Saturday, 24 March 2012

Crufts vets - on the record

Alison Skipper and Will Jeffels, the two small animal practice vets who volunteered to do the inaugural independent vet checks at Crufts 2012, have written a joint letter published this week in the Veterinary Record. They write:

"As colleagues may be aware, Crufts 2012 saw a groundbreaking initiative in the world of pedigree dogs: the launch of the veterinary examination of 15 high-profile breeds before confirmation of their ‘Best of Breed’ awards. Under this scheme, championship show winners belonging to these breeds must be examined by an independent vet before their awards are confirmed and they can proceed to further competition. We are the two vets who were chosen to carry out these checks for the first time.

"As a profession, vets are quick to criticise the world of pedigree dogs in general, and the Kennel Club (KC) in particular, for breeding practices and attitudes that are felt to compromise welfare. This new KC initiative is enormously controversial, and we should be equally ready to support those at the KC who have been brave enough to push through this innovation, against great opposition from many very influential figures in the dog world. As both chairman of the KC and a vet, Steve Dean is uniquely placed to have spearheaded this change of culture, and we should be proud to assist him and the other KC members who have been courageous enough to take this step. In particular, we feel that the new process will gain far more credibility with the breeders if it is implemented by as many different vets as possible.


"Henceforth, vets will be asked to carry out these checks on the high-profile breed winners at all championship shows. The process is quite clear: the KC health team has produced an excellent illustrated booklet, which concisely states the areas of concern for each breed. We are not meant to judge the dog as a specimen of its breed, but merely to evaluate it to establish whether any visible aspect of its conformation or soundness has led to health problems that compromise its welfare. This examination is quite straightforward for any experienced general practitioner, and we both found that our decisions were quite clear-cut, for various reasons, in every dog that we examined on this occasion.
It would, however, be advisable if any vet who is likely to be undertaking these veterinary checks in the future to contact the KC to discuss the criteria for these inspections. Some conflict and confusion has arisen with regard to some failed dogs having clear eye certificates, which has been clarified by the statement made by Ian Mason the chief panellist for the BVA/KC/ISDS eye scheme.

"While the KC gave us great support, no attempt whatsoever was made to influence our decisions in any way: we could have passed or failed each and every one of the 15 dogs quite freely. We think that the scheme is already beginning to show its worth, in that we both examined (and passed) some healthy, moderate specimens of controversial breeds, which had obviously been chosen by the judges with due consideration of health issues. If, over the forthcoming months, other vets (and judges) make similar decisions, we think there is real hope that attitudes will change within the dog show world to promote the selection of less extreme conformation, with consequent enormous benefits to the welfare of the dogs concerned.


"The fact that the KC gave two ordinary general practitioners the authority to overrule the decisions of internationally famous judges at the world’s biggest dog show, and trusted us to make impartial decisions about the dogs we examined, is a great mark of confidence in the integrity and ethics of our profession. We should not let them down. We very much hope that many other vets will support the KC by volunteering to carry out these checks at a championship show. We are both very happy to talk to any colleague who might be interested in doing so."
Alison Skipper, Surrey Will Jeffels, Staffordshire

61 comments:

  1. I no feel stuck between a rock and a hard place. I have spoken to Clumber people today who swear blind the vets were told to fail some dogs and that there was nothing wrong with the Clumber. But why would the vets make it up? False certification is the end of a vets career....
    VP (vet)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Clumber spaniel people are saying this dog passed its eye clearances. These eye clearances didn't look at the eyelids.

      They are repeating the passage of the eye clearances as if it is evidence that that the eyelids are fine.

      It's not. It's a red herring.

      Delete
  2. a question ...is any amount of haw showing automatically diagnosed as Ectropian ?...if so then surely those breeds bred to the KC's own breed standard that allows for some haw to be visible ( such as the Clumber's ) must have their standards changed, and time allowed for breeders to breed for tight eyes BEFORE vet checks are resumed.

    The Kc cannot continue to take entry money from exhibitors knowing that their dogs cannot pass the vet checks because vets are interpreting currently allowable haw showing as Ectropian ...and if judges are being expected to judge these breeds with the current breed standard in mind then how can they EVER put forward a BOB that will pass ?

    ..and if all the breeders of such breeds are 'guilty' of breeding dogs with Ectropian then how can the KC approve them as member of their assured breeders scheme ...and how can they accept their dogs for registration ?


    ...confused.com ?????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also ... a dog that is awarded BoB and passes its vet check presumably never has to have another vet check if it gets another BoB, because it can't have developed a genetic condition in the meantime ... if it DOES have to have another vet check isn't that saying that the checks aren't reliable? Will one vet overrule another?

      *canofworms*

      Delete
    2. You say po-tay-toe I say po-ta-toe.

      "Haw" is the word exhibitors use and Ectropian is the technical vet term. The breed standards need to change and not the advice to vets.

      That said I understand "haw" is acceptable in Bloodhounds and the Bloodhound BOB passed the vet check.So there are breeders out there ahead of the game.

      Delete
    3. The problem here is that vets use 'haw' to refer to third eylid protrusion; a non painful condition. Show people use 'haw' to refer to ectropion; a painful condition. The breed standard needs re-appraising and re-writing in clearer language. Do breeders want to breed dogs with painless 'haw' or painful 'haw'?!

      Plus the vets were not assessing if the dogs showed either type of haw' but if the dog was suffering as a result of their conformation. Ectropion with no conjunctivitis would have passed, ectropion with conjunctivitis fails.

      VP

      Delete
  3. DR MARTY GREER ''Having a veterinary degree does not mean the veterinarian is qualified to make these far-reaching decisions. The published provisions for training veterinarians to provide this service to the fancy seem to have the potential to be loosely applied.'' Crufts: Lost Opportunities | National Animal Interest Alliance
    www.naiaonline.org

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These are the conditions that the vets at Crufts were looking for:

      http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/12708/SH102HPvetsurgeoninfo.pdf

      Now, my own vet is a GP and he could detect any of those things with a visual examination. In fact, *I* could detect most them myself. Perhaps Dr. Greer could explain why he's dissing so very many of his colleagues, by implying that the vets at Crufts could not have possibly been qualified to check for these very basic things, in the DDB, for example:

      Dogue de Bordeaux: Main predisposing feature is excessive facial wrinkling
      o Dermatitis associated with skin wrinkles
      o Hair loss or scarring from previous dermatitis
      o Ectropion or entropion are considered to be conformational defects that are
      disqualifying signs
      o Lameness

      If we are to go by Dr. Greer's example, no mere judge is qualified to dismiss a dog due to lameness. They'd need a ortho specialist for that!

      Delete
    2. Come on...sod the veterinary degree, having eyes is enough to make the call in the cases seen at Crufts

      Delete
    3. Dr Greer is a woman..lameness is easily seen by judges.. no vet needed..you are not a judge or a vet I assume so your opinion is moot.

      Delete
    4. Here's an interesting thing, AnonymousMar 24, 2012 02:31 PM. I have actually owned a dog that had dermatitis due to skin wrinkles. How in the world would I have known that that was actually a problem, needing a vet visit, without a veterinary degree?

      Simple: I have eyes. And I can tell the difference between healthy normal skin and irritated skin. No vet degree needed.

      So, maybe you'd like to point Dr. Greer this way, and SHE can explain why your average GP vet cannot possibly be able to spot and understand dermatitis due to skin wrinkling. I'm waiting to hear, because I live in an area with NO specialist vets and I'm quite worried now that my dogs will not get proper diagnosis.

      Obviously the judges aren't doing their jobs as directed by the KC, either, or the KC wouldn't have had to take the drastic step of vet checks after the rewards, would they?

      You and your ilk are straying into moron territory. I'm very glad the pet owners of the world can see through you.

      Delete
    5. Dr. Marthina Greer is also an involved breeder of Pembroke Welsh Corgis. I would think it would be imperative that she make this clear when penning articles as a professional. - http://www.lakeshorecorgi.com/events/puppy_match/2011/index.html

      Kary

      Delete
    6. Kary.. are you saying that vets cannot be good dog breeders? That they are somehow "tainted" by the idea of them breeding dogs? Wouldn't you think vets who are interested in breeding dogs would be the BEST source of information about breeding dogs?
      Jess: point is .. judges are already qualified to dismiss due to lameness no vet needed to "double up" on that one.. just as you can see a problem with your dog.. so can a judge.

      Delete
    7. Yes but judges will overlook a health problem if it makes the breed 'look' right. Which is why GSDs get through when it looks like they are trying to squat, which is why pugs/pekes/bulldogs get through when they can barely breathe.
      Just because a judge knows the difference between healthy and unhealthy does now mean they will reward that in the ring. If they did then no breed would be in the state that some are in!

      Delete
  4. It was clear to me, from the photographs and video, that the Clumber Spaniel had ectropian of both eyes. It doesn't matter if that "v" in the lower eyelid is in the standard, as her owner said, dogs with ectropian suffer constant irritation when the eyelid does not fit to the eye. Plus that "v" could be much less exaggerated. I think it was OK to stop the career of that particular dog at Crufts and it was really outstanding that the vets pointed it out.

    I hope that all the vets who have been commenting on the unsoundness of various breeds will rush to these brave colleagues' defense and not sit on the fence and quiver.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. again.. you looked at a picture.. and you are not a vet are you?

      Delete
    2. The Clumber was from out of the county.this will not "stop his career".. the dog was brought to the show at great expense but he and many others will not be back next year.. you can be sure that a more mediocre dog will win next year..mediocrity is what will be winning in shows all around the UK:

      It is a wretched taste to be gratified with mediocrity when the excellent lies before us.
      Isaac Disraeli

      Delete
    3. God forbid mediocre non-typey healthy dogs start winning shows.

      Delete
    4. How wonderful, I hope your prediction comes true, and that the winner next year may be excellent in the confirmation of his or her eyes! Then something good for the happiness & comfort of dogs will have been achieved.

      Delete
    5. Isaac Disraeli,

      It will be nice when this breed is finally restored to its former glory after being ruined by nearly a century of fad breeding for very non-gun dog like traits.

      This breed hasn't always had the drooping eyelids or the cumbersome frame. Stonehenge has a depiction of them in which they could be confused with slightly more robust Welsh springers with more white on them.

      Delete
    6. You might take a look at the paintings by Thomas Earl of Clumbers..
      since most people do NOT hunt and the AR's are trying their very best to make hunting illegal in every sense of the word.and succeeding in most places... why do we care about "preserving" gun dogs or their traits?

      Delete
    7. AnonymousMar 26, 2012 09:55 AM

      You might want to stop making moronic slippery slope arguments. If you did, maybe we'd pay attention do you.

      I have seen those paintings. The haw is visible, but the dogs don't appear to have ectropion. Ectropion would be a fault for virtually any gun dog that would ever have to hit thorny cover. Even dogs with normal eyes occasionally injure them in cover.

      Most animal rights activists don't eat meat, wear fur, fish, or shoot deer and other game species. I do all of those things, ergo I'm not an ARA.

      If you insist that I am, then you have denuded the term animal rights activist of any meaning, except as a McCarthyite smear, which makes you look like more of a fool than anyone else.

      Delete
    8. BTW, if you don't breed it for gun dog traits, isn't it little more than a giant cavalier?

      Delete
    9. people love cavaliers.. perhaps that wouldst be a good out cross" what do you think Jemima.. a nice flat coat x cavalier cross.. everybody would want one.. and while we are talking about Stonehenge.. he emphatically says that litters should be culled ( and he does not mean spayed an neutered)for many reasons.. too many pups, defective pups, pups "not up to snuff' and even "pups of the wrong color".. how do you think that would go down today?
      He also calls for docking tails .. by using SCISSORS..and all sorts of things we do not do today so why would we care about what he says about older types of the breeds? It is fun to read about these things but thankfully we have advanced beyond biting the tails off of puppies ( yes he says people did that) and letting bitches whelp on "rugs" in a barn by themselves and of course saving many pups that would have been in the bucket in Stonehenges time...
      and when people call Jemima names all get "up in arms" but have no problem calling out others who disagree with them .. rather childish eh?
      Wayne Pacelle says his AR followers do all of the things you say you do.. he even claims HSUS supporters are "ethical hunters" and "ethical fishermen".. he also claims most eat meat, fish ( ethically of course).. I have not seen him claim to have supporters who wear fur.. but then most wear fur without the the fur in the form of leather. So ergo you could actually very much be an AR.. as he states many do what you say you do..and still support the animal rights agenda
      I don't insist on anything.. you are the one making the claims

      Delete
  5. The Clumber people stating that the eyes fall "within the standard" seem to be missing the point entirely that the standard of some breeds virtually guarantees health problems in dogs.

    If the standard allows for a painful condition, then the standard needs to be changed, not the diagnosis.

    Vet checks have been routine at horse shows for time out of mind. Olympians have had medals stripped for horses failing certain vet checks. Endurance riders have had horses pulled mid-competition. I guess my surprise lies more in the fact that no one thought of doing vet checks before, and in the fact that some competitors seem so appalled, rather than by the fact that some dogs did not pass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had a breeder of Clumbers state on my blog that the AKC breed standard requires ectropion. This was in defense of Chervood Snowsun, not in an attack on the way these dogs were shown.

      So I looked up the standard. It contradicts itself. It says in one line how the eyelid should be shaped, which would be described as ectropion by anyone with any kind of rudimentary understanding of what the condition is, then in the next it says there should be no ectropion!

      The standard is so poorly written and confusing in the AKC that it's no wonder these dogs have such awful eyelids!

      Delete
  6. can someone answer my question ?...I'll repeat it - if some lower haw is showing is this automatically diagnosed as Ectropian ?- if this is the case why do some KC breed standards contain the phrase "Acceptable to have some haw showing...." - it is patently wrong for the Kc to expect breeders to breed for this trait and judges to judge for it and then punish them when they do !

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haw is used in different ways, but as I see it haw means that the third eyelid is showing(not ectropion).
      Sometimes haw means that red conjuntiva is showing(can be ectropion).
      PL

      Delete
    2. Haw in the US refers to the third eye lid, it has a different meaning in other English speaking countries

      Delete
    3. http://www.caninest.com/images/haw.jpg

      Haw without ectropion.

      Delete
    4. that shows the third eye lid - I would not describe that as haw as required by the current Kennel Club Clumber and other breed standards.

      ...so given that any dogs correctly bred and judged to current standards WILL fail the Vet checks - how fair is it for the KC continue to take their money and allow them to enter UK Championship shows ?

      Delete
    5. How have you surmised it is a given? Peter posted above that haw can sometimes mean red conjunctiva is showing, and sometimes not. When the eyes are not showing effects of irritated haw then they will pass the vet checks. This has been explained by the Alison Skipper as well as in the statement by the KC following Crufts.

      Kary

      Kary

      Delete
  7. Jemima, a big thank you to you for both your documentaries. Without them, I'm sure the KC would never have done these much-needed inspections.

    I show dogs (of non-exaggerated breeds--and I've never bred dogs in my life) and dearly wish AKC would introduce a similar initiative at ALL their shows, not only high profile ones, as Crufts is. I'd happily pay an extra $1 per entry to guarantee that half-blinded Neos and Pugs who can't breathe are kept out of the winners' circle.

    ReplyDelete
  8. perhaps you should breed a litter or two before commenting and remember today's "non exaggerated breed" is tommorrws "vet check"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 5:33PM, I guess I'm a little confused. Are you suggesting that dog OWNERS don't get to have any opinion at all on dogs, only dog breeders?

      The reason I'm asking is that we as a society don't handle most issues that way. We don't say that only farmers should say how livestock should be raised. We don't say that only car manufacturers should have a say in car safety. We don't say that only doctors should make rules about medications. And so on.

      So I'm curious why dogs are so different than anything else in society that only those who breed them are entitled to an informed opinion about them?

      Delete
    2. I am a breeder, AnonymousMar 24, 2012 05:33 PM. A bitch of my breeding went BOB at a show two weekends ago. I am disgusted with the way these complaining breeders are acting, and I am disgusted with the way the AKC has refused to confront the public's concerns about welfare and genetic issues in dog breeding.

      Bravo to the KC.

      Delete
    3. Perhaps we should also have abused a few animals ourselves before we may profess our opinion on animal abusers?

      While we're at it, why not have our accused criminals judged by a jury of other criminals? That would surely speed up legal proceedings.

      Delete
  9. Beth, dogs are not different in any other way but this: fancy dog breeding as a hobby was taken over from wealthy upper-class and middle-class people. Breeding pedigree dogs made you SPECIAL. Who was to tell the wealthy and powerful what they could do and not do? No one.
    In the post- WWII years, the market for posh things - cars, vacation trips, dogs with pedigrees - exploded. So did the market for dog show breeders and so did their sense of importance. Whatever they bred was awarded with praise - by theor own circles, and by the national Kennel Clubs.Who was to tell them if they did wrong?

    Now, in a relatively short space of time, the tide is turning. Not just animal welfare organizations, but the general public and political bodies are raising their eye-brows at quite a few of the "achievements" of this comparatively small group of people dictating what´s wrong and what´s right to a very great number of people - you know, all of us who buy the dogs. We don´t like what we see: deformed dogs and smug show circles.The vets, of course, have been trying to point out the state of affairs for a long time.

    I think that perhaps the traditional show-oriented breeders are about to find out that they will lose their customers, and with some breeds in some countries will even lose the right to go on breeding. Either way, they will definitely have somebody tell them what they can and can´t do. I think that the KC is aware of this, trying to make these groups of breeders come to their senses... but an overdose of success is rather hard to sober up from, right?

    I don´t think it will necessarily take many many years to change the predominant look of the exagerated breeds. I think on the contrary, there are already better versions of those breeds around today, check out the young Nap mastiff bitch and the shar-pei BoB at Cruft´s. Ergo, there are already people breeding for non-exaggeration and long-time reasonable health. The great setting-up of the show winners, the focus and the sales promotion which events like Cruft´s offer the extreme conformation breeders helps block the better-built dogs and the more sensible breeders from view.

    Therefore it is a very important step taken now by the KC. At a guess, hundreds of thousands of people who don´t post here, don´t write floods of letters to the KC, who don´t follow DogWorld news, who just own and like dogs, simply think: About time too!


    Alison Skipper and Will Jeffels, once again - thank you for professional integrity, thank you for doing the right thing. Don´t know whether the statutues of my breed club permits the granting of membership to people in other countries, but if they do, I will propose you both. Any breed club must be proud of you!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Really a hilarious thread showing just how dumb people can be. Thanks!

    So, I guess if ya'll have a red eye and not sure why, you don't bother with an eye specialist, you just ask some other human (hey, s/he has eyes, must be an expert!)? How do all our human specialists stay in business when it's obvious anyone with a body or brain should be fine to treat?!
    You clearly have lost all touch with reality! If you haven't bred, you don't know squat about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymouse, if y´all had that red eye, would you be needing an ophthalmologist to explain to you there was something wrong?
      Come off it! ANYONE with an ectropion can feel the discomfort. ANYONE can see the problem. Why do you need a doctor or a vet, depending on whether y´all happen to be human or dogs?
      For the help in getting something done about it, is all.

      Delete
    2. Good grief, AnonymousMar 25, 2012 05:30 AM, have you EVER been to the doctor? If I have an irritated eye that won't go away, I see my GP. If my GP feels I need to see a specialist (which is not a given!) then I get a referral. Especially if I want insurance to pay for it ;)

      Curiously, my vet works the same way.

      It might amaze you to know that GPs, both vets and doctors, are qualified to diagnose a wide array of diseases. That is what they go to college for, after all.

      I am rather curious as to why these breeders have dogs with problems so exotic that they need all these specialists. Do their dogs never get simple illnesses or conditions that a GP vet is perfectly qualified to treat? If I take a dog in with red eyes (oh, let's add some green discharge in there just for shits and giggles) my vet doesn't throw up his hands, declare that he could not possibly diagnose anything to do with eyes and insist that I see a specialist!

      My vet bought a very expensive digital x-ray machine just last year, and I simply cannot see the reason why, if every gastro problem, every ortho problem, every problem beyond, well, I don't know (is a GP actually qualified to treat anything?) absolutely must see a specialist! Certainly the old x-ray machine would do, if all my vet were doing is handing out referrals.

      Delete
    3. well surely you vet has a history on your dogs..if you take your dog in I am sure YOU tell him what you observed.. or what happened to the dog in the past.. or do you drop the dog off and wait until later to hear what is wrong.. does your vet ask you any questions like.. "has your dog ever injured his eye in the past?' have you noticed this skim issue before.. etc.. in other words.. this was a cursory exam with NO history taken nor any questions asked of the primary care giver.. the OWNER. yes I am sure the owners see their dogs get 'simple conditions" but when the dog is taken in they are the ones who explain what happened.. not the other way around.
      by the way "specialist" are the wave of the future in veterinary medicine.. so yes.. your local vet generalist will become a thing of the past.. and that to me is a sorry state of affairs.. but when a specialists is needed for a specialists situation like Crufts.. then they should be used.. and the owners should have input during the exam..

      Delete
    4. It'll truly be a sad day when a dog HAS TO SEE A SPECIALIST IN ORDER FOR SIMPLE EYE IRRITATION DUE TO ECTROPION TO BE DIAGNOSED.

      But that is neither here nor there. Your argument that the vet exams are invalidated because the vets at Crufts were not specialist is completely invalid. None of the conditions the vets were instructed to look for need a specialist diagnosis. It's pure, simple sour grapes and excuse making, that's all.

      If I show a dog that is lame, the judge does not ask me how it got that way. I get dismissed. That is the rule, and by showing that day I agree to abide by those rules. The exhibitors that are having a hissy fit over their dogs being DQed knew the rules and by showing at Crufts they agreed to accept those rules. They should stop whining and STFU, because they are making breeders and other people that show dogs and are happy to follow the rules look bad.

      Delete
    5. A vet can see by looking if the dog has a visible problem that causes health problems.
      You dont need the dogs history to see that it has a problem breathing or ectropion. The vets werent there to get history - they were there to judge on the day if they could SEE a problem.
      'Your local vet generalist will become a thing of the past.' Yer right. This made me laugh.

      Delete
    6. If you haven't bred, you also don't have the conflict of interest that comes with it.

      But again, let's just have everybody judged only by people who have done the same things they have. Sure would speed up legal proceedings.

      Delete
  11. And if you aren't a specialist, then why are you unethically diagnosing? Sure shows that all the breeders who spend thousands health testing will never make you AR's happy, not until there are no breeds, and then no companion animals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do they need to be specialists? All vets can diagnose basic health problems in dogs - and that is what they were there to do. And they did it.
      Its just too bad if breeders dont like it, the vets werent there to check hip socres etc they were there to see if on the day the dogs had visible problems that were deemed detrimental to health. Surprise surprise they found some.
      No I am not an ''AR'' and I would be gutted if there were no breeds and no companion animals - what an outrageous comment to make.
      I find it interesting though how you make a comment on the welfare of these dogs and their health and yet in your entire comment you only mention the breeders and money - no mention of dogs. One could assume that the breeders mentality is that the dogs are a money making venture only. Not a good image to be portraying.

      Delete
    2. Ectropion is so obvious to anyone who knows what it is that any GP vet could diagnose it.

      Let's keep in mind that the eye clearances that Chervood Snowsun experienced didn't take the eyelids into account.

      Passing eye clearances is not a test for ectropion.

      There is no need for a specialist or a sophisticated eye clearances test to determine if a dog has ectropion or not. If you have eyes that can see half-way properly, then you can see if a dog has it or not.

      Delete
    3. "No I am not an ''AR'' and I would be gutted if there were no breeds and no companion animals - what an outrageous comment to make."

      prepare to be gutted...

      Delete
    4. Why should I prepare to be gutted? As far as I am aware neither JH nor the Canine Alliance are trying to wipe out the entire population of canines?
      How laughable.

      Delete
  12. Annie Macfarlane25 March 2012 15:07

    You know what! I've sat on the sidelines while all this debate has been going on and I've really had my eyes opened.... I now see that anybody who shows any concern whatsoever for the health of animals is classed as Animal Rights! I am extremely pissed off now.... How dare you ruin breeds and turn them into shadows of their former selves and tell us that we are wrong! How dare you tell us that you spend thousands on health testing when your dogs can't even have a day out on in warm weather without overheating..and tell us we are wrong! I'm sick to the back teeth of these people who pontificate about how we know nothing about dog breeding and they know everything....how we are ridiculous...pathetic...and uneducated! My experience is very contrary to that! The people who are raising their heads are well educated individuals who have probably forgotten what most of these breeders know about dogs....attack is the best form of defence...and boy do they attack! I've just questioned the CA about their aims and objectives....got back another patronising comment. If it wasn't such a serious subject and animals weren't suffering it would be somewhat comical. I belong to no animal rights organisations, I keep my head down and try to make change in my own way; I help people who buy poor sick puppies from breeders who know everything there is to know about dogs.....and I'm sick to death of hearing the excuses made by those breeders for breeding sick dogs.... Not one person on the CA FB page or EV&C has said anything about a campaign to end puppy farming....and yet puppy farming and BYB - we are all led to believe - is the root of all evil! How can that be when we still see the outcome of disastrous breeding practices that have been going on unchecked for many years trotting around the show rings! They shout..."but we need time to fix it"....but nobody is actually rewarding the people who are doing the work now....the Neo was a fantastic example of that! Had that bitch been put through to the Group I would have had great respect for the judge! Everybody is only looking after their own backs...and the fact that they are willing to give money to an organisation that has no aims and objectives - apart from to stop the vet checks at Champ Dog Shows says it all for me! That money could go a long way to fighting puppy farming; helping rescue dogs....but no....we want health checks removed...and to be reinstated in a fair and equitable manner. How can an organisation that is made up of show judges and exhibitors be responsible for working dogs, agility dogs, pet therapy dogs etc., etc., - they know nothing about dogs outside of the show world. They don't want to know because that's the only world that's important to them! I'm truly sickened....but in a way I'm glad that they have finally shown their true colours. They don't like that the KC has "finally" put in place a measure to try and protect the most affected dogs...toys out the pram... Well, welcome to our world...we've been trying to get these changes put in place for years and, if the KC had listened to us then, perhaps this whole ridiculous charade would not be happening! People standing up at the meeting, Peke reps...a dog that is no longer a dog...but merely fur on legs; Clumber Spaniel rep....a dog that is in some cases so obese it couldn't do a day's work if its life depended on it and is so removed from the working type its like chalk and cheese ; CKCS...well we all know the extent of the health issues with these poor little adorable dogs....and the list could go on. All looking after their own interests....nothing about the dogs....it's just disgusting but now we know what they are really about! I've been told that when the CA know where they're going and I see the changes I will want to join...and be welcomed with open arms.... I won't hold my breath if the "work" so far is anything to go by.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Annie Why should the CA start straight away with Puppyfarmers or BYB.s ?? Jemima did not when she had that opportunity via TV programme money. No she just made a repeat programme. Pot Kettle Annie.
      Some of those show judges and exhibitors do agility etc..so imo your comment regarding that they know nothing outside of the show world is wrong. I for one show my dogs, do agility with my dogs and I am a member of CA.
      As for you asking questions to the CA Why not ask them under your real name!!!!

      Delete
    2. Annie Macfarlane25 March 2012 17:41

      I never ask questions under any other name than my own....I never go under "anonymous"...so your comment, bearing in mind that we don't know who you are, is really par for the course. After PDE everybody in the world of show dogs was shouting that it was puppy farmers and BYBs causing all the problems. I agree that a lot of the blame for the current situation in pedigree dogs is down to bad breeding...but its not all at the feet of puppy farmers and BYBs. If those at the very top are not doing this properly...how on earth can you expect those at the bottom of the food chain to be doing it right! This is just more smoke and mirrors...and I, for one, am fed up of it! Put your money where your mouth is...and make a difference! Start fighting some really good campaigns to help dogs....not to help yourselves. Your world is way different to those that live every day with dogs that are affected by serious health problems. There is nobody on the steering group that has any interest in anything other than showing dogs....and if there are then please give us a name....along with yours! lol

      Delete
  13. Annie, I share your reservations, and also bridle at the hugely over-stated claim to represent all pedigree dogs, but I think we do now have to give them some time to see what they come up with before further judgement. (Although do have one more post to put up which I think highlights the crux of the matter.)

    They do now, I suspect, realise they're wading into some very stormy territories with a thousand different views - the whole other world out there that has been working in the trenches on this (and all the other issues such as puppy-farming) for years. The big lesson they're about to learn is just how much of a buffer the KC has been for them when it comes to dealing with that "outside world". This is not to deny, btw, that there are some people in showing who have experience of the sharp end of rescue, working dogs etc etc - but, overall, they have been operating in a protected bubble.

    Anyway, I think some patience is in order until we see more of their colours - although I do of course understand (and share some of) your frustration.

    Let's see - as I saw they seemed to endorse in a reply to Kirsty MacQueen on the CA FB page - if they really will back the inclusion of white Boxers in the showring, for instance, given the likely uproar that there will be within the breed.

    There is a chance - slim, I feel, but just about possible - that having stated their grand aims they may now back them up with something concrete and worthwhile. Possibly despite themselves.

    We shall see shortly. And in the meantime, we can relax and enjoy this lovely weather - and the first swimming of the season - with our dogs.


    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Annie Macfarlane25 March 2012 17:45

      I am incredibly frustrated Jemima....and have kept quiet because of that frustration! lol I can't bear to see people who are working very hard to help animals being portrayed as AR....that's just not fair! I think you're absolutely right when you say the KC has been a buffer...but we'll wait and see what happens but...as I say...I'm not holding my breath but will be delighted to be proved wrong....honestly! ;-)

      Delete
  14. Some of the guidelines given to the vets are so unbelievably ridiculous that I'm not surprised there's been an outcry. For example (and I quote from the Kennel Club's document): The Chinese Crested is to be examined for 'clipper rash or skin damage due to the use of clippers, razors and hair removing lotions'. Please explain to me how, exactly, that has ANYTHING to do with the breeding of the dog (other than the fact that the breed itself wouldn't be top of my list to admire)?

    The guidelines re the German Shepherd are equally stupid: "There is much controversy about the hindquarter conformation of the GSD. Principally the issue is conformational problems with cow hocks and weakness (instability) in the hind limbs when moving."

    That leaves the field wide open because it simply doesn't say that certain things are wrong. Much controversy? Not amongst the German Shepherd breeders I've come across. The only 'controversy' was the original PDE - the current wave of GSD breeders simply don't care/think that what they are breeding is quite right. If it were any other way the GSD that won BOB at Crufts would have been run out of the building in disgrace.

    ReplyDelete
  15. As far as I am aware anyone that enters a competition, signs to say that they accept the rules of the competition, therefore of the rules for the High profile breeds state that awards are subject to a vet Check then that’s the rule. Secondly is it the Kennel Club that gets the entry fee? I would have thought that the fees went to the show organisers? As for the Assured Breeder scheme, I thought that Jemima said that this Bulldog was bred by an Assured Breeder? Maybe it is possible to breed healthy examples of ALL the high profile breeds?

    Carol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course you can breed healthy dogs from the doomed 15 breeds. lets look at The assured Breeders Scheme with their mandatory health checks - that to be honest - in many breeds are neither here nor there. It is what the Breed Clubs' recommend is taken as secondary! - Look at the Cavs - a huge horrible real health problem is only RECOMMENDED by the KC. That is criminal! And people looking for their adorable first puppy is so mislead by the KC ASSURED BREEDERS SCHEME. It has no meaning or protection...

      Delete
  16. The KC's decision to change the Clumber spaniel standard to reflect a dog with better eyelids is going to have major effects for the breed throughout the world. The United Kingdom is this breed's patron country, and by changing the standard, the FCI countries with Clumbers will be affected, too.

    It won't affect those bred in the AKC and Canadian Kennel Club system, though. The AKC standard has enshrined ectropion as a breed trait, even though it tries to denounce ectropion in the next sentence after describing the ideal eyelid. The way the AKC standard describes the eyelid ectropion-- ectropion in the AKC Clumber spaniel is a celebrated trait!

    The breed standard's language needs to be revised in the AKC.

    ReplyDelete
  17. How misleading to show a poor Basset puppy with really crappy eyes- by any standard.
    Why the sensationalism?
    I have had the pleasure of Basset company for years - and most - some are rescues have never had eyes like that. No entropian or ectropian and most of them come from very good breeders (that show).

    ReplyDelete
  18. And maybe JH you don't know what it is like having an ancient breed?? Well you would not as Flatcoats have been around since the 19th C. When there was a huge boom in dog fancy! Bassets and Bloodhounds have been around for centuries. And what a poor problem the Flatcoat had with cancer... who brought the breed out of almost extinction were good breeders - AND who show??!! Your argument is not really an argument...

    ReplyDelete