Cavaliers: too little, too late

I meant to include this with the post marking the death of Carol Fowler's Cavalier, Rosie.  So here it is. As the commentary says: from creation to ruination in less than 100 years.

The message has, I'm glad to say, got through to puppy buyers re this breed - KC registrations have halved since the film. 

There was a time, perhaps, when an international effort might have saved this breed. But not now. 

It is too late.

LUA Dalmatians... still the Clubs resist

The Dalmatian Clubs in the UK have blocked an attempt to have the results of a key DNA test for the breed listed on Dalmatian pedigrees.

Four years ago, despite breed club opposition, the Kennel Club agreed to recognise LUA Dalmatians (those dogs that had at least one copy of a gene that ensures the normal production of uric acid). A year later, the AKC followed suit. It was a real victory for common sense.

The problem? 'Regular' Dalmatians don't have a normal copy of a gene that controls the production of uric acid. They only have a version that results in high uric levels which makes them very vulnerable to blockages/stones in the kidneys/urinary tract. These blockages can be painful and, at worst, life threatening.

The normal version of the gene (which exists in all other breeds) had been lost in Dalmatians somewhere along the line. But, in the late 1970s, American scientist and Dalmatian breeder Bob Schaible did an outcross to an English Pointer to restore the normal version of the gene to the breed. The LUA Dalmatians are descendants of this single outcross some 14/15 generations ago. Today, they are identical to any other Dalmatian, just blessed with a gene that prevents suffering from a significant problem in the rest of the breed.

But despite Kennel Club registration, and a growing acceptance within some in the breed, there is a diehard core of resistance in the upper echelons of the Dalmatian breed clubs. There are four in the UK and not a single one mentions the LUA Dalmatians on its website. There is also, very disappointingly, still mutterings ringside about 'mongrels' when LUA Dals enter the show-ring.

Recently,  LUA breeders Julie Evans and Dr Elizabeth Sampson wrote to to the Kennel Club to request that the uric acid status of the LUA Dalmatians be recorded on pedigrees.

The KC replied to say that for this to happen:

1) the DNA test had to be relevant to the breed
2) the Dalmatian Clubs had to agree

The first was a no-brainer. Litters from LUA parents can result in a mix of LUA and 'regular' pups, so LUA breeders always DNA test their pups to determine which ones carry the LUA gene - vital to ensure the onward survival of the gene in the breed.

So Evans and Sampson wrote to the Joint Dalmatian Clubs to ask for their agreement.

The response?

As you can see, it is an unequivocal no - plus they very rudely suggested that the LUA breeders find an alternative way to flog their pups.

But, of course, in doing so, it's clear that the Dalnosaurs know that LUA Dalmatians are more marketable.

Evans, Sampson and the other LUA Dal breeders all have waitings lists for their pups because the public, at least, recognise that they are healthier dogs.

For here's a thing: it isn't just that the LUA Dals don't form stones. There is a lower rate of deafness in the LUA dogs than in the rest of the breed - most likely because LUA Dal breeders will only breed from bilaterally hearing dogs with brown, not blue, eyes.

How about that?

Mission accomplished - a Pug with no muzzle at all

Click to enlarge

Spotted today... a pug puppy with a totally flat face - in fact (if you take away that nose roll) a concave face. Also note the discharge and tearing from the pup's eye, probably due to medial entropion -  a common-enough pug problem.

I have no idea of the provenance of this pup. Could be show-bred; could be pet-bred; could have come from a puppy farm. But it takes pretty determined selection to achieve something so unnatural; so terribly dysfunctional.

No one, anywhere, should be breeding dogs to look like this.  The person buying it should be ashamed of themselves, too.

And if you're struggling to find it as horrific as me, just think back to where it all started; of where a wolf's nose is in relation to its eyes.

Then look again at this Pug.

We did this.

And here's what it looks like from the inside - Pug on the left; a typical normal dog on the right. 

Ronnie Irving - voice of America? Voice of reason?

The prevailing view amongst the Fancy re the recent HBO Sports piece on purebred dogs was that it was a hatchet job. (Watch it here).

The AKC - so terrified of outside scrutiny that it filmed HBO interviewing its representatives - released out-takes which it claimed showed that HBO had twisted the interview but which in fact just showed the AKC reps looking shifty and unable to answer a direct question. (See that here).

Now former KC Chairman, who writes a column for Dog News in the US, has waded into the fray - but instead of bunkering down with the Fancy over those horrid media types with an agenda, Ronnie says the AKC must do more.

He writes:

"All of that rhetoric is just fine and is likely to impress those of the dog fancy who are already convinced that the anti purebred lobby is made of nothing but crazy animal righters. It is found to give a warm feeling to the fancy and is undoubtedly a very effective way of 'preaching to the converted' - that is to those of us who have already committed ourselves to taking part in the sport of purebred dogs and are already convinced that dog shows can be used as  positive lever for change in the interests of canine health and welfare. But does it pass muster with the rest of the world consisting of ordinary members of the general public or even with people who own dogs as pets?"

Ronnie goes on to not just accuse the AKC of rhetoric, but of complacency. He thinks the AKC is:

• wrong to have issued such a vehement statement against the introduction of vet-checks in the UK
• wrong to refuse to oversee the rewriting of breed breed standards that encourage exaggerations, and • wrong in doing nothing to remind judges of their duty to put up sound dogs.

Both the UK and the FCI have moved with the times, says Ronnie, and yet the AKC hasn't, leaving it very vulnerable to charges that it is not doing enough. The HBO piece he suggests, was a car wreck waiting to happen.

Read the whole thing here... it starts on Page 18 of Dog News - this edition of which boasts a cover picture which I reproduce here because it makes me laugh... as if a man proudly gazing off into the distance holding a ponced-up poodle called Pearl is somehow noble.

Related post: AKC sticks knife in - to itself

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 5:58pm 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:  • Breeding Better Bassets • Best of Breed Basset Crufts 2014 • Basset Hounds - An Eye on the Future • Basset Hounds - A Request • Wrinkled  Skin, No Legs and Willies that Drag on the Floor • A Bit Too Much Haw

And the Saints go marching on

The St Bernard that failed a vet check a fortnight ago has now passed a vet check just two weeks later.

I blogged last week about the St Bernard who failed the check at the National Champ Dog Show two weeks ago. (See here.)

Vet John Goodyear failed the bitch (Chandlimore On The Bottle) on the grounds of eye pathology which included small eyes and - judging from pictures of the dog - poor overall eyelid anatomy.

But, last weekend, the same dog won the Bitch CC at the Bath Championship Show and owner Tan Nagrecha elected to have the dog vet-checked (it is only mandatory for BOBs but he needs a pass for the dog to be made up to a champion).

Lo and behold, this time the dog passed.

What on earth is going on here?

I have no doubt that many in the show-world will use this to ridicule the vet checks. (The Canine Alliance has already waded in here). That's because most have hated the vet checks from the start, especially those in the breeds effected.

But, though flawed, the vet checks have proved to be be a powerful driver for change. There's a long way to go but we are - in the main - seeing less extreme dogs in the ring among the "high profile" (now called Category 3) breeds.

The answer, then, is not to scrap the vet checks - it's to make them more robust.

Yes, yes, but what happened here?

Here's my take on it:

The vet at the National was John Goodyear - an eye specialist.

The vet at Bath Champ Show was Chris Laurence - not an eye specialist - and, as it happens, a vet with a very long association with the Kennel Club/dog shows.

Did Laurence allow his relationship with the Fancy to over-ride common veterinary good sense?

Before you leap to an answer, here's the confounding factor:

Laurence failed the Best of Breed Saint - a dog called Bernmont Heathcliffe owned by Pat Muggleton - on the same day. 

So here's what I think happened.

First, there is an element of subjectivity in all veterinary opinion. That's always going to be the case.

Second, I suspect Laurence was going by the book more than Goodyear.

This specific book is written by the Kennel Club and it makes quite clear that a vet cannot fail a dog on the evidence of pathology/poor conformation alone (because, let's face it, otherwise whole breeds would fail every time). The rules state, then, that there has to be evidence that the pathology is causing grief to the dog on the day - eg conjunctivitis, lameness etc.

The problem with the BOB dog on Sunday was, apparently, evidence of "mucous discharge" and excess tear production (epiphora). This would suggest sore eyes/irritation.

But if the report in Dog World is to be believed, vet John Goodyear failed the bitch at the National purely on poor eye-conformation.

Laurence appears to have stuck to the rules at Bath in passing the bitch CC. After all, he is pretty withering about the BOB he failed -and St Bernard eyes in general - telling Dog World:

"This dog had epiphora [excess tear production] in both eyes and discharge in one eye,” he said. "The problem with St Bernards is that they all have a degree of ectropion; it is a general issue with the breed, and this makes it more prone to any sort of eye problem. If you put a dog with ectropion in a situation where the eye becomes stressed and vulnerable that dog is likely to fail. 

"When I do these checks I say to some owners to be careful because one day the dog will fail because the eyes are not normal; either there is ectropion or entropion or a degree of both and that makes it prone to eye disease. That’s why we do the checks.” 

Mr Laurence said the KC had set down rules which state that if there is any sign of epiphora the dog should fail. "The real point is that if the dog is showing signs of eye disease it should fail, and if it’s not showing signs of disease it should pass,” he said. "That’s how I understand the KC rules, which are pretty explicit.” 

Of course, if  I was the bitch's owner, I would be inclined to take John Goodyear's opinion as the expert one and think very carefully about breeding from the dog.

But I imagine that Tan Nagrecha is cock-a-hoop with the result.  His bitch now has two CCs... only one more and she she will be made up to a champion and will soon, no doubt, to be the bearer of a new generation of saggy-eyed Saints.

Because that vet check fail can now be erased from history. 

The KC's rules state the following:

0. Any dog from a breed designated by the Kennel Club as Category Three on Breed Watch will not have its title of Champion confirmed until the dog has passed an examination by a General or Group Championship Show Veterinary Surgeon. The result of the examination shall be final.
   

You might think that would preclude Chandlimore On the Bottle from ever being made up to a champion. But it doesn't. "Final" only refers to the vet check on the day. There is nothing to stop a dog subsequently winning and passing a vet check at another show and for that to count towards the dog's championship.

It doesn't matter how many times the dog fails. Just one pass is enough.

Of course it's possible for a dog to go lame or bash an eye on the day... but a lame dog or one with a sore eye should be withdrawn from competition.

Just imagine if failing just one vet check was enough to prevent a dog ever being made up to Champion?

My guess is that it would lead to a very rapid improvement in conformation.

Hilariously, btw, the owner of Bernmont Heathcliffe, the BOB that failed his vet-check, puts the excess tear production down to the fact that it was "windy".

Says owner Pat Muggleton: "I wouldn’t take a dog to a show if it had bad eyes. The vet said my dog’s eye was a little bit wet but it was very windy where we were being judged. There’s nothing wrong with his eyes; his father and uncle were made up."

But here's his dam - Bernmont Sophie (who, incidentally, was bred without ever being hip-scored - a mandatory requirement for all St Bernards under the Assured Breeder Scheme)

I am not sure, then, that Pat Muggleton should be entirely surprised that this dog's son does not have perfect eyes - or indeed perfect hips. Bernmont Heathcliffe's hip score is a high 19 (9/10).

28/5/14: edit to correct that this picture is of the BOB's dam, not sire.

Silky Terrier Club claims *not* docking is unethical

A natural tail? How very dare you!

Nine members of the Silky Terrier Club of America have filed a complaint against three others, claiming that they have violated the Club's Code of Ethics by breeding, registering and showing dogs with natural tails.

The ridiculous case is highlighted in The Dog Press. On an accompanying blog, Maggie Keuser, one of the breeders named in the suit, claims the Club also tried to make the national club specialty judge sign an addendum to his contract to not put up a dog with a tail - "because he had awarded a tailed dog a BISS and they didn't want it at their specialty".

The anonymous author of the Dog Press article is, fortunately, on the side of sanity.

"Is this a frivolous action on the part of the Directors of the Silky Terrier Club of America? The Silky Terrier AKC Breed Standard, approved 1989, says  The Breed Standard does not require docking ...nor can it! According to AKC Rules no standard may require, mandate, or otherwise prescribe docking or cropping of ears or tails. Do you interpret the sentence referring to "docked" as nothing more than an observation that the tail is usually docked? No penalty is stated for natural tails. There is not even the usual disclaimer such as any deviation should be considered a fault, etc. 

"There is considerable debate on the necessity of cropping and docking for the conformation ring. Indeed much of the western world, including Europe where many of our breeds come from, does not allow tail docking or ear cropping. American breeders are exercising their right, preference and choice for natural ears and tails and some clubs have handled the cropping/docking debate better than others. It is hard to fathom that the American Kennel Club would allow a Club with AKC-approved By-Laws and an AKC-approved Breed Standard to entertain a Code Of Ethics violation for failing to crop or dock.

"The current trend toward importing natural ears and tails, coupled with breeder refusal to crop ears or dock tails has affected all breeds that have descriptions of docked tails or cropped ears in their standards. The cropping-docking debate has caused much in-fighting among clubs, destroyed friendships, and generally damaged the reputation and integrity of the sport over an issue which some consider strictly cosmetic and others consider mutilation."

If internecine breed club wars are your thang, you can follow the debate here.

The Dog Press blog reveals, among other gems, that a law suit brought against the Brittany Club of America to amend the breed standard to allow Brittany Spaniels with tails to be to be shown failed four years ago. As a result, the current breed standard in America still states: "Any tail substantially more than four inches shall be severely penalised."

I was also interested to see mentioned this statement from the English Springer Spaniel Field Trial Association (despite its name, this is the AKC parent club and conformation showing is a big part of it).

"Springer enthusiasts, both field and conformation, dock tails for utilitarian function and to reinforce the breed’s moderate, balanced outline, consistent with proper breed type as defined in the standard. 

'A docked tail is required by the standard, and natural tails are not customary. For this reason, the standard provides no description of the correct carriage of a natural tail.
Judges are advised that the presentation of the English Springer Spaniel with a natural tail is inconsistent with the breed standard. In the United States, therefore, a natural tail is a fault. It is not, however, a disqualification.

"Judges are encouraged to evaluate positive attributes of breed type first and then measure the impact of individual faults on that overall evaluation. 

"Please note: With regard to the length of docked tails typically seen, conformation judges should be aware that conformation exhibitors leave approximately one-third of the tail’s length, while field trial exhibitors approximately two-thirds. Exhibits in field trial and hunting classes may have longer, though docked tails." 

Lovin' the irony in the fact that conformation breeders in the US cling to a shorter-docked tail in the Springer than the working folk on the basis of "utilitarian function". In fact, a fair few working breeders of ESS in the US no longer dock at all (although many do still here in the UK where there is an exemption from the docking ban for working dogs).

I'm a little off-topic here, I know. But if the Fancy wants to survive, it needs to recognise that frivolous lawsuits like this will send it spiralling into the abyss faster than any animal rights activist.