not follow

      Delete
    4. This has absolutely nothing to do with PETA or AR agenda, but with dog welfare.

      Many years ago, when Queen Victoria was given a Pekingese, the dog had less coat, longer legs and nose. There are plenty of pictures of it...it was similar to a what a Tibetan Spaniel is. Pekingese today, at least those in the show ring, are a caricature of the original breed.

      There are two pugs in my house in Vienna belonging to a very pretty German girl who works in fashion. They both have noses about one to two centimeters long....and you should see them go!

      No fold of extraneous skin over the nose either.
      Have a look at "Altdeutscher Mops."

      Delete
  15. I hope that Alison does read these comments, and I hope that she takes away that a lot of people want to thank her for taking the risks that she did in order to help pedigree dogs.

    It is my personal opinion that every breed should have to undertake a vet check upon winning BOB, and that it should go further. A Cavalier that has been diagnosed with Syringomyelia should not be allowed to win BOB, and if it does, should be DQ at vet check level. I find it so upsetting that people are allowed to show unhealthy dogs, and then breed from them so many times. From my point of view the KC are responsible for forcing the breeders to start breeding for health and longevity.

    Having said that, targeting the 15 most at risk breeds and making sure that they are, visibly at least, free from serious comfort is a huge step in the right direction, and something that should have happened years ago.

    Thank you Alison, I and many people hope that you continue using your skills for the benefit of dogs on the whole.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The suggestion that exhibitors present test certificates, when entering their dogs at shows, will only reveal the tip of the iceberg of health and genetic problems in dogs. Some breeds have NO recommended testing, no conditions for which a DNA test is available. A current clear eye cert only shows tha the dog is free from SOME conditions but not from ALL eye condition . Most breeds that do have DNA testing available for specific conditions, have only one or at most two things that can be tested for. Should everything for which there is no DNA test be swept under the carpet? Things like bloat, MO, epilepsy?
    Only a minority of owners hip score? If evidence of a good hip score is required, then ALL exhibitors will have to hip score. That wont be popular
    And the biggest problem is that reliance on certificates of testing allows exaggerations of conformation to be ignored, even if those exaggerations are causing major health and welfare problems for the dog.
    Certification by own's own vet? Not a good idea, not good for the vet/client relationship. Supposing the vet refuses to sign the cetificate, irate client storms out and finds another more amenable vet in the next town who for an appropriate fee is willing to sign? Is it fair to expect vets to risk losing clients if they dont sign? Probably one needs an independent panel of BVA vets who are trained to do the job, and have nothing to lose if they fail unhealthy dogs
    From what age should dogs be tested? Puppies and juniors are too young for some testing
    But I am strongly in favour of some system of health testing/checks before dogs are bred from or allowed to win any major awards at dog shows, and that includes both testing using DNA tests and BVA schemes, as well as checks that fail gross and detrimentsl exaggerations of construction and type. If only all breeders and owners would take as much pride in their healthy and functional dogs as they do in those who win show rosettes and titles, and if only the system gave as much in the way of recognition and awards to those who do put the health and welfare of their dogs first
    And yes, I know there ARE good dog breeders who do (and more who pay lip service to doing it), the system needs a better way to recognize what they do
    About time somebody nominated Margaret Carter or Carol Fowler for the Queen's Honours list for their courage and their services to Cavalier health! Seriously. And they are just the first two who come to mind..........

    ReplyDelete
  17. Very well put and a good start of a turn in the right direction.

    It was well past the time something positive was done and obviously there is more resistance from the people who are affected by this. They should have put their dogs' health before anything else a long time ago.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Well done and Thank You Alison Skipper.
    Vicky Payne.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thank you for stepping up to the mark. I am a 'rescue dog' person but one of my rescues is pure-bred, and anyway everything and anything that can be done to improve the health of pedigree dogs is worthwhile.

    (Puppy farming is appalling, but it is a different issue.)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well done. FINALLY Crufts/dog showing is actually putting the welfare of the dogs above all else. Though I can't believe that the KC has taken so long to do so- it wasn't so long ago that docked tails seemed to be "expected" for some unfortunate breeds. Oh, the arrogance of the human race! As a dog lover and dog rescue volunteer, I am really glad that this change has been made. BRILLIANT.

    ReplyDelete
  21. thank you for doing this, thank you for failing those that needed to be failed- sssssssssssorry people wrtie terrible accusations, but you are making the world a bette rpalce for dogs !! thanks

    ReplyDelete
  22. I am curious what would happen if the bassett hound failed, for example, came into this vet's practise for annual vaccinations....would she advise the dogs owner to have the eyes surgically altered for health reasons? or would the dog have gone in and out without worry about his welfare?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vets will flag up any healh concerns at vaccination BUT sometimes we give up on the owners who just don't listen. How many times can you tell someone their wonderful show/breeding dog isn't so wonderful?
      In some cases breeders 'shop around' until they find a vet who won't make comment. Sad eh?
      VP

      Delete
  23. Let's face it, most, if not all breeders have a vet to whom they go for their annual vaccinations etc.

    Could not THAT vet do the exam just prior to entering the first stages to certify the animal is healthy and has no genetic or other PERMANENT (not a sore throat or a hair in its eye) health issues. Without this initial cert, the dog could not enter the qualifier.

    Now, I'm not naieve, I know some so-called 'vets' are in their customers' pockets for a backhander (..sorry you good upstanding vets, but there it is...) but at least anything that became known via the 'show-vet' or any of the 'experts' (why aren't these people flagging stuff up?) on the way, would not then be valid to howl about as the owners' own vet has passed (or not) the animal. Does that make sense?

    Owners should not moan about the costs of these exams and tests as it's for the benefit of their dog and their breed, which is what we all want, isn't it?

    I don't show and I take my (pedigree) rescue dogs to the vets regularly both for vaccinations and check ups and for the continuing medications needed for the symptoms their genetic problems - probably the reason they were chucked out in the first place.

    Costs a fortune because insurance companies won't take dogs who have a known condition (or at least that condition is not covered) so people like me are being squeezed from both sides as the costs of veterinary care has rocketed due, no doubt, to our insurance culture.

    Dog-people? I think not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The vets MUST be independant. Then htere can be no accusation of backhanders or breed friendly vets. The vet checks must be on the day and they must include ALL breeds in future...then it's fair.
      VP

      Delete
  24. I agree that dogs need to be healthy but what I don't understand is how some of these dogs that failed because of their eyes had previously passed a Kennel Club/BVA examination by a specialist Opthalmic vet. I am particularly referring to ectropian which is not a condition that would have just appeared on that day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. eye tests usually only cover the ehalth of the eye itself , not the eyelid

      Delete
    2. Except for ditichiasis---at least on the ECVO tests/

      Delete
    3. Have a look at one of the previous post http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2012/03/bva-clears-up-eye-test-confusion.html

      "This means that eyelid problems such as entropion, ectropion and distichiasis (extra eyelashes) are not certified under the Scheme but are noted in the middle section of the certificate and not the bottom section where the inherited eye disease status is recorded."

      Delete
    4. the s went missing: should read distichiasis

      Delete
    5. I think it was stolen by PETA operatives.

      Jemima

      Delete
  25. Sorry to be a dissenting voice here but I am really ANGRY about what happened.
    Everyone wants their breed to be as healthy as possible and I am all for dogs being examined BEFORE they take part.To take it away AFTER winning Best of Breed devalues the judges, the breed AND the Kennel Club itself. It is totally and unnecessarily cruel.
    Also - the Kennel Club Rules and Regulations clearly state that NO instruments that the Judge didn't use, should be used in the examination - and they WERE, when the eyes were examined.
    A new Canine Alliance has been formed this week to work to right the wrongs that happened at Crufts and there are THOUSANDS of us backing it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not sure how you are counting the numbers of backers, but I hope you understand that membership on the Facebook page cannot be assumed to be backing any particular position. There are many people - myself included - that joined hoping to gain insight into the position being held by those against these changes. Whether they are sympathetic or not really cannot be determined, though I would urge those posting there that moderating their tone towards the non-showing public is in their best interest. You cannot persuade people by insulting them.

      Delete
    2. and how many of those members of the facebook group actually health test their dogs ? I've just had a look and know quite a few in my breed who do not health test in any way shape or form , they dont even vaccinate so the dogs wont have even had a basic annual check up. They are of the " if it looks ok to me it should be fine brigade"

      no wonder they dont want any changes ,lol

      Delete
  26. She is right! That was well said!

    ReplyDelete
  27. I agree with the vet, about time too...

    However isn't it also in the dogs interest to see where it is going, and to be able to use its eyes without obstruction?



    Hopefully this will be addressed next year ?

    ReplyDelete
  28. For some time I have been troubled by the fact that many dogs suffer a lesser quality of life because of certain breeders selectively breeding for exaggerated features that affect the dog's health and comfort. I am so relieved to read that something is finally being done to awaken people to how unethical and unkind this practice is. I thank the KC and these two veterinarians for taking this important step and urge them to firmly stand by their principles and maintain their integrity in the face of this controversy. Change may be slow to come, but if it is the right thing, and I strongly believe it is, positive change will eventually prevail

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ironic, show breeders through breed clubs have driven standards, those standards become extreme and cause health problems, the KC try to do the right thing in very difficult political situation and those same breeders who have caused the issues leave the KC to tale the public blame and then have the ordasity to make up a new so called 'canine alliance' and talk about righting wrongs... Certain individuals had the noses put out of joint, but if your dog is judged not fit its not fit... If you compete with your dogs you take the rough and smooth, it the people to blame are the breeders who have created these health issues... But most can'taccept that as that means they have to admit their own failings..

    ReplyDelete
  30. It is a step in the right direction to examine BOB qualifier at Crufts but there is a long way to go.
    Ideally ALL dogs competing should be judged by a vet because Crufts is only one day and breeders will continue to breed on their animals and compound the problems. The dogs which were disqualified will more than likely go on to be bred and continue the traits which earned them the DQ. That is because the breeders don't think there is anything much wrong with them. If they had seen the faults they wouldn't have entered the dog as a "fine example" of the breed.
    In an ideal world prospective buyers of pedigree pups would have to be shown an independent vet's health check of the parents of any pups that are for sale. I can only hope that the general public is beginning to be more aware of the hitherto hidden world of pedigree breeding.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well done to Ms Skinner and the other vet. I totally agree with everything she says, and I also think it is important to note that she did this job voluntarily....she was not paid! Nobody would do this job, knowing the amount of hassle they were going to get by the "professional" breeders, for free unless they really really wanted to improve the health and well-being of pedigree dogs. As she wrote in her letter, she really cares about dogs, not about the KC, BVA or the show circuit - and that should be all that matters for everyone involved (especially breeders). Very well done!

      Delete
  31. I understand totally where these Vets are coming from. It was the remit by the KC that was wrong. If they want 'General Vet's' about the fitness or health of dogs wanting to compete at their licensed shows including Crufts, and prefer to have a 'General Vet's' opinion over that of a specialist, Fine, OK. Most of us would have no problem about that, however illogical it is, BUT, let's have it done Annually, the results sent to the KC and BEFORE people have spent lots and lots of money to get to Crufts (including qualifying shows), and win Best of Breed. As usual the Kennel Club still took the money from those exhibitors and even if the entry fee was refunded, that would not cover the costs involved with entries to qualifying shows, travel expenses to each show, accommodation etc. etc. Another knee jerk reaction from the Kennel Club to appease the public with no consideration for the exhibitors and their dogs. The public have no idea how much we all spend on Health Tests for our dogs with Heart Specialists, Eye Specialists, Neurologists, MRI Scans etc. But, the good things never make good journalism, not sensational enough. I feel sorry for the 2 Vets involved, but they are not specialists and so far as the Kennel Club is concerned their action is too little, and far too late in the day also. The Vets have been used by the KC too, just as most of us, who pay their salaries are too, sad to say.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Come and live with us for a few weeks, see how much reputable breeders do care about the health of their dogs. All you see is the sensational, tiny minority of things that go wrong. You have no idea only the sensationalism of a biased TV programme by which to judge us. We spend hundreds on checking out our dogs for hereditary problems , hearts, eyes etc. But you know and hear nothing of that, do you? Good news does not attract audiences does it. let the BBC interview the Canine Cardiologists, Ophthalmologist, Neurologists, etc. Let them tell you how diligent most reputable breeders are. How once a serious problem is identified how we breeders work together to eradicate or cure it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. If I understood things right, there should be vet checks on "regular" dog shows? Then the affected dogs with eye lid problems for example won't pass there, and hopefully, in the future, they wont be able to qualify to crufts, since they dont pass the vet. checks.

    And for the judges who send these dogs to the group finals, it have to be embarrassing for them when "their" dogs get DQ. So hopefully, the judges wont place them as BOB if they see that this dog have visible health problems.

    So I believe, or at least HOPE, that those dogs wont even come to Crufts in the future, since they haven't been able to pass the qualifications.

    Now the breeders, the handlers and the judges know that KC is serious about this. And if you can bribe all the people you need to bribe to pass the qualifications in the future, and then get DQ at Crufts... Well, thats your problem.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I'm afraid the problem here - and we do seem to be forgetting there were 5 other breeds apart from the Basset - is this vet has stated she looked at the Basset as a normal dog. Wrong! The Basset isn't a normal dog in terms of having the conformation of a jackal. He was developed, decades ago, as a slow-moving flushing dog, with heavy bone and substance and with skin that was loose enough to allow him to go into dense undergrowth without ripping. With that goes ear length, and to some degree haw of eye. The problem is over recent years, excesses have crept into the breed and which have unfortunately been rewarded in the ring. Had these excesses not happened, we'd not be seeing anything other than 'moderate' in every area. But we are into a 'more is best' era. To be perfectly honest, I'm more worried about the excess skin around the neck of this particular hound, than his eyes, much as from photos I've seen, do look sore. I wasn't at Crufts so didn't see him on the day. To add to this, after long consultation with the KC, I understand a consensus was agreed re haw and the Basset eye. This hound shows moderate haw and yet he was D/Q The goalposts were moved, for whatever reason. This vet was wrong it not allowing 'breed features' to be included in her judgement. I hope the continuation of the work that IS being done to redress the excesses in the Breed, will mean the breed returns to a more sensible level, without losing type. The pity of all of this is surely that whereas the KC has targetted the show fraternity, the Puppy Farmers who are responsible for churning out vast numbers of very poor Bassets, are getting off scott-free because they remain unregulated. Must they be laughing their socks off at all this.

    ReplyDelete
  35. You know, it doesn't take a qualified vet to see a sick dog. Judges who have years of breeding and living with dogs have as much knowledge and probably more experience.. So a judge presented with a limping dog, a dog with runny eyes, a dog that is hunched, a dog that they know from knowledge within the breed has an owner who is less than honest and breeds from afflicted animals, is where dog showing falls down. Because it rests entirely, wholey, completely on their integrity to disregard that dog and it's owner from winnning or even being pulled out. That is where dog showing/breeding is falling down. Judges should accept that it is a privilege to judge not a right. It is their responsibility to focus on the breed on the day and make their judgments honestly. Not keep their eye on the future when their own ambitions may or may not be gained because they place a dog because it's owner is going to judge the next show, and the judge would hope to have a "favour" returned. That is the real test of a judge, to disregard a dog that they know is less than fit for purpose. Vets, if you want, but it really isn't necessary because anyone can see a sick dog. They may not understand the finer points, but they can see problems. Until the dishonesty within dog showing is eliminated (and it can't because greedy humans are involved) pedigree dogs are doomed, sadly, very sadly. Vets don't maketh the show or breed the dogs, however Judges and dog breeders do and it is in their hands and power to start behaving responsibly. Vet checking after BOB in HPBs is pointless for the judge, but, of course, the owner probably has a shrewd idea that it is going to happen and is chancing his hand and can't claim unfairness towards them. Synsis

    ReplyDelete