Thursday 29 May 2014

The judges are revolting


Top UK judge Andrew Brace is making a stand. He has announced that he will no longer judge any of the "high profile" Category Three breeds in the UK  (i.e. those dogs subject to the "indignity" of a vet check at champ shows). This is because Brace thinks that breed type is much more important than some trifling fault that  - in his opinion - has only a minor impact on the dog's health and welfare.

On a Facebook page for show judges, Brace explains:
Ever since the initial announcements were made, heralding the introducing of the vet checks for certain BOB winners, there was an understandable resentment on the part of judges that statements which came out from the Kennel Club's press office that by inference suggested that in the past judges had ignored the need for their winning dogs to be fit and healthy, free from exaggerations that caused them any discomfort. This of course was nonsensical as any self-respecting judge had always sought to reward dogs that represented their breeds in a wholly typical manner, yet were happy, fit and healthy and in no way constructed in such a way that they suffered as a result.
Er, you mean like this dog?


Or this one?


Or perhaps this one?



Or how about this one?


Dog shows have been the single biggest driver in reducing some formerly-functional breeds into oversized, over-angulated, over-coated, over-wrinkled, saggy-eyed travesties. For Brace to believe otherwise is delusional (and, indeed, directly contradicts what he himself said in this article in Dog World just a year ago.)

And yet Brace goes on:
"In some cases the BOB had been awarded by judges of the reputation and standing of Ferelith Somerfield and Zena Thorn Andrews, the latter being at the time the solitary all-breeds judge in the UK."
Now that's a reference to Ch Buzz Lightyear at Dereheath - the Basset that Zena Thorn Andrews awarded BOB at Crufts 2012 and which failed the vet check.


This dog (described by Mrs Thorn Andrews as having "superb conformation") failed for an eye problem, not the fact that he had excess flesh dripping from every limb. But look what happened at Crufts the following year? This dog won.  A vast improvement.


Unfortunately, Crufts 2014 saw a regression to this...  a real shame. 


But I still believe that the vet checks are, in the main, making judges more careful about the dogs they reward and that no judge should ever put up any dog that is in less than demonstrably good health on the day. Extreme conformation in and of itself is not (say the rules) a reason to DQ a dog, but because the more extreme dogs are more likely to have accompanying signs of clinical disease (e.g. sore eyes from from ectropion) the vet checks have had a moderating effect.

Brace, though, won't be swayed - and rather than lobby to improve the vet checks, he wants them gone. He thinks the independent scrutiny of these "victimised" breeds are "humiliating" and, further, he denigrates some judges who are willing to continue to judge them as "fault-obsessed" at the expense of type.  He maintains:

"The problem with the vet checks is that they tend to encourage judges to become obsessed with faults and in so doing can overlook a dog’s many virtues. Obviously a dog that is dripping in breed type but that cannot walk should never be considered for any award, but there has to be a degree of leniency shown when faults do not affect a dog’s functionality and comfort."
And he goes on:
"Judging dogs brings with it enough pressures, and enough concerns to do the job right, without the additional worry of finding a dog that not only pleases the judge sufficiently to award it BOB, but will also satisfy some vet who may have no intimate knowledge of that breed as to its suitability to represent its breed in the group ring."
The vet, of course, is not there to judge its suitability to represent its breed. The vet is there to judge its suitability as a dog.

And herein lies the rub. The Fancy wants the right to continue to do what the hell it likes, without outside scrutiny. That it so often finds itself in conflict with the veterinary profession is telling.
Says Brace: 
"Judging dogs should be a pleasurable experience, for the exhibitors, for the judge and for the ringside."
Um. And for the dogs, Andrew. 

For the dogs.

Here's the whole sorry post from Mr Brace.

Andrew Brace
Andrew Brace5:58pm May 28
Since making it known that I am no longer accepting invitations to judge the “High Profile” breeds in the UK as long as the ridiculous vet checks of the BOB winners persist I have had several messages from people asking me to reconsider. I hope that the following will make people understand why I have made this decision. It won’t make a blind bit of difference to the decision-makers in the British Kennel Club but it is the only way I can personally make a stand.
When a few short years ago the Kennel Club in Britain decided to have a number of what it deemed “High Profile Breeds” subjected to the indignity of having their BOB winners at Crufts dog show examined by a vet to determine whether or not they were fit enough to compete in their respective groups, there was outcry when many of them failed and were denied their place in the group. In some cases the BOB had been awarded by judges of the reputation and standing of Ferelith Somerfield and Zena Thorn Andrews, the latter being at the time the solitary all-breeds judge in the UK.
Despite widespread condemnation, the Kennel Club has continued with these vet checks and yet these checks do nothing to indicate how healthy a breed is at large. How can they when, as an example, the same Pekingese has been vet-checked more than thirty times?!
If the Kennel Club is serious about improving the health and welfare of breeds across their whole population there are far more effective ways of doing so and to some extent it has taken steps to develop a system which is more in line with the more logical and general judges’ reports which originated in Sweden. Yet still the humiliating BOB checks persist.
Judging dogs should be a pleasurable experience, for the exhibitors, for the judge and for the ringside. Ever since the initial announcements were made, heralding the introducing of the vet checks for certain BOB winners, there was an understandable resentment on the part of judges that statements which came out from the Kennel Club's press office that by inference suggested that in the past judges had ignored the need for their winning dogs to be fit and healthy, free from exaggerations that caused them any discomfort. This of course was nonsensical as any self-respecting judge had always sought to reward dogs that represented their breeds in a wholly typical manner, yet were happy, fit and healthy and in no way constructed in such a way that they suffered as a result.
The challenge of judging purebred dogs is a demanding one. It requires someone invited to carry out a job, employing their knowledge of a breed and hopefully their inherent integrity which should be such that they are capable of evaluating all dogs shown to them impartially, taking no account of what a dog has won, how it is bred or who is handling it. All judges have their own methods of arriving at an ultimate decision, but at all times they should tend to focus on the positive, acknowledging and rewarding merit whilst at the same time recognising faults which should always be seen in perspective.
Judges of my generation were taught by the old school that fault-judging is the road to nowhere. “Throwing the baby out with the bath water” was an expression that was often used when I was in my formative years, having it explained to me that losing an otherwise outstanding animal on the strength of one obvious, but relatively minor, fault would never result in excellent judging.
The problem with the vet checks is that they tend to encourage judges to become obsessed with faults and in so doing can overlook a dog’s many virtues. Obviously a dog that is dripping in breed type but that cannot walk should never be considered for any award, but there has to be a degree of leniency shown when faults do not affect a dog’s functionality and comfort.
Some of the dogs that have been banned from appearing in a group, despite having won the CC & BOB under a judge who has been approved by the Kennel Club, have apparently been so treated because the acting vet has found an ageing piece of scar tissue on an eye which would not be obvious in a judge’s routine examination, and in some cases because of evidence of "mucous"! Judges are not vets and should not pretend to be. Similarly vets should not assume the mantle of dog judge. Neither has been through the training required of the other.
Judging dogs brings with it enough pressures, and enough concerns to do the job right, without the additional worry of finding a dog that not only pleases the judge sufficiently to award it BOB, but will also satisfy some vet who may have no intimate knowledge of that breed as to its suitability to represent its breed in the group ring.
On a personal level this extra burden I find detracts from the whole judging experience and also negates much of the pleasure that the task should bring. That is why I, and some of my colleagues, have decided that we no longer wish to judge these victimised breeds at Championship level in the UK. That may not be viewed as any great loss in some quarters, but as far as the breeds at large are concerned it may rob them of the opportunity to show under a number of experienced and knowledgeable judges, whilst at the same time seeing the judging ranks augmented by new judges who are fault-obsessed.
Related posts: 

81 comments:

  1. That Bulldog has a metal choke chain on! A METAL CHOKE CHAIN as well as a deliberate genetically disadvantaged respiratory system.

    I mean, why don't they just put it out of it's misery!

    Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells.

    I've only just seen that pic and haven't yet read the article!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The metal choke chain is cool, Tunbridge Wells, it´s not a problem. That dog cannot move fast enough to stretch the chain. Apart from that, I´m likwise disgusted.

      Bodil Carlsson

      Delete
    2. Er, metal choke chains are not cool. They are utterly barbaric and in time, will be banned I am sure.

      Delete
    3. OF COURSE THEY ARE UTTERLY BARBARIC! BUT LESS SO THAN THE DEVASTATED DOG AND THE CULTURE WHICH CREATED IT!

      Bodil Carlsson

      Delete
    4. That picture of the wreck of a dog with a metal collar around it's neck just sums up the depraved culture of Dogdom......

      Utterly Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells

      Delete
  2. '.... “High Profile Breeds” subjected to the indignity of having their BOB winners at Crufts dog show examined by a vet to determine whether or not they were fit enough to compete in their respective groups,'

    What bollockery hell is THIS? Dogs feel indignant!? I'm already confused...
    Why would you feel indignant about a health check by a certified vet on your beloved dog I wonder?

    'Judging dogs should be a pleasurable experience, for the exhibitors, for the judge and for the ringside.' Oh, and you don't have any responsibility towards welfare then. Morally repugnant anyone?

    'The challenge of judging purebred dogs is a demanding one.' And you've just contradicted yourself because shouldn't it just be enjoyable??

    ' It requires someone invited to carry out a job, employing their knowledge of a breed and hopefully their inherent integrity which should be such that they are capable of evaluating all dogs shown to them impartially, taking no account of what a dog has won, how it is bred or who is handling it. All judges have their own methods of arriving at an ultimate decision, but at all times they should tend to focus on the positive, acknowledging and rewarding merit whilst at the same time recognising faults which should always be seen in perspective.'

    hereby, describing the very problem - a lack of accountability and sensible, judging standards (for health and temperament - which is the aim of the vet checks surely?) = pure subjectivity. Anyone could do this!

    'Judges are not vets and should not pretend to be. Similarly vets should not assume the mantle of dog judge. Neither has been through the training required of the other.' I'd rather trust a sensible, morally sound and suitably trained and educated and professional vet than you sunshine! You know, someone who has been to University and has qualifications in anatomy, physiology and an awareness of evolutionary biology and how it relates to the domestic dog...

    'On a personal level this extra burden I find detracts from the whole judging experience and also negates much of the pleasure that the task should bring. That is why I, and some of my colleagues, have decided that we no longer wish to judge these victimised breeds at Championship level in the UK. '

    Oh what a shame, p*** off then,.....leave dogs alone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 14:49 brilliantly composed and made me laugh outright, loud, so loud the dogs joined in!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    2. and yet when a vet passes a dog that you and others here think should not be passed you yell and scream FOUL he/she must be crooked or paid off by the KC..so what would satisfy you? My guess is nothing short of stopping all dog shows and all breeding of dogs you do not like or that you yourself find objectionable even if they have passed multiple vet checks.. or come to the show with papers in hand from a vet you do not own any pedigreed dogs any more do you? Fine .. I would say that you are off the hook and should continue on your rescue program where I am sure you do much good. I think Mr Brace is right on the money.. he is not vet so why should he "play one on TV? You have cherry picked his statement but at least had the decency to publish it in its entirety so that those that can actually look at it without your clever comments.

      Delete
    3. Yes Anon 08:20 Great idea to stop dog shows. The twisted depravity of Dogdom can hopefully find another outlet to vent the vanity and egos. Leave dogs alone. We need to breed fewer dogs. Owning a dog is not a human right. It is a privilege. Breeding dogs to show them off in a ring is beyond the comprehension of people who understand dogs and who are genuinely concerned about their future welfare. Sadly, it would appear that those people are truly few and far between. Brace is NO expert. You people kid yourselves that what you do in these dog shows is actually meaningful. It is harmful. That is why better vet checks are needed by impartial professionals is required if they are to continue.
      I am quite sure that like Zoos, dog shows and places like Seaworld will not exist in 20 years time......give it another generation.

      Delete
    4. so speaks another supporter o the animal rights agenda.. this blog is rife with them. Owning animals is most certainly a right. and has been since man domesticated animals. There would be no vets at all if people did not breed animals. you dope.. mind boggling and if we just left "dogs alone" as you say they would breed continuously and be riddled with disease.. go bake to PETA headquarters and tell it to someone who actually believes you

      Delete
    5. Anon 8:20, dog shows run by responsible people and judged by dog loving, honest people are good. Apart from human beings, and some would argue "what about Miss World, what about Mr Universe? a lot of domesticated species are shown and judged and placed. It is in the main personal preference - but what isn't personal preference is obvious crippling physical suffering. Just look at the dogs above, please just look at them. Just stand aside, forget what you have written and pretend you are in your high street. If you saw one of those dogs walking towards you, wouldn't you be concerned? Would you really just accept that German Shepherd? The poor dog cannot stand, surely you can see that, he is being propped by his owner and when is moved, the handler will run him fast hoping that propulsion will keep him upright. Do you think that's ok, really? Compare the Bassets, the tricolour is beautiful, fit for purpose and his breed points are there to see, moderated,but there. The lemon and white's tummy is on the floor, the folds of skin debilitating, his feet, look painful. Can't you see the difference? If you were judging you surely couldn't justify placing the lemon and white at all, even if there were only two dogs in a class. I personally would not place it and I would explain to the owner why. Mr Brace is definitely no expert, neither am I, nor are you. But one would hope that one can see a damaged dog and know instinctively that that is unacceptable, regardless of who owns it or handles it. And this is where the lack of honesty and moral fibre occurs because judges have their eye on the next appointment which could be anywhere in the world where they are wined and dined lavishly, they soak up the compliments and come to believe that they are expert but if we what we see above is typical of what is happening in the dog world then vet inspection has to occur. Apparently the judges are blind, non dog lovers and arrogant and in the world of dogs that is dangerous, just cast your eyes again the photographs above if you don't believe me. Read what anon 1521 has written and absorb the points within.

      Delete
    6. Hahaha! Bestuvall strikes again. Accusing people who care about animal welfare as being AR activists. I would be a pretty shit PETA advocate. I eat meat, I wear leather and I occasionally venture to national hunt race meetings....I'd get kicked out on my ear.

      However I share my life with dogs as companions. Why would there be no vets if people did not breed dogs!! There are other animals in the world that we interact with and raise as livestock and keep as pets!! Bestuvall, have you ever read any biology? Have you ever heard of the concept of evolution? When I say, leave dogs alone, I want people like yourself who breed and show them and judge them on physical appearance and seem pretty clueless about health and welfare to leave them alone. If people like you left them alone, we wouldn't be in this mess. We would be breeding dogs for reasons that are morally sound. As companions, as colleagues.

      You have no right to manipulate the dogs' genome to satisfy your warped depravity. You do not deserve the privilege to share your life with a dog if you continue to mock people who, you know, actually give a shit about their future health and welfare.

      Sorry to swear but this person really does not have anything compassionate or even reasonable to contribute here!

      Delete
    7. the lemon and white is a bitch not a dog and would not be in the same class as the dog. Georgine . Do you have a judges license. It appears that you do when you write of placing the dog ( or bitch if you know the difference by a photo). You seem to have plenty of opinions by looking at pictures and you seem to be a bit jealous of how judges are treated .. and what benefits they receive. Why does any of that make a difference to you?

      Delete
    8. @bestuvall where in the US constitution does it say you have the right to own a dog. The right to ""life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness exist". John Locke said we have the right to "life, liberty, and property", but the Constitution says otherwise. If you live somewhere OTHER then the US please show me exactly where it says you and everyone else where you live have the LEGAL RIGHT to own a dog.

      And please, let's not resort to using Ad hominems. You may believe us to be "PETA advocates", but that doesn't make us any less credible then you are.The fact that we care about animal welfare does not make us guilty of associating with PETA.

      Delete
    9. Good point Daniela.....
      Unfortunately bestuvall is extremely arrogant and is an unfortuante representaive of the human race who thinks that animals exist for their own manipulation and exploitation. This person disregards the fact that our pet dogs and colleagues are sentient beings with their own emotional world and feel pain and can suffer emotionally. Isn't that right bestuvall? At least, that is the distinct impression I have formed about you from your posts on here. You lack compassion, you are disrespectful of other people's opinions, even when they are based in empiricism. You don't like the fact that the dog show world, the breeding practices behind it and the terrible toll it has taken on the canine species has finally been exposed for what it is.

      A modern welfare scandal.

      Am I right??

      Delete
    10. Anon 4.43. I don't care if it is a bitch or a dog, the point I was making was the difference in shape, NOT SEX. The difference must be obvious to you or are you so angry with anyone who defies your thought processes that you just lash out stupidly. Just look at the photographs of the 3 basset hounds, which one looks like a dog that would enjoy a walk, up a hill, over rough ground, through water, on stones, along a lane, which one do you think would arrive home after a long walk with no sores, no limps, no sore eyes, ears ungrazed, which one anon 443? No I am not jealous of what judges can achieve, they are welcome to it if they have judged honestly with the care of the breed uppermost in their placings. However, if those appointments have been accepted because the judge hopes to gain favour, by placing a less than worthy dog because the owner is powerful and influential and may get more appointments then jealousy isn't the emotion I feel, it is loathing and utter dislike because to lower oneself to a real base level is so dangerous for dogs and dogdom. Because that judge is in a position of trust of the owners of the rest of the dogs who have entered, paid money in the hope for an honest opinion, when in reality it is just a total sham. And, if that has happened often and regularly then that is why pedigree dogs are in such a mess. Bestuvall, why don't you get a job digging up potatoes, much more satisfying than your present job.

      Delete
  3. Brilliant Mr Brace, it would be good for dogs if you no longer accepted ANY judging appointments in the future. How on earth can you make such pompous, ill thought out remarks. How would you feel if the majority of people in dogs could now hold you responsible for some of the gross exaggerations we see in pedigree dogs today? You have travelled across the world judging pedigree dogs and your biased, closed mind may have caused the downfall of many breeds, you had influence and one could comment that you have used that influence in a negative effect. Do we think that you cannot see the horror of those poor dogs shown above, you really think that if judges of your ilk place these dogs and give top awards that vet intervention is really unnecessary, unacceptable, really, honestly?. Are you afraid that others have been made aware that perhaps you are not as good a judge as you believe you are and worst Mr Brace, perhaps you are not a real dog lover. You've enjoyed a lifelong career because of dogs, seen a lot of the world because of dogs, met a lot influential people because of dogs. But in reality what do dogs really mean to you, because your comments are really upsetting and worrying because you have had a huge influence on where pedigree dogs are today, and you could have done so much more. And the KC have backed you all of the way, they've offered you countless judging appointments, and how ironic that they now feel unsure that their decisions about choice of judge for certain breeds were right after all and need to ask and outside source to look at the dogs. How blind are you all, you make the dog world an absolute nonsense because all you have to do is open your eyes and see the deformities, open your ears and hear the rasping, gulping, panting and hear the discomfort and open your mind. Your comments and lack of compassion for dogs has really sickened me, your arrogance astonishing. And, I assume you are not one of the judges who was responsible for placing any of the dogs above, please tell us you are more honourable than that otherwise I am completely nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Certain horse breeds and I know the Sports Horse Society for stallions and young stock have a grading system and this includes vetting. The only difference is the horse are vetted first and if failed, they do not go forward to be Judged for grading. So the way forward for the KC and making Andrew Brace happy would be that any dog showing has to pass an annual health check, which would include passing health tests that are recommended for each breed and health tests were grading is done, that an acceptable grade for age is achieved by the dog, then Andrew Brace won't have to feel like he has egg on his face when he Judges dogs and does not pick up that the dog he likes has a health issue and then is failed by the vet. This way only health checked dogs get to be shown and as the KC says, "they are there protecting the welfare of dogs", this goes a long way towards moving towards healthier breeding of dogs and this would also be the logical way to solve the problem of Judges being upset when a dog they Judge as a BOB then fails the vet, because with this system relying on the integrity of vets, hopefully the dog would of never got in the ring to be Judged in the first place and Andrew Brace's ego stays intact. Phew !
    Although having to face an annual health test before showing a dog will piss the Breed Clubs off big time, but hopefully they will see it's about breeding healthy, happy dogs, not their egos, won't they ?
    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trouble is anon 1559 there won't be any shopping trolleys next time you go down to the supermarket because the owners of "these fit healthy dogs that are oozing breed type and quality" will need them to transport them to the vets table, never mind from the car to the showing ring. Even the vet tests to which Mr Brace refers are questionable, and pretty inefficient as seen with the nonsense of the St Bernard, one fail means total elimination, no? The Bulldog that was allegedly wheeled to the vets table so that it's tongue didn't turn blue and it was only panting and not gasping. People in the show world have to open their eyes and see that their dogs are suffering and that it is totally unacceptable. And the KC should stop it NOW. I'm beginning to think people who show these particular breeds are either punch drunk, brain dead, or maybe just stupid, cruel individuals.

      Delete
  5. "Some of the dogs that have been banned from appearing in a group, despite having won the CC & BOB under a judge who has been approved by the Kennel Club, have apparently been so treated because the acting vet has found an ageing piece of scar tissue on an eye which would not be obvious in a judge’s routine examination, and in some cases because of evidence of "mucous"! Judges are not vets and should not pretend to be. Similarly vets should not assume the mantle of dog judge. Neither has been through the training required of the other."


    So here, is he not just reaffirming for us why there is a need for the two professionals to work in tandem, regardless of what camp you are on in relation to dog showing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Slinky, no I think Mr Brace will suddenly realise that he has just shot himself in the foot and revealed what a total air head he is and the possible detrimental effect he has had in the dog world over a very long period of time. He has lost is credibility if there ever was any. There will be many a dinner party where his revelation will be the centre of many unkind, sneering jokes about him. A lot of elbowing and winking, a lot of raised eyebrows, and do you know what Slinky, I hope the pain in his foot cripples him because the gross exaggerations we see above are crippling those dogs and their quality of life is minimal and Mr Brace thinks that that is acceptable. Just as long as he has enjoyed his day out, in his little world all is well I think that there will be a lot of shouting in the dog world and Mr Brace may feel it is time to step away from the dog world altogether to save further embarrassment, especially if he goes into dialogue and tries to defend his statements. I would imagine the women he mentions above are also looking for somewhere to hide because to be mentioned in his statement is cringing in the extreme. Sorry to rant, but it really is appalling.

      Delete
    2. Ever since the ... [introduction] of the vet checks for certain BOB winners, there was an understandable resentment on the part of judges that statements which came out ... by inference suggested that in the past judges had ignored the need for their winning dogs to be fit and healthy, free from exaggerations that caused them any discomfort. This of course was nonsensical as any self-respecting judge had always sought to reward dogs that represented their breeds in a wholly typical manner, yet were happy, fit and healthy and in no way constructed in such a way that they suffered as a result.

      He should step away from the dog world entirely and I hope he does because he is clearly inept. You've hit the nail on the head with how others will sneer at his comments even from his own camp.

      In my employment, I'm more than happy for anyone to cross-check my work as I know I can justify all of it and rarely make a mistake. It seems that Mr Brace is unhappy to have his work checked as a tiny voice is crying out inside that huge man - he knows he has done wrong by the dogs.

      If he had only dared to say that it should be enjoyable for the dogs, we could have had a field day with that.

      Delete
    3. You're wrong, Georgina. Mr Brace will be hailed as a hero in many quarters and many in the show world will share his view. He won't for one minute think he has shot himself in the foot because he will be inundated with emails from people applauding him for making a stand - including, very likely the two judges he names above.

      That everyone outside the show-world thinks it is bonkers won't hold any sway, I promise.

      Jemima



      Delete
    4. Judges of my generation were taught by the old school that fault-judging is the road to nowhere. “Throwing the baby out with the bath water” was an expression that was often used when I was in my formative years, having it explained to me that losing an otherwise outstanding animal on the strength of one obvious, but relatively minor, fault would never result in excellent judging.
      The problem with the vet checks is that they tend to encourage judges to become obsessed with faults and in so doing can overlook a dog’s many virtues.

      I suppose they will look at this quote and agree. In principle, I'd agree too except I know that he probably considers things like luxating patellas, ectropion and entropion eyes and gasping are minor faults; where he considers lack of "furnishing", long tails and "disqualified colours" as major faults.

      Again, the mind boggles.

      Delete
    5. So why is the veterinary world not speaking up about this? It's insane.
      Judges are really not qualified to comment on the anatomical and physical health of dogs, they judge dogs on the basis of a subjective breed standard that has been constructed by human beings. Not nature. They have a lot of power in the dog show world. They have zero respect out of the show ring, I think this guy is scared. It is a classic defensive rant from someone who is not very well qualified and who is actually powerless in reality. I think that perhaps he realises that they are being found out!

      Delete
    6. You can tell that the veterinary profession is not respected by breeders at all. Perhaps the KC seems like an institution that has a lot of clout to vets.

      I actually decided to study veterinary medicine and specialise in genetics after watching the first Pedigree Dogs Exposed documentary, it had a massive impact on me. My own grandfather was campaigning against dog shows in the 1950s and constantly trying to educate people on the dangers of brachy breeds.

      Delete
    7. Afraid that you are correct Jemima, but there surely must be some sane, honest, moral breed/variety judges left in the World. No maybe not, but one can hope. I'm not so sure however that there will be no "sway" from Joe Boy Public. If that were to be the case then PDE has been ineffective, but we know that that is not the case. PDE has pushed, cajoled, publicised, enlightened him, made him aware, warned of the consequence of buying into some breeds. By persisting and persuading, highlighting and enforcing means that it won't be this year or maybe next but soon somebody at the KC will hear PDE's voice. Perhaps the suggestion of a petition isn't too far off the mark. There are dog showers, judges, breeders who are vets too. So where is their voice? Bearing in mind, of course, that Steve Dean is a retired vet who has chosen to turn a blind eye because there is no way he can plead ignorance. He of all of us, can see the deformities, and he all of us knows exactly what effect that has on a dog's health and wellbeing. He sees the outside and he sure knows what happens on the inside. I'm not so sure Mr Brace will get away with such preposterous statements. Litigation will become the norm soon and a judge who is seen to endorse such deformities will in some way become embroiled in a law case if a puppy purchased is sold as being the progeny of a dog that won xyz under Mr Blogs and that is the reason the puppy was purchased. Then the puppy is found to be a cripple because it was bred to breed standard. Somebody needs to become responsible and caring and prove they love dogs and that has to be the KCs internationally. How Mr Dean can remain head of the organisation, believe that he is respectable and honourable and be seen to condone this nonsense is on a par with Mr Brace's arrogance. I don't wish to be rude or disrespectful to anyone personally, but where dogs are concerned it makes me mad that they are so vulnerable and the very people who are set up to protect them abuse that trust. They have to prove that they are genuine and that they really do care about dogs.

      Delete
    8. Yes please! Can we try a petition?

      Its circulation may at the very least raise awareness of the issues and offer some sort of united front against the huge lobbying powers of the K.Cs.

      A rough draft ?

      We , the undersigned, wish to effect cultural change and greater sense of responsibility in dog ownership and breeding through intent, rather than legislation.

      We feel it is essential for change that the international organization known as the Kennel Club, ( or K.Cs ) as the single greatest influence on dog ownership and breeding world wide alter the constitution that binds them to reflect that intent and bring sustainability to dog ownership.

      Our reasoning? We feel that Pedigree dogs and cross breeds are inextricably tied. If we eliminate cross breeds we eliminate pedigree dogs.

      We believe The K.Cs ruling that no member is permitted to produce a "Cross breed" without first being granted K.C sanction is effectively a self fulfilling prophesy to eliminate them. By pronouncing judgement as an organization, the K.Cs can never have a positive influence on cross breed dogs, but will, always , have a negative effect.

      It also ties the K.Cs into an ever decreasing environment since it is a double closed system. ie No outside influence is permitted on the standardized breeds included in the K.C registries, and no outside influence on those who breed them.
      We feel this rule seeks to abolish environmental influence on the species. Pedigree dogs can not be sustained while this rule is in place because it denies and attacks the very base they stand on.
      People, who breed what thrives and is valued for purpose, tested and tried in their own backyard. This is what gave rise to pedigree dogs.

      If we don't allow for that, actively support and strengthen it, Dogs loose their relevance to modern society. As we see happening.

      As it stands, a pedigree represents purity, predictability and records. Thats all.

      A constitution sets the intent of an organization and we find the intent of the K.Cs in its current form to be unacceptable. We can not accept that purification leads to perfection, or that anything else should be untouchable.

      We believe any ruling that limits membership to to those who adhere to this teaching is detrimental to ownership, welfare, and the future of the species in which we all have a stake.

      We believe that abolition of this rule would change the intent of the K.Cs constitution to one of improvement,through knowledge and use of records. We hope this can and lead to greater responsibility of owners and breeders alike.

      Pedigree dogs can't stand on their own, but they could and should stand for the pinnacle and end result of thoughtful breeding and ownership practices.

      We feel that this is a much worthier and sustainable message to radiate than one that says purification leads to perfection and any thing else in intolerable. (end)

      Writing is very painstaking for me, so I would be very happy with suggestions to tidy this up, simplify it or clarify it for people unfamiliar with the issues? Or re write it completely if needed!?

      Aussie

      Delete
    9. Should maybe add that:

      A) This ruling is unnecessary, openly discriminatory, is out side of the K.Cs charter and does not reflect rules of fair trade.

      and

      b)
      The K.Cs, in actively discouraging any breeding outside of their own charter while disregarding environmental demands gradualy places commercial breeders as the only viable alternative. We don't feel this is in the best interests of the dogs, given their historical development has occurred in their place of use, on the job. (end)

      If you people here can think of more effective wording I would be very happy to hear it. I'd like to do more than talk and we can all do this.
      Its unfair to expect Jemima to take on responsibility for every action.

      Aussie

      Delete
    10. Aussie - great!

      I think we need to keep it short and sweet. Who do you propose we lobby? UK Government?

      http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/

      We also need to clearly define what the proposed change is:

      The domestic dogs’ primary functions in our society are to be a physically healthy and temperamentally sound pet; sound colleague or companion.

      We feel the KC’s policy seeks to abolish environmental influence on this species by continuing to promote pedigree dogs and openly criticise cross bred or mixed breed dogs.

      As it stands, a pedigree dog simply represents genetic ‘purity’; ancestral records and some measure of health and temperamental predictability - the latter not always suitable and appropriate for society.

      Because of this focus on pedigree and the resulting misleading genetic purity, an unhealthy culture has developed which the KC actively seeks to promote. Genetic purity of the individual breeds is maintained at any cost, including the continuation of line breeding.

      The public is being misled as to maintain good genetic health, out crossing is essential. Genetic purity is detrimental to health and welfare.

      There is increasing evidence that current practices are proving disastrous on the health and welfare of the domestic dog as a whole species, and not just individual breeds. The human designed breed standards and the subjectivity of show judging for form over function has resulted in the unnatural selection of exaggerated brachycephalic and other deformed physical features . These disabling features are subsequently rewarded in the show ring resulting in dogs who suffer.

      Dog shows have to either be banned, or have to be reformed and regulated by impartial veterinary professionals. Function over form has to be rewarded instead.

      Emphasis must be removed from breed and redeployed to type.

      A breed standard for suitable sized of pet must be written, emphasising suitable temperament as well as health.Breeders selling dogs as pets have to be rewarded for focusing on what society requires from them.

      This cognitive dissonance promoted by the UK KC has to be addressed if the domestic dog is going to survive into the next century.

      Not short or sweet but just my thoughts..

      Delete
    11. Only one taker?!!

      Thanks 15:24 . Some improved wording there already.

      Its not easy to be short and sweet, but I agree we need to be.

      Who to lobby? Every one, the K.Cs themselves, Govt. world wide where ever we have people willing . Its a world wide organization. Animal law practitioners.

      I don't think we should push for any more than that one rule change for now. Its a lot. Asking too much at once would reduce our chances of success.

      If that can be accomplished, change will follow from within .More slowly maybe, but with consensus and environmenalt input from welfare groups, pet and working dog owners, vets etc. And it could be accomplished from within.
      It would not be a pedigree that separates K.C members from every one else but practices. It would be in the interests of the K.Cs themselves to see that their practices are what people aspire to. A COMPLETE community of dog lovers would be involved in setting those practices.

      Maybe we would see the old community dog shows and trials resurrected. I remember the little old men and women showing off their pets in the smartest dog category, children whos dog won the waggiest tail or prettiest category. Conformation that realy was about conformation and not just type because the dogs pedigree didn't come into it.

      Aussie.

      Because we would all have a say in what OUR K.Cs should be about.


      There will be outside influence from/on members.
      Who are finaly free to concentrate on those practices. The censure from within could be overcome.

      Delete
    12. At this stage, I would rather not be ruling anything out. We have enough of that and I am convinced that a clearly spelled out and uncomplicated intent is far more effective than restriction. Restriction always has hidden consequences and limits our understanding.... We don't look at whats taboo.

      Take this "hypothetical" one." A member will not breed primarily for profit."
      Its intentions are very good, but have already been accounted for by a positive ruling. "A member will always breed for improvement and betterment of the breed"

      The 1st was unneeded. It introduced a judgement against profit, yet that can be another way to restrict environmental influence. If you can produce whats in demand, and be seen to be making a profit, there is an avenue to censure you by those who DON'T meet environmental demands.
      Negatives rulings will always have negative consequences on our intent. We don't "see" where the problems lies, and make more negative rulings to over come the problems we've created. Thats how we shrink our environment.

      A positive intent is free to evolve, all restrictions CAN do is restrict.

      In this day and age, welfare is more meaningful than ever before so I think the K.Cs will evolve to reflect that, when they are free to do it.

      Aussie

      Delete
    13. Perhaps use that ruling as a precedent in law?

      It acts representative of our interests with out our consent. That constitutes oppression?

      Aussie

      Delete
    14. Hi Aussie, your suggestion is a good framework and when the need arises I am sure it will be more than useful. It is just so frustrating that dogs are being so abused under the umbrella "of love for a breed". As Jemima says the "The Judges are Revolting" and in that statement if I was one of those judges I would be cringing with shame!!! :-(

      Delete
    15. may i make a suggestion? Take your time that you spend writing this "petition" and breed some dogs on your own that you feel are the 'dogs of the future" .the healthy ones with no faults or health problems.. the ones that you promise will live to be 0 years old as you are an expert in all things dog and know better than any old dog show judge or vet that is "paid off' on how to create these excellent specimens that everyone will want Promote them sell them them breed them and run the others out.. that is the way to accomplish your goals not by whinging and complaining that "others" are doing things you do not like.. do things YOU like and prove to the world that you have the better mousetrap. You say "if you were one of these judges" Really? Then get your judges license and show them how to do do it properly. Don't like what breeders are doing? Then breed some dogs yourself. In fact breed many dogs yourself and get your friends here to help you . Make the world sit up and take notice of you and your expertise in all things dog by breeding dogs that have no health problems and can pass any vet check by any specialists at all times throughout their lives. Show them breed them beat the competition and the world will beat a path to your dog house. I for one cannot wait.

      Delete
    16. Anon 0838 you have completely missed the point sadly and in your hostility lost your argument. Firstly I advocate slowing down of all breeding of dogs internationally, regardless of background. However, people who have the time and the money and most importantly the love of a breed, their health and welfare being the driving force, should be encouraged to breed healthier specimens of the breed they love and recognised for achieving it. THEY will eventually overcome the mutants we see above, because those mutants will die out because pet people cannot afford to maintain a kind lifestyle for their dog because the problems start at the nose and end at the back paws. That is really disgusting, their breeders should be ashamed of themselves, they are damaging dogs and damaging dogdom. I showed a gundog breed for 40 years (to my now shame), during that time bred very few litters and during that time was invited to judge, some of which I accepted. I enjoyed it, the opportunity to handle dogs I had seen in the ring, sometimes winning, more often not, and making my own assessment. It was enjoyable but more importantly it was a responsibility. I was only a very small little nut in a big piece of machinery, people like Mr Brace are the machinery, their views can make or destroy a breed. If they make those decisions honestly and without prejudice brilliant, however, I am not so sure now. There are huge amounts of money swilling about, opportunities to travel abroad, in all have a ball at the cost of DOGS. Not for the dogs benefit. Why do I say this, the relaxation of quarantine has enabled very wealthy people to travel the globe, dragging their poor dogs behind them just for the glory of winning a cheap piece of card that gives THEM kudos, not the dogs. The irony being the initial wealth swells because these people breed on and on and on because the judges keep rewarding them. The destruction of the breed is sadly born. The dogs would be happy being dogs, NOT SHOW DOGS. No anon, I advocate that those genuinely interested in dogs and who show and breed for a hobby should be encouraged, but the breeders who have produced the dogs shown above should be removed from the forum and invited back when they breed a dog of a breed that can function as a dog. You'd be more than welcome to pop in for a cup of tea and leave covered in dog hairs and slobber filled with the charm of two dogs who live life to the full with their screwball of an owner. Don't be hostile and angry with us, but be hostile and angry with the breeders of the above dogs, see what we see, it is difficult to appear to be sanctimonious, and I apologise for appearing thus, but I do love dogs and to be without dogs in our lives now and future generations would be a travesty.

      Delete
    17. Anon 08:38 so your suggestion is to get other andom people on a blog to breed dogs themselves? And that is better than trying to enforce change at a grass root level by promoting the fact that much more education is to be targeted at people who continue to breed and show dogs with complete disregard for their health and welfare.

      Thanks but it isn't a constructive suggestion. Neither is suggesting that people actually waste their precious time here on earth judging the appearance of exaggerated and mutant dogs,

      Give us a break.....

      Delete
    18. I think the best thing to do would be to aim to get enough signatures to get it discussed at parliament,

      Do you want to stop dog showing?

      Do you want to prevent people breeding for form not function?


      Do you want a future where dogs are bred to genetically enable them to live a life free from pain and to be temperamentally able to live easily in the 21st century?

      Do you want dogs to be protected from people whose only interest lies in profiteering in selling?

      I do.

      Delete
    19. then breed your own healthy happy dogs and promote them to the public. Why is that so difficult. . Instead of "preventing people" do it BETTER and convince the public that your dogs are healthier happier and will live longer than any other dogs. Tell them that they can only know about your dogs by some underground system that allows them to "find' you because there is no venue for you to see the dogs. Run those show dogs out on a rail.. Tell the people how great your dogs are. Whelp as many litters of fabulous dogs as you can so that the unhealthy ones will die out.. people WILL have dogs so be the driving force that makes sure they get only the best YOUR DOGS. Of course you time spent here will be limited as your hands will be much more busy and covered with blood sweat and .. yes some tears as you progress along your quest to produce the "super dog" of your dreams. You will hold a bloody placenta in stead of keyboard. You will get to post many late night posts as you stay up watching you "super dogs" for night after night. Your clothes will be ripped and torn.. you back account depleted by vet bills and dog food your washing machine and dryer ( if you have one) will wear out much faster than a non breeder of super dogs.. and many other sacrifices will need to be made to create your super dog. The one thing you may not do by law is profit in any way after all the public deserves a super dog produced by you for free.
      I do agree that we should stop people breeding for form and just breed them for function.. much better for society

      Delete
    20. Anon 1716, it may need to be the way forward and Aussie has started the ball rolling with her suggestions. Personally it would be a shame to ban dog showing altogether but it needs reformation, yes to paragraph two, yes to paragraph 3, definitely yes to paragraph 4. Concise and precise, the way forward................

      Delete
    21. "Do you want to prevent people breeding for form not function?"

      Yes I most certainly do.do Please start a petition and bring this very important point up bring this up at Parliament.. LOL that is the very best comment on this blog..ever..

      Delete
    22. Why do you find it so funny, Jan?

      Delete
    23. "... prevent people breeding for form not function" LOL surely you got a laugh out of that .. one thing I have always appreciated in the British sense of humor.. oh well if only Monty Python were still together..what a sketch that would be..

      Delete
    24. I don't find that statement funny. But I find it pretty sick that you do...

      Delete
    25. prevent PEOPLE breeding.. get it? never mind humor alludes most of you on this oh so serious blog where you cure all of the problems of the world with a petition..

      Delete
    26. Well, something has to be done to stop you crazy narcissists from continuing your relentless cruelty campaign. Although I do think that preventing you from breeding yourselves is cruel and extreme. However, a petition certainly isn't going to change the world's problems, but it might help further raise awareness of your idiotic behaviour against dogs. See what I did there!!!

      Delete
  6. I read the article you linked to above from Dog World & was struck by the following quote:

    "Although showing dogs is today, in truth, more about chasing challenge certificates, ribbons and points than it is about preserving breeds, the show ring should remain the breeders’ shop window."

    He couldn't have stated it any clearer!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've long thought that show judges (in both the cat and dog fancies) are primarily abusive toward the animals in encouraging unchecked breeding of deformity and rewarding it - something that translates into titles and sales of "sought after" bloodlines while maintaining the status quo.

    Heavens above! To actually rock the boat in the show ring would bring down the wrath of the breeders who have spent tens of thousands of pounds/dollars/ etc. in establishing their "breed program". (i.e buying in the latest bloodline fad and mating it to some other import in order to get the latest round of show awards, while flogging the offspring to well-placed judge pals).

    Does anyone else consider that this is in fact an utterly pointless exercise? Show wins are not objectively judged and owe as much or more to "paying your dues" or moving in the right circles, than anything to do with the animal. The erratic nature of the show win speaks volumes of the level of mindless subjectivity. So what's it all for?

    Human entertainment and making money out of animals. At least in the case of breeders of working dogs, a case can be made for breeding for purpose in the field, but I'm at a loss to understand how breeding only for shows bears any relationship to "goodness" or improvement of the breeds. History shows the clear degeneration of many of the breeds when it comes to fitness of purpose.

    And then we have show judges (they do have an overinflated opinion of their value to society, don't they?) pontificating on about how hard it is to judge properly, let alone actually trying to keep the resident vet happy.

    I suggest Brace is withdrawing because of the embarrassment potential of rewarding unhealthy dogs - the next thing we know, people would be asking how a "top judge" could continually be rewarding deformity, and we can't have THAT can we?

    It's the same as having a "standard of points" which we are assured is "objectively" judged against (to make things sound scientific). But go and ask a show judge to generate a points percent score and record it publicly and they back away. Why? Because next week they'll come up with a completely different number - and they don't want to be backed into a corner by exhibitors demanding answers as to why the judging scores differ so widely in the course of a few days.

    Let's stay vague, shall we? Show judging is a joke.

    Bully for you - keep up the good work Jem!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *clap clap*

      You just said everything I think/feel about when "show judges" comes to mind. THANK YOU.

      Delete
  8. Oh the irony!

    ..."dripping in breed type"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's thick with imagery - the imagery of the dripping skinfolds the judges adore so much.

      Delete
    2. actually many judges prefer the "slinky " look like your name .. thick with imagery

      Delete
  9. He is so right judges are not Vets and should not pretend to be so. So he's more or less saying here that dogs are judged aesthetically. 'Similarly Vets should not assume the mantle of dog judge.' Why would they want to? They judge on the health of the species in front of them and it's functionality. 'Neither has been through the training required of the other.' He's so right. Vets are qualified by universities who have had to go through a Royal Charter or Act of Parliamnet to be recongnised as awarding bodies. The Kennel Club Judges? They are qualified by exams set by the Kennel Club. Who sets these exams? The prospective judges' piers. Has the Kennel Club a Royal Charter or Act of Parliament acknowledging them as an awarding body? No. But correct me if I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you do realize that many vets also show dogs? and that many judges are also vets. or then again maybe not..if some vets "judge on the health and the functionality (sic) of the animal" then they would not be recommending castration and complete hysterectomies for puppies..which many of them do on a daily basis.

      Delete
  10. Andrew Brace, that's a nice bit of God Complex you got going on there.

    ReplyDelete
  11. We should just ban conformation showing altogether. And not just for dogs, but also for cats, horses, cattle, sheep, lizards, turtles, goldfish, etc. All these groups do is screw up animals, and then whine when we try to prevent that. It's insane.

    All we really need is types, not breeds. It's fine to have a sighthound type, a husky type, a retriever type, and so on. But all this business of closing registries and breeding for looks does a lot of harm. Even if they breed away from certain disorders, so long as gene pools are small, other conditions will inevitably crop up. Just scrap the whole system. It's harmful to the animals, and leads to arrogance in people as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is the best thing I read all they! Breed healthy, functional dogs for type, not for looks.

      Delete
    2. again I say NO ONE is stopping you from doing just that.. what is holding you back? I know one person who posts her on occasion who breeds "sight hounds" as mixes of various breeds and also some pedigreed dogs. I admire her for that. She does her own thing so why can't you do the same? You can do as she does and step right up and breed the husky type as most do for the Iditarod or sight hound types as she does..or retriever types if you hunt birds and would like a flat coat/ Irish cross or any other you prefer pick your favorite type and breed it..I prefer terriers .. so I breed them.. I do not see a need to cross breed them but if i did I would do it no matter what anyone said. You can also do this.. no problem. so far we are still able to breed any type of dog we prefer and that includes you as well. So get to it..

      Delete
  12. Yes Jemima captures it in one word, judges are "REVOLTING"! I couldn't stop laughing (:

    The twisted mindless drivel of Mr Brace leaves me weak with disbelief.

    I don't even have the energy to take on his 'argument', everything everyone has already said here luckily does it for me.

    But I do wonder quite honestly why (if I've got this right) the less than effective vet checks don't take place before any dog enters any "event" on the day, why only at the "finals" or BOB (best of breed) stage?

    How does a dog win "best bitch" or "dog", "puppy" etc looking like a train smash?

    Imagine you get your deformed dog through with much sick excitement only to find when its about to possibly get the BOB trophy they suddenly inform you it has an infection and you and your dog are tossed aside. It's humiliating. No? When they've supported you all along on the happy days parade of dysfunctional mutants?

    This is all sending very mixed messages, what a muddle. Dogs should be vetted and scrapped or put through the minute they walk in the door?

    Two queues, "deformed showing obvious signs of infection" a one way exit, "KC approved deformities alive on the day" into the ring the other?

    No glum faces that the wind damaged eyeball-less sack of skin hobbling across the ring doesn't get its BOB for its owner.

    No hyper ventilating judges making fools of themselves.

    Though I would still have liked Andrew Brace to throw in the towel, it's judges like these nobody needs least of all dogs. More should take his lead even if their real reasons for doing it are completely insane.

    Surely?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think RiverP that when dog showing was originally undertaken the people were nearer to the grass roots of dog ownership, their function and the points that were essential for that dog to function. i.e. A pointer with bad feet is unable to quarter over moorland and will break down, a Labrador with a soft coat will become chilled in cold water and will break down, a greyhound that is too heavy set cannot jinx a rabbit etc etc. So in essence, poor conformation was seriously looked at and was the primary concern when placing dogs at a show. i.e. a pointer with an over dished face but beautiful feet and sound movement would be placed over a lovely gentle wide nostrilled headed pointer with hare feet because that pointer would not be able to perform, whereas the one placed above could, not so pretty to look at but functional. And obviously the large kennels that existed have diminished, ownership spread over a wider base, more influence from different objectives and the downfall of a breed comes into place. I am not saying that a breed in one person's hands was good, diversity must come into play, but when the people who become interested in a breed, far away from why the breed was established, then beauty, or perceived beauty is going to become their main focus. On their sofas they will want to see pretty dogs, cute dogs, hairy dogs, wrinkly dogs or whatever because they have become disassociated from the dog, as a dog. They see a more exaggerated form as the best possible form. It becomes an accessory, it becomes egotistical, it becomes a status symbol. When I look at some of the gundog breeds they are a travesty, American Cocker Spaniels, for heavens sake. Ridiculous coats and poppy eyes, the danger for that dog to be let loose in a covey of gorse, broom or heather is cruel. The dog is willing to do it but to breed with such extreme is just plain cruel. Dogs so heavily boned, dogs with so much excess skin, etc etc etc is disgraceful. So, of course, the KC had to be seen to do "something" and some nitwit thought vet inspection after judging would calm the masses and they can have one of their back slapping congratulatory parties. In some ways Mr Brace is correct, the vet checks are a mockery, but what Mr Brace has forgotten is that he and his like have been placing and rewarding those dogs owners' for their animal husbandry and producing generation after generation of typical, bred to standard, dogs (ie cripples). He and his like are accountable for the photographs of the dogs above because they have been seen to publicly condone such appalling breeding practices. That is why I find his statements so full of hypocrisy because in reality if he and his like had refused to place any animal that came into the ring with conformation of those above then he and his like could have transformed breeds for the better. They could still be heavy, long, hairy, whatever, different in type but able to run, and bark, and see, and hear, and eat, and live a full and active life of quality. Not what we see and it is all so sad. He and his like have the dog world sewn up in essence, they too have self congratulatory meetings and views, and if one of them had been honest and decided to stand away from the crowd and place dogs honestly, pedigree dog showing would be in a much better place. This nonsense of "making a stand" about vets is ridiculous because in essence he and his like created the need for them in the first place because of their blinkered, greater than thou belief. They are responsible, his writing is a load of tosh and hot air and he really needs to read what he has written, it so shallow and insincere, and as stated before so upsetting for those of us who really love our dogs whatever shape or form. We just plain love them.

      Delete
    2. Georgina, you don't know how right you are!

      Delete
    3. Couldn't have been put better! Thanks!

      Delete
    4. Yes I of course agree with all of that Georgina.

      In fact we have to accept that a lot of dogs don't have a job in the field anymore, though and will no longer be capable. Certainly not show lines. The Show American cocker spaniel shouldn't be expected (no matter what they say) to tear through goarse ridden thicket, it's a pet breed in its showing form, with a perfectly respectable job of being a charming and hopefully active healthy functional pet and companion.

      Healthy happy doggie etc. It doesn't matter one ounce in fact if it can't flush racoons or whatever they flush out there in America.

      " His desire to hunt renders him a capable gun dog; he covers territory speedily, flushing game and retrieving only when under command. He takes to water readily ." AKC

      Of course you have to trash all the hype you read describing them because its all a pack of fairy tails.

      However where it gets mucky is in the fact that they are not actualy suitable to do the job of being a pet and companion, because of health issues.

      These are brought about by linebreeding, exaggerations, closed registries leading to genetic impoverishment, a situation allowing for random diseases. Leaving breeders questioning wether its indeed Gawd thats responsible, before time began and all that weirdness. The silent calamity that was always etc. And indeed it might be but the truth is it is a calamity and no longer silent.

      There are chances for every breed to be wrecked absolutely and equally so.

      Im less worried about health checks when the dog is already fundamentaly flawed a non-starter. Certainly the only thing we are doing is siffting for any tiny traces of remaining gold residue untill all we are left with is a pan full of grit to call a dog. As when you start excluding individual dogs for hips for example you make things even worse till you get "genetic drift", which isn't as romantic as it sounds.

      I dont know much about the American Cocker Spaniel used in this example except from what I've read on the internet of course, but there could of course be working lines too. I would be pleasantly but also mightily surprised if there were.

      Back to the subject of the revolting vet for a moment, I mean the revolting judge.

      I get that the vet check at the end for a BOB is a sad attempt at ironicaly perhaps "fair play" by the KC.

      That is it should go something like this (not sure it does but it should) ....

      ......We know the dogs are a complete train wreck but we dont want to discriminate against breeders exhibitors or put them off.

      We are going to have the vet check at the end so those dogs in this case with deformed eyes have the best chances of getting through.

      If after the end and getting their BOB those deformed eyes start playing up due to a badly timed and placed breeze for example well sadly that's it. Fair warning. (: However if the dog according to our vet doesn't start screaming in pain, eyes inflammed and weeping or discharging puss you can keep your BOB and go out and breed some more deformed dogs.

      Hopefully it becomes a popular sire in the process , as we would love to see even more and worse off dogs back in the ring in future..........we will give them the best chances too like we do for all dogs. The End

      Eyes of course are just the tip of the iceberg but manage those deformed eyes well on the day and Bob's your aunty?

      Happy healthy BOB winners all round? Maybe not.

      Delete
    5. "I dont know much about the American Cocker Spaniel used in this example except from what I've read on the internet of course,"
      the plural of anecdote is not data

      Delete
  13. Oh shame that poor little Peke it looks horrified to have won. "What are you thinking" I can hear it gasping. No oh no no no.

    Sadly it really just looks like it wants to faint.

    ReplyDelete
  14. That mastiff and those wrinkly bassets make me cringe...

    ReplyDelete
  15. The headline on this article says "Judges" are revolting. Is Mr. Brace alone in this revolt or is there a move afoot.
    I think it's great that he has stepped down from judging high profile breeds. I hope more judges who like exaggerated type will step down from more shows.
    I worry that this post puts all judges in the same category. I haven't been very involved with shows, but in my experience, some specialist judges in my breed (Labrador) are extremely health conscious and select for balance and moderation.

    ReplyDelete
  16. There is no fun in breeding dogs anymore and also judging dogs has a lot of negative points.
    Trying to work for health makes you be seen as a criminal who destroy the breeds!
    In judging: other judges tell you that you are to tough on the dogs and you must look more at the whole dog.

    Owners of the dogs tell you that you are a bad judge for putting more attention to the dog under the coat then to that smashing coat it has, and what keeps them busy day in day out to keep it in good show condition. (Poor dogs)
    Breeders? well they do not want to sit with you in a car or little room anymore because you work on improving head shapes. You may not touch their dogs just to pet them for the same reason.

    Having two projects under hand: The Griffon Puppy Skull development Project and the Graussie ( Griffon x Australian Terrier)Project in which I try to help science to understand more about CMSM has had a big influence on my judge invitations and the way breeders behave towards my bred Griffons.

    I am a breeder and a judge and no vet, as long as I respect my judgement in my own breeding and my own judging I should also respect the judgement of a vet. There is no room for Ego’s nowadays we all need each other, vets, judges, breeders, science and also puppy buyers who should demand healthier dogs too.
    All together we should not be arrogant, by only working together we can try to make our pedigree dogs more healthier then it is today! To my opinion this kind of statements do not help our goal at all.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Bravo Henny !

    Yes, we need a way to work together. And that can only happen with common interest...Not by dividing our interests.

    Aussie

    ReplyDelete
  18. What a beauty the Crufts 2013 Basset hound is! It would be lovely to see more like him in the future. If judges choose compassionately and wisely I’m sure we will.
    It’s sad that Judge Andrew Brace is in a position to help category 3 breeds yet chooses to give up on them instead. I don’t know any true dog person that would give up on dogs when still able to be of service to them.
    It seems that in this case the ‘show’ is more important to the judge than the dogs themselves. Judges should be able to see dogs as more than just representatives of a breed, they are living souls trapped in the forms we create for them. If category 3 breeds are failing vet checks then the judges and breeders of these breeds could protest like Mr. Brace has done or go home and study how best to preserve these breeds with healthy features. It’s obviously not an impossible feat, the 2013 Crufts winning Basset hound is testament to that!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't see how judges or vets will be ever choosing "compassionately and wisely" when they are so revolting.

      These are old school judges. Basically it will take time to get rid of them all, certainly the ones that believe pain and suffering due to intentional deformity are "only minor faults".

      Its painfully obvious that they all need to be thrown out with the bath water, the whole shebang!

      Andrew Brace is obsessed with type, the wrong type. He doesn't seem to realise that.

      You see you can't correct eyes with so much free skin hanging off a dogs head, you can't correct breathing difficulties with such deformed faces.......the issue is that the type is wrong ergo the whole dog is wrong if its eyes are a gapping mess of exposed raw conjunctiva and it's tripping over its own epidermis.

      It doesnt help if it is super typey, its the typey that is super incorrect.

      Stop worrying about slightly cow hocked or a little bit leggy or maybe a shoulder is a trifle straight or there is ticking in the white or the tail is slightly gay these are the insignificant minor faults.

      Delete
  19. Jemima,

    Is there a way to set up a separate section on this blog for those of us who wish to work on a petition ? ( and maybe a supporting manifesto, I see no other way to keep a petition short)
    Thats if you are O.K with your blog being used for this purpose.

    It would be very useful to have a record of suggestions and wording we could refer back to. It would also make for an uncluttered access to whats gone before and allow continuity.

    Aussie

    ReplyDelete
  20. Good idea Aussie because it seems to me that the more revelations we see the more disturbing it is becoming for the future of dogs. PDE is well placed to set up a petition because I assume the reason for it's existence is to alert people to the mutation of dogs so one would assume that one is going to follow the other in the passing of time. It's inevitable really because there is no point in us all becoming anxious and frightened for dogs, crippled by our inability to act publicly, using words to release our concern when in reality doing something such as a petition to Kennel Clubs internationally or Governments will put the problem out into the public domain. It will make the public aware of exactly what they are buying into, not a breed but a whole lot of painful deformity. RiverP or Retrieverman, apologies I can't remember who, brought it home when he said of the little black pug, if someone had taken a normal dog face and snapped the muzzle in two that person would be in prison for cruelty. Don't you think that that is a horrible analogy but is so painfully accurate it actually hurts to write the words. The public need to know the truth of the dishonesty in breeding pure bred dogs.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I hope Ronnie Irving is able to instigate change from within.

    I do think the Kennel Club could be doing more. I would prefer the Swedish KC to be held up as an example, as they are far ahead of Britain.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I think this is a good idea. Better for change to come from within an organisation rather than be forced upon....however, no point ranting on here feeling helpless forever either...

    Jemima''s input would be invaluable here and she has to be supportive of this too.

    I would say that we need to be very clear about what it actually is we want to change. There has to be a defined action - either through regulation/legislation/enforced action on organisations. Otherwise, it won't get taken seriously...

    ReplyDelete
  23. The action I want is a say the direction domestic dogs take in their future evolution. As a dog owner, I have a stake in this. We all do.

    What is standing in my way is the rule that says K.C members can't cross breed.

    Not that I want to join, but because I believe that rule stands in the way of environmental influence on the K.Cs, and K.C influence on us. That means you and me.
    We are the environment the K.C exist in. And supposedly for, unless they want to drive breeding for us unwashed over to commercial breeders and just buy and sell amongst themselves. Its where they are headed.

    If the K.Cs are to adapt with the times, there has to be room for input not based solely around purity.

    There are other things I'd like to change over time, but this rule is the single most damaging cause of problem both in and outside of the K.Cs. Getting rid of that one rule gives us a foot in the door so to speak.

    P.D.E shows perfectly just one of the reasons the current system isn't working. There are lots more, and they don't all involve pedigree dogs.

    The reasons all involve domestic dogs. Its single species with a shared origin. The origin is what our predecessors bred for. They bred for their own specific purposes, in their own specific environments, for the qualities they valued most.Tried and tested in their own backyards.

    They did such a good job that way they became distinct types for distinct purposes.Those that did the best, most reliable job, or made us happiest were bred.If enough people valued the resulting pups, their line would continue until people didn't value it any more.

    The K.Cs were formed to improve on what we all together created, and took the "WE" out the equation with the stroke of a pen.

    Its not what "we" want. Its what they want as long as cross breeding isn't permitted by their members.

    Most good breeders believe they joined the K.Cs because they want to improve their breeds, and have their best interest at heart.

    There are many good breeders. They believe the K.Cs stand for quality, knowledge, history and best practices.
    They can't see thats been corrupted. As long as that 1 rule is in place, a pedigree CAN"T stand for those things. Because that single rule says implicitly that the 1st thing you need to be even an acceptable breeder is a pedigree as proof of purity.

    One rule. It says mixed lines can't be good. If closed lines are good, more closed lines must be better. Refinement of type.

    And no one who is acceptable to the K.C has any chance of showing them different because its not permitted.

    As long as the K.Cs protest about backyard breeders and lay the blame for problems at their door, they work to undermine all domestic dogs. We share common foundations. There is no us and them. Pedigree dogs were created by "backyard" breeders.

    So what I want before anything else is that single rule abolished.

    Aussie

    ReplyDelete
  24. Georgina, it is horrible beyond words.

    These are not the dogs I want. I don't want to be told my choices are to be restricted to a list of predictability if it doesn't include any sort of reliability.

    If we can change that rule, it removes the separation of priorities and the fixation on purity should follow.

    Aussie

    ReplyDelete
  25. Mrs. Dickinson7 June 2014 at 13:55

    How can a dog be 'dripping in breed type' but unable to walk? Surely this situation would never occur? Is Mr. Brace suggesting that it might be possible to have a dog that fits the breed standard perfectly and yet can't actually walk? Shurley shome mishtake (as they say in some quarters)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Well, good riddance, Mr Brace! May more judges of his ilk follow him and stop judging.
    Now imagine a conformation show for humans, dogs judging, and Mr Brace being shown in the 'beauty' contest... Temperament will be considered as well!

    ReplyDelete
  27. The question is: How do we get more of the judges who wont see and understand to quit?

    ReplyDelete
  28. This is one reason why change is so slow, dinosaurs don't adapt quickly - if at all. We can't follow the leaders anymore - the leaders are going the wrong way. We try to show them their errors (Sir, you are holding the map upside down.) but all we get is "Don't question my opinion, I have been doing this this way for decades" and "What problem, I don't see any problem".

    ReplyDelete