Canine Alliance - new balls please...

The Canine Alliance - an alternative logo

Everyone's mantra should be: don't listen to what people say... watch what they do. 

I find it sorts the wheat from the chaff.

Last week, the newly formed Exhbitors' Canine Alliance was whinging about being misunderstood. That was because some of us out here reckoned that the fuss this sub-section of the show-world was making about the vet checks at Crufts was all about preserving a status quo that tolerated exaggerated dogs being exhibited at dogs shows, and had nothing to do (despite the claims) with truly wanting to promote health and welfare in showdogs.

And I thought, fair enough... Maybe I was a bit quick to diss them... maybe some good can come out of it. So, let's give them a chance.

So like everyone else, I have awaited eagerly for news of the outcome of the CA's meet with the KC on Wednesday.  So what happened?

First up, came news that there was to be a joint press release from the CA and the KC.  The CA seemed very pleased about that - hailing it as some kind of historic precedent (when in fact the KC frequently issues joint press releases with other organisations - such as the BVA for example).

But, yesterday, the promised press release failed to materialise, apparently because the two organisations couldn't agree on the wording.

Never mind. The CA instead released the four-page presentation that Mike Gadsby delivered at Wednesday's meeting. And, boy, does that make for depressing reading for those of us hoping that the CA might rise to the occasion.

Gadsby is being lauded for it elsewhere, but why waste so much time in a 90 minute meeting to reiterate gripes that the KC were already fully aware of - rather than use the time to thrash out some common ground and a proper way forward?

In amongst a few fair points, Gadsby makes some bizarre logic-deficit claims - one being that the breeders of the DQd Basset couldn't possibly have produced a dog with a problem because... they are ABS breeders.

Funny! (And not least because if there's anything most of us have in common it is the agreement that the ABS is next to useless because anyone can join it and be given lovely impressive certificates without proper checks - only 15 per cent of ABS breeders have ever been visited.)



In there too is the claim that the vets had not been instructed in the finer points of the highlighted breeds' standards (ie. that Basset Hounds and Clumbers are supposed to have a little ectropion - after all, how else can you achieve that desirable lozenge-shaped eye?).

But I have to say that the thing that I really took exception to was the repellent inference that the independent Crufts' vets Alison Skipper and Will Jeffels were "activists against our sport".  There is absolutely no evidence of this - and indeed a good deal of evidence to the contrary.

Really, they're going to have to do a LOT better than that if they want to be taken seriously by anybody outside the show world.

Finally, this afternoon, the joint press release arrived. And I'm sure the CA will try to put a brave face on it. But it's pretty much a fob-off. The KC has made it absolutely clear that it is not suspending the vet checks (which has prompted some on the Exhibitors Voice and Choice group to start calling for Chairman Steve Dean's resignation because, after all, he's a vet isn't he and so is probably half way to being an animal rights activist himself?).

The KC has of course also said it will listen to any proposals the Alliance would like to present (it would be rude not to), but if there was a real commitment on both sides to finding a compromise here, the wording would have been completely different.  As it is, the ball would appear to be in the CA's court to come up with something the KC might find acceptable.

The problem being, however, that at the moment, the CA's racket is full of holes.

UKC leads the way in the US with breed standard revisions

Well this is interesting.... The United Kennel Club (UKC) - the only serious rival to the American Kennel Club (AKC) in America - has taken the bull by the horns and revised six of its breed standards, with six more to be added next month. The reason? It is alarmed by "the paths of exaggeration that many breeds have taken" and feels a "moral duty" to do something to address the problem.

As opposed, that is, to sticking fingers in its ears and singing la-la-la in the hope that it can continue to breed dogs to standards that clearly - in some cases - encourages dogs that will suffer from health and welfare problems. Yep, I am referring to Dennis "NEVER!!" Sprung and the other diehards at the American Kennel Club.

I met UKC President Wayne Cavanaugh in the US at the Purebred Paradox conference last year, and was impressed by his contribution to the workshop that followed the conference. He clearly got that there was a problem in some breeds and seemed keen to be involved in helping to put things right.

There is much about the UKC that I like - including that it long ago accepted the registration of the LUA Dalmatians; that professional handlers are not allowed at its conformation shows; and that 60 per cent of its events are performance-related - not just the usual agility, obedience and field/hunting trials but other events that 'ordinary' dog owners can participate in, such as Dock Jumping and Terrier Racing.

I hear two main criticisms of the UKC. The first that it is a commercial registry and that it does not contribute to canine research in the way that the AKC does; the second that it sometimes talks a better game than it walks.  But it's doing well - with registrations on the rise (while the AKC's are dropping)
and it clearly appeals to many for being a lot less stuffy than the AKC - and increasingly, for representing  - as its tagline says - "real dogs for real people".

So far, the UKC has changed six breed standards, which come into effect on May 1st, 2012 - the Alaskan Klee Kai, Barbet, Basset Hound, the German Shepherd, Peke and Shar-pei.

Some highlights:

BASSET HOUND
Old standard
General appearance:  A short-legged, long-bodied, well-balanced hound of considerable substance, Any good hound color is acceptable. The coat is short, close and smooth, and a certain amount of loose skin is desirable.

New standard
General appearance: A short-legged, long-bodied, well-balanced hound of considerable substance. Legs are short, but with enough length to afford proper movement at all times. Bone is heavy in relation to the size of the dog, but movement is not compromised and is not clumsy. Any good hound color is acceptable. The coat is short, close and smoth, and a certain amount of loose skin is desirable. There must be adequate clearance between the lowest part of the chest and ground to allow the dog to move freely over all types of terrain.


This is a working hound and therefore must be strong, active, and capable of great endurance in the field.


Working dogs are not to be penalized under any conditions for scars or vlemishes that are due to hunting injuries.


Serious fault: dewlap so exaggerated or excessive as to appear "sloppy", which would be a detriment in the field. Excessive wrinkles. Overweight.

The new standard does, however, still allow for the third eyelid being visible ("although not excessively") and it does also still specify a lozenge-shaped eye - which may be incompatible with the new disqualifying fault of "entropionism/ectropionism".

GERMAN SHEPHERD

Old standard

...From the pasterns to the elbows, the forelegs are straight and strong with oval-shaped bones. The pasterns are strong and supple, sloping at about 25 degrees. 

New standard

...From the pasterns to the elbows, the forelegs are straight and strong with oval-shaped bones. The pasterns are strong and supple, sloping no more than 25 degrees.

Serious Faults: Pasterns slanted more than 25 degrees. Pasterns so long and weak that proper movement is compromised.

Old standard

....The croup is long and sloping.

New standard
...The croup is long and slightly sloping.

Serious Faults: Any measure of a roached back. Shelly appearance.

Old standard

 ...The rear pastern is short and strong. Powerful hindquarters are necessary to enable the effortless movement that is an essential feature of this breed.

New standard

...The rear pastern is short and strong, and should remain upright and functional. Powerful hindquarters are necessary to enable the effortless movement that is an essential feature of this breed. Rear pasterns should remain upright and functional.

Serious Faults: Over-angulated rear, with anything exaggerated beyond a mild slope. Rear pasterns so long and weak that proper movement is compromised.

Old standard 

Correct gait is an essential feature of the German Shepherd Dog. When trotting, it moves with a long, efficient stride that is driven by a powerful forward thrust from the hindquarters. The rear leg, moving forward, swings under the foreleg and touches down in front of the point where the forefoot left an imprint. The result of this “over-reaching” is that one rear leg passes outside its corresponding front leg and the other passes inside its corresponding front leg. This is a breed characteristic and should not be penalized as long as the body is straight in relationship to the direction of movement. As the rear leg moves backward, the body is propelled forward. The front and rear feet remain close to the ground throughout. When trotting, the back remains firm and level. As the speed of the trot increases, there is a tendency to single track. Correct movement must be evaluated from front and rear as well as the side. 

Serious Faults: Any fault that affects correct movement is a serious fault.

New standard

Absolute soundness of movement is paramount.

Correct gait is an essential feature of the German Shepherd Dog. When trotting, it moves with a long, effortless, efficient stride that is driven by a powerful forward thrust from the hindquarters. The rear leg, moving forward, swings under the foreleg and touches down in front of the point where the forefoot left an imprint. The result is that one rear leg passes outside its corresponding front leg and the other passes inside its corresponding front leg. This is a breed characteristic and should not be penalized as long as the body is straight in relationship to the direction of movement. As the rear leg moves backward, the body is propelled forward. The front and rear feet remain close to the ground throughout. When trotting, the back remains firm and level with no superfluous vertical movement. Hocks should be strong and straight, turning neither in nor out as the dog moves. There should be no visible “wobble” to the hock. Neither front nor rear pasterns should strike the ground; this is an unacceptable exaggeration and an indication of incorrect movement. As the speed of the trot increases, there is a tendency to single track. Correct movement and soundness must be evaluated from front and rear as well as the side.

Serious Faults: Any fault that affects correct movement.

PEKINGESE
Quite a few changes here, including the addition of:

Absolute soundness and proper muscle tone is a must. Excessive coat is unnecessary. Head properties should remain free of exaggeration so as to not compromise breathing and/or obstruct normal vision.

And..

It should be free of respiratory distress caused from excessive face/nose wrinkles or insufficient nostrils and able to move freely and soundly. In proportion it is slightly longer than tall.

Old standard

MUZZLE - Short and wide, with a firm underjaw. There is a wrinkle, either continuous or broken, that extends from the cheeks to the bridge of the nose in an inverted ‘V’. The wrinkle should not obscure either the eyes or the nose. The black lips meet evenly and fully cover the teeth.

Serious Faults: Heavy wrinkles that hang over the nose. Teeth or tongue showing when the mouth is closed.

New standard

MUZZLE - Must be evident and allow for comfortable breathing. Proportionately short, in comparison to the size of the dog, and wide, with a firm underjaw. There is a wrinkle, preferably broken, that extends from the cheeks to the bridge of the nose in an inverted ‘V’, without being excessive or affecting the dog’s breathing. The wrinkle should not obscure either the eyes or the nose. The black lips meet evenly and fully cover the teeth.

Eliminating Faults: Heavy wrinkles that affect breathing and/or obstruct normal vision. Muzzle so short as to affect breathing.

The breed standard changes are not perfect, by any means:

 Inexplicably, the new GSD standard adds as a disqualification: "nose not predominantly black".   (Could someone in GSDs enlighten me to whether this is anything more than a cosmetic issue?)

The new Shar-pei standard has added "excessive wrinkling on the head in adults" as an eliminating fault, but the standard still calls for small, deepset eyes and "extremely small" ears - both of which can cause problems. (The UK breed standard, in comparison, while still demanding very small ears, asks for medium-sized eyes, and while the UKC standard refers to a "hippopotamus"  muzzle,  the KC breed standard asks only that the muzzle is "slightly" padded.

And, actually, if the UKC really wanted to lead the way, it would encourage the breeding of the traditional, and almost wrinkle-free "bonemouth" Shar-pei rather than the Westernised "meatmouth" with its excessive wrinkling.

But it's a start... and a smart PR move by Wayne Cavanaugh - but not just that; for I did truly get the impression that the UKC President feels strongly on this issue. Most of all, of course, it surely puts a lot of pressure on the head-in-the-sand AKC to follow suit... ?

The press release that announced the UKC changes appears to be offline at the moment, so here it is in full.

The United Kennel Club, Inc., is first and foremost a worldwide registry of purebred dogs, but we feel our moral duty to the canine world goes beyond maintaining data. We are alarmed by the paths of exaggeration that many breeds have taken, all of which directly affect the health, function and performance of those breeds. It is an elemental fact that these breed changes have developed unchecked as a result of fads and fancies, as well as a lack of accountability on the part of breeders, owners and judges.

UKC feels something must be done to address this problem, and we are willing to do our part, hoping the canine world will follow suit. Toward that end, we have decided to revise all of our breed standards to reflect that goal. Breed standards are viewed as a blueprint to which dogs are to be bred. UKC believes that breed standards are more than that, and we will be including directives to breeders, judges and owners.

All of our breed standards will now include the following introductory statement: “The goals and purposes of this breed standard include: to furnish guidelines for breeders who wish to maintain the quality of their breed and to improve it; to advance this breed to a state of similarity throughout the world; and to act as a guide for judges. Breeders and judges have the responsibility to avoid any conditions or exaggerations that are detrimental to the health, welfare and soundness of this breed, and must take the responsibility to see that these are not perpetuated. Any departure from the following should be considered a fault, and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion to its degree and its effect upon the health and welfare of the dog and on the dog’s ability to perform its traditional work.”

In addition, each breed standard will be updated to include problems specific to that breed in order to clarify the direction to be taken when they are encountered.

All of these breed standard revisions reflect the foundation of the “UKC Total Dog” philosophy. The exponential growth in “UKC Total Dog” events is living proof that dogs can have the health, temperament and conformation to be excellent representatives of their breed. We understand that breed standards are left to subjective interpretation and are not a panacea on their own; however, combined with UKC Total Dog events and our UKC Judges Education program, they are a natural extension and essential continuation of our commitment to the future of purebred dogs.

The United Kennel Club, Inc., is very serious about this project and encourages all dog breeders, judges and owners to follow suit. As each standard is updated, it will be posted on the UKC website, www.ukcdogs.com, with its effective date.

Good Dogues

Cheer up - it's good news!

Some excellent news from the Dogue de Bordeaux Club of Great Britain... It is not up on their website yet, but yesterday the Club announced on its Facebook page that it was initiating both a health survey and a new health-testing scheme for the breed.

The Dogue de Bordeaux club of Great Britain are constantly looking at ways to improve the health of the Dogue de Bordeaux for the betterment of the breed for future generations. 

We feel that health testing is the way forward and will endeavour to do everything within our power to ensure members are well informed about health issues and the progress made. 

With this in mind, we are pleased to announce a new scheme which we will be launching at the Limit Show in May 2012. 

The scheme we hope will promote responsible ownership and provide an information portal for the all to use. 

The Dogue de Bordeaux Club of GB will be holding regular seminars to help inform all of the current health issues within the breed and possible ways to eradicate them.

The Health Testing Scheme

The scheme will be made up of 3 tiers (a further tier will be added after a health survey is carried out) and a certificate of recognition will be awarded according to the health tests that the owner wishes to carry out.  

We will have all dogs that have participated listed on the clubs website in their respective group.

BRONZE AWARD 6+ months
The dog must be micro chipped
Have a full vet/health check (forms will be provided by the club)

SILVER AWARD 12 + months
The dog must be micro chipped and DNA profiled
Have a full vet check (forms will be provided by the club)
BVA Hip Score and BVA Elbow Score

GOLD AWARD 12+ months
The dog must be micro chipped and DNA profiled
Have a full vet check (forms will be provided by the club)
BVA Hip Score below 25
BVA Elbow Score 2 and below
Clear BVA Eye Test
BVA Heart Test

 This is a great start. Excellent!

The crux of the matter

There was a really telling moment at the inaugural meeting of the Canine Alliance two weeks ago - as revealed in Dog World's  excellent filmed coverage of the event.

A couple of others have mentioned it too so here it is. It's the moment when Heather Storton of Dereheath Bassets stood up and told the meeting that the vet that failed her dog at Crufts said to her: "I am judging this dog as a dog, not a Basset Hound".  As you'll hear, there is laughter. 

And when Mrs Storton says that she doesn't think that any any Basset that had gone into that room would have passed the test, the crowd claps supportively.

"The breed standard that is in place for Bassets...I cannot produce the animal they want me to take into that veterinary room," insists Mrs Storton. " I cannot produce a lozenge-shaped eye that will get through that exam."

Have a watch:



I've pulled it out because I think it illustrates the crux of the matter.

Heather Storton makes it plain that she is breeding Bassets first, and dogs second and this reflects how many show breeders feel. However, most people outside of the show world would see her dogs as dogs first, and Bassets second. 

Just before this bit of the meeting the Canine Alliance's Andrew Brace had told how he had tried to persuade the KC that the judge should be present for the vet checks so that they could explain the finer points of the breed to the vet should there be a query. So presumably:

Vet: this dog has ectropion...

Judge: oh no, they're supposed to be like that

Vet: but it's a problem.. it means the eye doesn't function properly

Judge: no, no... it's a breed feature. It wouldn't be a Basset Hound without it.

The whole mood of the meeting is that it isn't the dogs that should change - it's the vet's view of them that is wrong. Whereas "out here" it's perfectly obvious that it's the breed standard and the dogs that need to change.

There's an extract from a letter in this week's Dog World saying much the same. Headlined:  "Weep for the Basset's future", the correspondent writes:

"The fact is, the Basset is not a normal dog. On the contrary it is a unique and very special hound. It was bred originally to be used as a slow moving flushing hound and the fact it has loose skin was for a purpose - to enable it to go into dense undergrowth without ripping the skin. 

"Given the loose skin, it is inevitable that a degree of haw can be expected to be seen in the eyes. And as such, this is a breed feature. I do acknowledge that excess are to be discouraged.... but for the vet to state that she looked at the breed as a 'normal dog' suggests to me a huge amount of ignorance on the part of somebody charged with such an important job."

The breeders will admit that, yep, the exposed haw does sometimes cause problems but it's manageable and not a big deal for the dogs. For me, the Basset is being asked to give up his rights to a normal functioning eye for a totally arbitrary breed standard - a choice I am not sure it would make itself.

We are back, again, to "where do we draw the line". I don't have the answer but know that the discussion needs to be had.And had again and again and again until we find some concensus that allows us to keep and treasure our dog breeds without compromising their health and welfare.

"A bit too much haw..."

When I blogged two weeks ago re the Basset Hound Ch Buzzed Lightyear at Dereheath being disqualified at Crufts, it created a lively discussion in the comments - with a couple of contributions from a top American Basset breeder "outraged" by what had happened.

In the main, US Bassets are much less exaggerated than many of the dogs in the UK showring, so I googled to see what this breeder's Bassets were like and found she currently had a litter of pups on the ground with, well, frankly the worst eyes I had ever seen.  I posted a link. In my heart, I hoped the breeder would admit that the eyes were bad and say it was something she was worried about and trying to breed away from , but no. Her response was: "...the litter you have commented upon has probably the least chance of developing glaucoma of any dogs in the US due to a great deal of research, careful breeding and a lot of money spent. Frankly, if you give me a choice between eliminating glaucoma and a bit too much haw showing...well the answer should be clear to anyone I think. I've NEVER known of a Basset going blind from ectropia and/or a lot of haw but I could name way too many who have gone blind from glaucoma."

As several people commented, it should not be a case of either/or.   Anyway, the breeder has now taken her website down and I've had a few people wanting to see the pictures write in to say the link is no longer working.  Suspecting that the site might become unavailable in the wake of the criticism, I cached the pix at the time, so for those who want to know what we were talking about, here they are.

It makes me incredibly sad to see these pictures. Have we really lost our way so much that anyone can really think this is all right?

 

Able Mabel

Meet Mabel... snapped recently by someone who sent me pictures of her as an example of an athletic young Bulldog. 

For comparison, here's a top UK show bulldog.

 And a closer look at those profiles..

Mabel

Showdog

Now when I first saw the pix of Mabel I assumed she was a cross, but it turns out she is KC-registered and was bred by a KC Accredited Breeder.

So which do you prefer? While you're making up your mind, here are some more pix of young Mabel (about a year old now) romping in the park... Yes, a warm day and she isn't panting.

Crufts vets - on the record

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

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

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

"Henceforth, vets will be asked to carry out these checks on the high-profile breed winners at all championship shows. The process is quite clear: the KC health team has produced an excellent illustrated booklet, which concisely states the areas of concern for each breed. We are not meant to judge the dog as a specimen of its breed, but merely to evaluate it to establish whether any visible aspect of its conformation or soundness has led to health problems that compromise its welfare. This examination is quite straightforward for any experienced general practitioner, and we both found that our decisions were quite clear-cut, for various reasons, in every dog that we examined on this occasion.

It would, however, be advisable if any vet who is likely to be undertaking these veterinary checks in the future to contact the KC to discuss the criteria for these inspections. Some conflict and confusion has arisen with regard to some failed dogs having clear eye certificates, which has been clarified by the statement made by Ian Mason the chief panellist for the BVA/KC/ISDS eye scheme.

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

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

Alison Skipper, Surrey Will Jeffels, Staffordshire