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.”