# Signs of the times at Crufts



## sweet viola

I know I am new to this, but that sounds fantastic to me! Healthy consistent dogs should be the goal, at least imo.


----------



## Keithsomething

Why do people see this as a good thing...do you honestly think that something like this will fix problems?

It won't, all they have done is taken 3 breeds and removed their chance to be represented in the group ring...its a farce to make people stop saying they aren't doing enough about health.

Stricter rules governing breeding would resolve health issues,
vet checking ALL of the class not just the BOB would discourage unhealthy dogs from being shown,

both just as difficult to implement as this whole scam yet with much better results...

WELLLLL thank gosh I live in the states and our Breed Clubs have more control over what happens at shows than what happens in the UK!

Will people like it as much when its their breeds that are chosen to be ostracized? 

(now THIS is something that has been caused by PDE, and Jemima should be happy...or she should health test her flat coated retriever like the KC says all flat coated retriever owners have to do...and hers is 10yrs old and has yet to have those tests done ;D)


----------



## sweet viola

ok, so this might be inflammatory so I sincerely apologize if this is a hot button topic...

What do you think about allowing plastic surgery on conformation show dogs with over exaggerated features that cause medical problems. Like Pekinese that need nasal surgery due to the exaggeration of its nose placement? 

Since this is breeding stock, it seems like the dogs should be able to be bred and produce puppies that don't need medical treatment?


----------



## Keithsomething

I don't think thats infalmmatory (asking questions never is!)

I agree with you, unhealthy dogs shouldn't be bred...but I don't think just ONE dog should be vetted and the others ignored...why not vet them all? 

This is IMO a halfassed way of controlling breeders...when breeders should be governed by their breed clubs and themselves (and only punished through the KC)


----------



## Sapphire-Light

Keithsomething said:


> I don't think thats infalmmatory (asking questions never is!)
> 
> I agree with you, unhealthy dogs shouldn't be bred...but I don't think just ONE dog should be vetted and the others ignored...why not vet them all?
> 
> This is IMO a halfassed way of controlling breeders...when breeders should be governed by their breed clubs and themselves (and only punished through the KC)


Sadly  looks like not all AKC breed clubs control breeders, look at the mess at westmister that a breeder won BOB wit a rough collie that is the son of a double merle who is blind AND deaf Westminster Rewards Cruelty


----------



## sweet viola

@keithsomething: I am sorry-I probably should have explained better that I wasn't asking that question to justify the OP, but just b/c that is a burning question I have about show dogs in general after seeing one of those "expose" type shows on dogs that have had corrective surgery, but are still able to be shown as ideal and become champions AFTER the surgery.

Yeah, it seems to me that if the AKC wanted to, they could require testing and disqualify from the RING any dogs that don't meet those standards, before it becomes as extreme as the OP case.

but again, I completely understand that there are many nuances of which I am uneducated about.


----------



## fjm

I absolutely agree that more needs to be done, Keith, and I would prefer to see all dogs vet checked before they are allowed to compete. The UK Kennel Club has something of a reputation for giving way to Breed Clubs/preferring to work by persuasion (depending on your point of view). This is at least a small signal of change, and I am prepared to C&T it, and hope it is maintained.

Meanwhile the campaign to stop the KC registering puppy mill litters continues!


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

I and a few of my breeder friends think it is about time!!!!!!!!!!! Too bad it took a documentary for the KC to see the light, but this is a step in the right direction! I hope they start doing this with every breed where we see significant change in structure and maybe breeders with begin to get the message. Stop messing with things for the sake of what we perceive to be beauty. When we takes things to where an entire breed of dogs cannot be bred naturally or whelp without a C-section, things have gone way too far!


----------



## Keithsomething

I want to correct everyone, you're all giving credit to PDE...that rubbish had NOTHING to do with the changes the KC is implementing. You're giving credit to a woman who deserves NONE...that silly little woman jumped on a bandwagon halfway through the station and made a crappy documentary (full of lies and innuendo that the gullible public took as the golden truth!).

The KC has had the Breeder Scheme idea mulling around since 2000...PDE came out in 2008 (I think >.>)..so no it didn't make that happen
IF it has caused anything its this stupid idea that ONE dog can be vetted by ONE vet and that removes the chance of ANY breed representative in the ring

(OH and for those of you who say that ALL bulldogs are sickly...watch this video ;D)


----------



## Keithsomething

Vets should NEVER be allowed to have a ruling decision in structure...and if anyone feels thats right then maybe that shouldn't be breeding. Unless that Vet happens to be a judge they do not know the breed standard and have no idea how to correctly judge that!!

Again, I'm happy I live in North America and breeders here wouldn't ever allow this to happen

First they came for the docked breeds and I did not have a docked breed so I said nothing. Then they came for the short nosed breeds and I did not have a short nosed breed so I said nothing. Then they came for the short legged breeds and I did not have a short legged breed so I said nothing. Then they came for my breed and there was no one left to speak out for us


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

Keithsomething said:


> Vets should NEVER be allowed to have a ruling decision in structure...and if anyone feels thats right then maybe that shouldn't be breeding. Unless that Vet happens to be a judge they do not know the breed standard and have no idea how to correctly judge that!!
> 
> Again, I'm happy I live in North America and breeders here wouldn't ever allow this to happen
> 
> First they came for the docked breeds and I did not have a docked breed so I said nothing. Then they came for the short nosed breeds and I did not have a short nosed breed so I said nothing. Then they came for the short legged breeds and I did not have a short legged breed so I said nothing. Then they came for my breed and there was no one left to speak out for us


The rules of the show are that if the dogs are lame or cannot breath they can be pulled. Obviously, one, the other or both were discovered in these dogs.

The people who should not be allowed to breed are those whose sole concern is the prestige of a win, with little or no regard to the quality of life of the dogs involved. Pretty dogs that turn heads that cannot breed naturally, cannot whelp naturally, cannot breath, are at risk of flying,...these are the folks who should not be breeding.


----------



## fjm

Keith - PDE may well have simply crystalised something that was already well known in certain circles (the BVA had been asking for change for years), but it certainly pushed it into mainstream thought in the UK - I don't know about the US, as I don't live there. It was not a perfect programme, nor has the response been perfect (far from it), but it has caused a shift in thinking on what is considered acceptable, and what is not, and has educated many, many dog owners and puppy buyers. I think it is unfortunate that questioning some breeding practices has in some circles reinforced the stigma against breeders in general, but I still think the overall effect is positive. 

I would not dream of saying all bulldogs are unhealthy - or all pugs, german shepherds, or even cavaliers. But I think they have been bred to a conformation standard that predisposes them to a range of physical problems - from brachycephalic syndrome in pugs and bulldogs to mitral valve disease and syringomyelia in cavaliers - and that the incidence of those issues is such as to make it everyones concern that breeding practices should change - and vets, who are frequently asked to perform surgery to improve the quality of life of these dogs, have every right to be part of making that happen.

There was a very nice example of a bulldog bred to the revised standard on the Youtube video about the very issue of vet checking at Crufts.


----------



## Keithsomething

What I'm trying to say is this. As breeders its OUR responsibility to check ourselves first, we need to regulate what is going on in our breed before it enters the ring. Then it is the judges job to chose the best example of the breed compared to the standard...a vet should never play a role in that (if a dog is clearly ill than the show vet should be called over to inspect it) they do NOT have the knowledge of the standard that breeders and judges do!

I want to say that the dogs that were kept out yesterday haven't had their vet reports made public by the KC...why? Because its MY opinion that THIS bulldog (photo attached) and this clumber (video attached) failed only because the KC NEEDED breeds to fail...you can't send a dog around the world and then at ONE show say it can't breathe going around the ring...yet it was able to fly half way across the planet from Croatia? Doubtful

Cumber Spaniel


----------



## Sapphire-Light

Keithsomething said:


> What I'm trying to say is this. As breeders its OUR responsibility to check ourselves first, we need to regulate what is going on in our breed before it enters the ring. Then it is the judges job to chose the best example of the breed compared to the standard...a vet should never play a role in that (if a dog is clearly ill than the show vet should be called over to inspect it) *they do NOT have the knowledge of the standard that breeders and judges do!
> *
> I want to say that the dogs that were kept out yesterday haven't had their vet reports made public by the KC...why? Because its MY opinion that THIS bulldog (photo attached) and this clumber (video attached) failed only because the KC NEEDED breeds to fail...you can't send a dog around the world and then at ONE show say it can't breathe going around the ring...yet it was able to fly half way across the planet from Croatia? Doubtful
> 
> Cumber Spaniel


About the clumber, he has double ectropion, I don't see anywere in the standard that clumbers need to have ectropion, so a vet cannot tell what is ectropion but only judges can? in order to get their license do judges have to study medical problems like in a vet school?

This pic was posted in another forum :

http://www.dogworld.co.uk/shopimages/products/normal/mainsite/certificate.jpg

The breed standard:



> Eyes: Clean, dark amber. Full light eyes highly undesirable. Acceptable to have some haw showing but without excess. *Free from obvious eye problems*.





> DISQUALIFYING FAULTS.
> •	Any dog clearly showing physical or behavioural abnormalities shall be disqualified.


----------



## Rayah-QualitySPs

fjm said:


> If the pressure is maintained, it is going to force major changes in how dogs are bred for the conformation ring, in the UK at least.


The Kennel Club of England announced *one year ago* that there would be vet checks for 15 high profile breeds. The press release which is available at Vet Checks For High Profile Breeds At Crufts 2012 And Championship Shows Thereafter - The Kennel Club goes on further to state:

The guidance which we will issue to Show Vets will focus on clinical signs associated *with pain or discomfort* which will come under the main headings of *external eye disease, lameness, skin disorders and breathing difficulty*. The show veterinary surgeons will be looking for signs such as *ectropion, entropion, corneal damage, dermatitis, breathing difficulty* on moderate exercise, and *lameness*. The fifteenth breed is the Chinese Crested where the principal issue will be the presence of *skin damage arising from hair removal *and thus signs of clipper rash or chemical insults to the skin will be looked for.

The top breeders of these fifteen breeds had ample time to health check the dogs eyes and show only dogs that could CERF, or were not lame or could not breathe. If breeders blame the ring/light conditions at Crufts then the breeders are admitting that their dogs are *not physically fit to show*.

If there were breeders at Crufts with dogs who have provable eye disease - would not pass a CERF - and these breeders are breeding them *the shame is for the breeders* who are *perpetuating these diseases* not the Kennel Club. 

In my opinion I think this is a *great step in the right direction*. As for the need to do this for all dogs think back to racing - only the top race horses are tested for drugs. More power to stop *unethical breeders who deliberately show and champaign dogs with health issues* that can be readily seen.

The Poodle Club of Canada has refused for years to *require members to health test* providing only lip service to the issue of Poodle Health. The CKC could show they care about dogs by just *enforcing the rules they already have* - i.e. against foreign substances in coat and the drugging of dogs.


----------



## Fond of Poodles

*Well said Rayah! *If you don't mind expanding though, what are you referring to when you say "drugging of dogs", this is new to me.

Keith - as per the video you recommended in regards to "healthy bulldogs". The breeder is putting a major effort into improving his breed, producing dogs with smaller heads that can whelp naturally. However, it also states that his dogs are not being recognized by the judges yet. It states that it will take time and a newer/younger (and IMO better educated) class of judges to recognize the healthier structure. This leads me to believe that the dogs that are winning are the snub nosed, large headed dogs who cannot be whelped without a C section. So no, not all bulldogs are unhealthy, but they sure aren't the ones being put up in the ring! Isn't the purpose of the ring to determine healthy breeding stock? In this case, that purpose is not being served.

As an aside, what purpose does docking a poodle tail serve? Other than esthetics? We do it because it looks nice, because a tailed dog will not be put up by some judges, we have a better chance of "finishing" a dog without a full tail. The standard states the "tail may be docked", yet the majority of judges will fault a dog with a natural tail (unless it was bred in the UK or other countries where docking has already been banned.

I wish they'd have 2 classes for poodles, natural and "done up", lol, then we'd all be happy. I love the classic look and beauty of a sprayed up poodle, but honestly don't feel that it represents anything other than "bling" in the ring. Good hair, wiggies and a pro groomer/handler are not indicative of a structurally healthy dog.

Sorry - Rant over, lol!


----------



## fjm

I have made no secret of the fact that I would love to see poodles shown in a short retriever clip, that really emphasised what shapely, athletic dogs they are. The fancy clips can look fabulous, but they do perpetuate the idea that the poodle is a frou frou dog, and we all know they aren't! 

I absolutely agree with Keith that breeders should be ensuring the health and quality of dogs that are shown and bred - the problem, surely, is that in many breeds the idea of what fits most closely to the standard has become more and more extreme, until breeders - and even standards - accept as normal significant and known health issues such as visible haws (Clumber spaniels), screw tail (straight preferred in Bulldogs, but rarely seen), open fontanelle (Chihuahuas), etc, etc. It is well known that brachycephalic dogs have had a soft palate resection and still been shown - the owners claiming (and perhaps even convincing themselves) that it was a minor op for inflamed tonsils. Ditto eye tacking.

The issue is less one of deliberate fraud - I am sure there are some breeders who would do absolutely anything to ensure their dog wins, but I believe they are in the minority. It is more that these things have become the norm - as a long term breeder said in support of the disqualified Clumber spaniel, if that particular dog failed the eye test, then probably none of the show Clumbers could have passed. That is not an argument for changing or removing the test - it is a frightening comment on what selective breeding has done to the breed.


----------



## JE-UK

A big well done to the Kennel Club, and well done to Pedigree Dogs Exposed for shining a light on poor breeding practices/goals and the resulting unhealthy dogs.

Without PDE, the abuse would have continued.

In my view, the problems are all down to judges, who for decades have been awarding breed wins to unhealthy, unsound dogs. Judges are tightly linked to the breed clubs and their politics, and have shaped what breeders are breeding for. 

I see the Kennel Club's move as a "well, if you can't clean your own house, we have no choice but to step in." And the vet checks make it absolutely clear that judges are putting up unsound dogs. If breeders realise that no longer can they rely on judges to give unhealthy dogs a pass, that the dog may win the class but fail the vet check, they'll start breeding dogs that are BOTH healthy and fit the breed standard.

Update as of today:

Bulldog - BOB not awarded (judge put up CH MELLOWMOOD ONE IN A MILLION)
Neopolitan Mastiff - BOB not awarded (judge put up CH ITHANI)
Mastiff - BOB not awarded (judge put up CH SECRET CHARM AVEC DIBEST)
Clumber Spaniel - BOB not awarded (judge put up CH CHERVOOD SNOWSUN)
Pekinese - BOB not awarded (judge put up PALACEGARDEN BIANCA)


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

The Mastiff was the latest one pulled. Rayah...you are so right! These breeders have known for quite some time whay would be taking place at Crufts this year!


----------



## faerie

i don't really know much about the evolution of the poodle's structural shift w/ interpretation of breed standard, as i'm fairly new to this breed ... but i have seen the shift in the german shepherd dog even in the last 15 years (and omg it was not great then)

even then we had issues w/ extreme conformation and working shepherds. they looked different. the working dog's back wasn't so sloped. they weren't so "rickety"... my breeder was importing working dogs to try to keep to the standard and not go extreme.

however, w/ dog shows the look for the more sloping back has left this once noble breed suffering from spinal and hip problems. 

seelie and i are in obedience classes. there is a gsd in there who is a month younger than him (she's 10 mos to his 11) and she is so sweet and just a lovely dog ... but her backside movement? already she is wobbly on the back legs ... she can't do that wonderful pace that my gsd i had used to do. 

and more often police and military are turning to malinois for working dogs as the gsd has been so crippled. 

so yay. let's reel it in and not go so extreme.


----------



## PammiPoodle

I am so happy to hear about this. I don't see why a vet needs to know a breed standard to know a healthy dog. If that were the case I'd have to find a "Poodle vet" for Lumi! : P I think this is an excellent start to putting health and soundness back into the foreground of breeding practices! 

As far as the idea that breeders should be able to regulate this themselves, well, obviously all are not all doing that! Even the government, the system in charge of *our* lives, operates under a series of checks and balances. Makes perfect sense to me that the show world should, too. : )

Here's to a healthier future for all purebreds!! : )


----------



## JE-UK

The latest BOB winner to fail the vet check is the Bassett, Ch Buzz Lightyear At Dereheath.

That is now 6 out of the 15 at-risk breeds subject to vet checks that have failed to demonstrate the dog is healthy.

The designated 15 are Basset Hound, Bloodhound, Bulldog, Chow Chow, Clumber Spaniel, Dogue De Bordeaux, German Shepherd Dog, Mastiff, Neapolitan Mastiff, Pekingese, Shar Pei, St Bernard, French Bulldog, Pug and Chinese Crested.


----------



## Keithsomething

Just want to let you know that the clumber was just cleared by a opthamlic specialist! I'll post the results when I get them  told ya it was a sham


----------



## Keithsomething

Eye Exam results

There ya go... So a general vet felt that this dog has/had double entropian but a SPECIALIST feels it's eyes are clear? Hopefully the owner and breeder sues the KC for defamation and Loss of potential earnings!!!


----------



## Keithsomething

A message from the president of the American Kennel Club ^_^

Message from AKC


----------



## sweet viola

I am NOT a show breeder. 

But that statement makes me sad. A healthy dog should be the first standard, and then all the other standards can apply.

Otherwise, it's empty and meaningless, and people are rewarded for putting money before the animal.


----------



## JE-UK

Keithsomething said:


> Eye Exam results
> 
> There ya go... So a general vet felt that this dog has/had double entropian but a SPECIALIST feels it's eyes are clear? Hopefully the owner and breeder sues the KC for defamation and Loss of potential earnings!!!


I don't have much direct experience with eye issues, but the more I read about ectropion/entropion, the more horrified I am.

The dog's certificate is dated 2006; is it not possible that she went from okay eyes at that point to the ectropion the Crufts vet saw? Just from looking at photos, her eyes look to have what I'm learning is the characteristic v-shape of ectropion. 

I was pretty appalled to read on the site of the Clumber Spaniel Club of America that "Clumber eyelids are often "v" or diamond shaped, in accordance with the breed standard of conformation. Entropion may occur, but minor deviations of the lids may require only monitoring until full head maturation is reached (about two to three years of age). Ectropion is also sometimes seen, but *care must be taken not to confuse the normal, diamond shape of the lower lid with ectropion*. A properly shaped Clumber lid will often be looser than other breeds. Haw often shows. The proper lid, while loose, should not roll in or out, but *drooping in and of itself is not unusual*. Clumbers are supposed to have a lot of loose skin on their heads and faces."

Veterinary information sites all seem to agree that the v-shape or diamond eye is a clear-cut case of ectropion. 

The Crufts requirement is not that the dog be relatively healthy for her breed, but rather that she be a healthy DOG. 

I would think this can only be a good thing. I know the breeders of the dogs that were dq'ed are sure to be heartbroken, but the breeders who have been breeding less-extreme, healthier dogs must be rejoicing!


----------



## Keithsomething

you're incorrect JE-UK the test was performed yesterday March 12th, her BIRTHDATE is 2006...

Why would anyone rejoice at the chance for their breed being stolen from the? You're definitely mistaken watch the video...even the best puppy owner said that she can't believe that they're doing this crap...I can't wait to see the entries next year, I feel like this was Crufts way of tightening its own noose and it won't be worth anything next year... :]


----------



## fjm

I suspect that what we are seeing is the difference between a vet that sees a malformed eye, which by its nature is causing conjunctivitis, and a vet that is seeing an eye which is normal for the breed. What is surely at issue is that the breed standards have led to ever more extreme malformations, until they have become completely accepted by breeders, and by judges. Vets, in the UK at least, have been arguing for change for decades - why would anyone deliberately breed diamond eye into a dog breed unless it was rewarded in the show ring? The same for any other disfunctional trait. It is quite possible that the breed clubs will choose to distance themselves from the Kennel Club, and set up their own shows, etc, but if they do so they will be taking a stance that is opposing public opinion in the UK. The vast majority of people - including many in the breeding and showing community - want less extreme standards and healthier dogs. NOT the end of breeding pedigree dogs, not the end of specific breeds, but attention paid to health, function and longevity over arbitrary breed standards, by judges as well as breeders.

The Clumber breeder who said that if the winning dog failed the test, then none of the dogs in the class could have passed, summed it up for me - the trait is now so pervasive in the breed it is considered normal. And it is time to reverse that. 

We had similar "end of the world as we know it" claims a few years ago when docking was banned - a debate still going on in the States. And yet, just a few years on, everyone seems to have grown accustomed to dogs with full tails, and it is the docked ones that look peculiar. Three or four generations and we could be looking at dogs that are healthier and far closer to their original type. There is an old saying - "What you measure is what you get, and what you reward is what you get repeatedly" - this is an exercise in changing what is measured, and what is rewarded. If anyone wants to go on breeding for extreme features, there is nothing to stop them - but they will not be winning top prizes in British dog shows.


----------



## JE-UK

Keithsomething said:


> you're incorrect JE-UK the test was performed yesterday March 12th, her BIRTHDATE is 2006...
> 
> Why would anyone rejoice at the chance for their breed being stolen from the? You're definitely mistaken watch the video...even the best puppy owner said that she can't believe that they're doing this crap...I can't wait to see the entries next year, I feel like this was Crufts way of tightening its own noose and it won't be worth anything next year... :]


Very sorry, I misread it.

How is the breed being stolen? The KC is saying that breeding for extremes harms dog, and now they are enforcing this upon breeders and judges that can't/won't change. No one is saying that breeders need to breed out traits that define their breeds, just that those things that have been taken to such an extreme that the dog is no longer healthy will no longer be allowed to win at shows.

Anything that helps dogs live longer, healthier lives is welcome, IMO.

And again, if breeders and clubs can't police themselves, then I don't see that the KC has a choice. Purposefully breeding for a trait that means a dog is in constant pain, can't give birth naturally, can't breathe properly ... these are the crimes, not the KC's actions.


----------



## Keithsomething

The breed is having a chance stolen from it by not letting ANY representative into the group ring! To be perfectly honest NONE of those dogs would have when BIS over the dogs competing but its still absolutely disgusting to me that they weren't allowed to have a breed representative in the groups!

I'm going to stop trying to change peoples minds, it clearly doesn't work and it makes people believe that I want unhealthy dogs bred...so believe what you want but I can tell you that the KC shot themselves in the foot with this one...and when their entries for even SMALL shows starts to go down because of it we'll see if people still feel its a good idea (I've heard rumblings that a huge judge has intentions of starting an alternative kennel club similar to the UKC over here...hopefully its better established and a bit less of a mockery)


----------



## faerie

ukc is a mockery? please explain.


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

Keithsomething said:


> The breed is having a chance stolen from it by not letting ANY representative into the group ring! To be perfectly honest NONE of those dogs would have when BIS over the dogs competing but its still absolutely disgusting to me that they weren't allowed to have a breed representative in the groups!
> 
> I'm going to stop trying to change peoples minds, it clearly doesn't work and it makes people believe that I want unhealthy dogs bred...so believe what you want but I can tell you that the KC shot themselves in the foot with this one...and when their entries for even SMALL shows starts to go down because of it we'll see if people still feel its a good idea (I've heard rumblings that a huge judge has intentions of starting an alternative kennel club similar to the UKC over here...hopefully its better established and a bit less of a mockery)


Keith...that is quite a presumption...that NONE of those dogs had a chance of winning BIS? Isn't it supposed to be that the dog who most closely represents their breed standard wins? No politics, no nonsense...just the best dog wins? So, why wouldn't they have had a chance, if they had passed the vet check, of winning? Are you familiar with the breed standards for all of these breeds?? Basically, your comment just reinforces the idea of politics in the show ring, and if the best dog isn't necessarily given the opportunity to win, then why do most of us even bother in the first place?


----------



## JE-UK

Really, really, really trying to understand, Keithsomething!

The KC published (in great detail) the approach for the vet checks over a year ago, and it quite clearly says that failing the vet check means losing the BOB and not being able to advance to Group. I don't breed, and don't have close ties to the breed clubs, but I would think that if there were issues with the approach, they should have been raised then. It shouldn't have been a surprise.

_The dog declared Best of Breed / Best Any Variety Not Separately Classified from a breed designated by the Kennel Club as a High Profile Breed is not eligible to compete in the Group competition unless it has passed an examination by the Show’s Veterinary Surgeon. The Veterinary check is necessary in order to satisfy the eligibility requirements for the Group competition._

_Q. If the dog fails the check, is it still Best of Breed?
A. No, for High Profile Breeds confirmation of the Best of Breed award is dependent on a successful Veterinary check._

It appears that the breed clubs may have felt the vet checks would be a token exercise and weren't really concerned that the KC was serious. Which is unfortunate for individuals who were disappointed, but I still don't see how the vet checks damage the breeds.

Personally, I think the time for monopolistic kennel clubs may be past. I, for one, would love to see alternative registries, especially if they were focused on form and function rather than appearance. Like fjm says, if we could show poodles in a low-maint clip, I'd be in!


----------



## plumcrazy

Keithsomething said:


> I'm going to stop trying to change peoples minds, it clearly doesn't work and it makes people believe that I want unhealthy dogs bred...


Good decision, Keith. I would also suggest that people stop trying to change Keith's mind - this is one of those situations where we should agree to disagree.

Speak your truth quietly and clearly - maybe someone's mind will change - but the more you bash them over the head with logic, the less they're willing to listen.

It is my opinion that anything that will result in healthier dogs being bred is a good thing...

Carry on!


----------



## Countryboy

JE-UK said:


> Personally, I think the time for monopolistic kennel clubs may be past. I, for one, would love to see alternative registries, especially if they were focused on form and function rather than appearance. Like fjm says, if we could show poodles in a low-maint clip, I'd be in!


I'm for that!! 

Does London have any Sporting titles?


----------



## JE-UK

One of the independent vets at Crufts has issued a statement (and a really thoughtful, considered one). I can't imagine the level of abuse she must be getting. 

News >Dog World >Dog World Home >Dogworld


----------



## papoodles

*Vet Allison Skipper*

"Personally, I see nothing wrong in the ethical production of pedigree dogs, except perhaps for the argument that there aren’t enough good homes out there for the dogs there are already.."

Well, I don't agree with all her sentiments, but it is comforting to know that at least she's not throwing out the baby with the bathwater! But it is a slippery slope..


----------



## Keithsomething

JE-UK said:


> One of the independent vets at Crufts has issued a statement (and a really thoughtful, considered one). I can't imagine the level of abuse she must be getting.
> 
> News >Dog World >Dog World Home >Dogworld


Well when you sign on to bar a whole breed (from your singular opinion alone) from competing in group I think you better be prepared for the sh*tstorm coming your way...


----------



## Countryboy

I agree with u that she's the centre of a tempest, Keith . . but she has a lot of backers too.

Bulldog breeders have been merrily 'conforming' their dogs for many years. There can be no argument that their 'standards' have contributed to many problems with their breed. They had to know that . . but kept to their 'goals' of a dog that had a certain look . . . and to hell with any physiological complications that arose.

Now that the general public is finding out abt their actions . . we want something done abt it. The breeders haven't . . . for years! . . . so we will...

Crufts has listened to us. And began the process to force certain Clubs to breed a healthier dog.

I'm normally a friendly, chatty guy at dog shows. But I refuse to talk to, or even acknowledge Bulldog owners. I don't want to hear their 'but he's soooo cute' BS.


----------



## petitpie

*Delta Airlines restrictions.....?*

Pet Travel Requirements & Restrictions

I found "pug-nosed" dog and cat restrictions on Delta's website effective as of December 2011. Does this mean, ultimately, if breeders won't improve dogs' form and function for breathing, airlines won't fly them to shows?


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

petitpie said:


> Pet Travel Requirements & Restrictions
> 
> I found "pug-nosed" dog and cat restrictions on Delta's website effective as of December 2011. Does this mean, ultimately, if breeders won't improve dogs' form and function for breathing, airlines won't fly them to shows?


That is exactly what it means. This type of dog is prone to dying because of the pressure when flying. About time too. Maybe if enough goes on, breeders will be forced to do something about the quality of the dogs they breed.


----------



## rikkia

I applaud the vets for what they did. My only gripe is that the KC did not put EVERY breed under vet checks.

When presented with confirmation over health I seem to see quite a few people all up in arms about this, how it is a farce and a deliberate attack on breeders or breeds. The truth however is nothing more than these people are resistant to change. 

The argument that Breeders should self regulate is pure nonsense. Self regulation is a joke! Yes the die hard fanatics of a breed may well breed for health but they will always be in the minority. The majority will always be the people who breed purely for profit and good looks in accordance with the archaic notions of beauty will always win out against a dog that can be a heathy dog. 

One argument against vet checks is the breeders who fail will lose money. Damn right they should lose money from breeding unhealthy stock to other unhealthy stock for the sake of a list written in the Victorian ear about how a dog 'should' look. 

This is why I am not a member of any breed clubs because from experience they are nothing more than a group of people involved in 'e-pe*n one-up-manship' partaking in mutual self pleasuring over how a dog LOOKS.

As already said in this thread the Show GSD is so far removed from the Working GSD to the Show GSD's detriment and health.

Take the Pug...










It looks nothing like how it did before, the 'HOLY BREED STANDARD' came about, because its been bread over centuries to LOOK cute with a smaller muzzle all to the breeds detriment!!! Anyone denying that this is the case and that it is wrong is either blind, insane or just an idiot. 

Yes I own a Poodle but if Poodles had hips that were unable to support their weight I would happily buy a Poodle that did not conform to standard in favour of one that could walk.


----------



## petitpie

This poodle probably had good hips or it wouldn't have been taken hunting.


----------



## Keithsomething

And Rikkia...I could point you to several breeders of pugs that ARE doing it right and ARE winning with their dogs

For every breed mentioned here I can point out a dozen breeders that strive to breed healthy animals that ALSO conform to the breed standard. The 2 need to work together, yet when you speak to pet buyers and pet breeders one needs to be more important than the other to them...I have NEVER spoken to a person that shows their dogs and heard them say that they would take an unhealthy dog over a healthy one anyday

In poodles I see so many crappy breeders hiding behind "health" that they refuse to accept the conformational issues their dogs possess! Poodles shouldn't look like labs, yet because they're "healthy" they're bred indiscriminately!


----------



## NOLA Standards

Told myself I was going to stay out of this one...but here I am.

Consider.....

And this - granted - from a Louisianian - a State that takes corruption to the very highest (or lowest) levels....

Malachy - Westminster BIS - dq'd by a vet on da take.

Again, I won't list the many examples of greed and corruption broadcast daily on my local news channel - call me jaded...

But did not these animals pass a health exam for a vet cert for travel? Or did they take the dual carriageway to arrive and not fly British Airlines???

Totally off the Breed Standard debate - I know...

Just my rather bent perception of what can happen when crooks get power... :angel:


----------



## Keithsomething

NOLA Standards said:


> Told myself I was going to stay out of this one...but here I am.
> 
> Consider.....
> 
> And this - granted - from a Louisianian - a State that takes corruption to the very highest (or lowest) levels....
> 
> Malachy - Westminster BIS - dq'd by a vet on da take.
> 
> Again, I won't list the many examples of greed and corruption broadcast daily on my local news channel - call me jaded...
> 
> But did not these animals pass a health exam for a vet cert for travel? Or did they take the dual carriageway to arrive and not fly British Airlines???
> 
> Totally off the Breed Standard debate - I know...
> 
> Just my rather bent perception of what can happen when crooks get power... :angel:


THANK YOU!!!!!
Evidently they walked across the Atlantic


----------



## fjm

I think that of all the reasons behind the decisions, bribery is the most unlikely. Not saying corruption never happens here, but apart from the element of libel in implying the vets concerned were on the take, I cannot see who would benefit enough from the disqualification to pay a large enough bribe to persuade a professional to throw away their reputation and career. The second BoB does not go through, nor does it gain the Challenge Certificate - cui bono?


----------



## rikkia

Keithsomething said:


> And Rikkia...I could point you to several breeders of pugs that ARE doing it right and ARE winning with their dogs
> 
> For every breed mentioned here I can point out a dozen breeders that strive to breed healthy animals that ALSO conform to the breed standard. The 2 need to work together, yet when you speak to pet buyers and pet breeders one needs to be more important than the other to them...I have NEVER spoken to a person that shows their dogs and heard them say that they would take an unhealthy dog over a healthy one anyday
> 
> In poodles I see so many crappy breeders hiding behind "health" that they refuse to accept the conformational issues their dogs possess! Poodles shouldn't look like labs, yet because they're "healthy" they're bred indiscriminately!



I thanked because I agree there are people doing it right, I'm just not sure I agree with the numbers you mention.

you said >> For every breed mentioned here I can point out a dozen breeders that strive to breed healthy animals that ALSO conform to the breed standard.

the key word is strive not succeed. They need to not only strive to breed healthy animals they need to succeed. While I'm sure that some do succeed the amount of breeders who don't will always IMO outweigh those who do.

You said >> In poodles I see so many crappy breeders hiding behind "health" that they refuse to accept the conformational issues their dogs possess! 

And what are you using to judge conformation by? If its the Breed Standard then we are just running in circles as I say its nothing but an archaic notion of beauty and then you say its how XYZ breed should look. I'll retort that when the breed standard came into its own each breed looked nothing like they do now therefore the dogs look nothing like the dogs that the breed standard were written for ergo today dogs do not conform. 

The problem with conformation is that some people feel very strongly about a dogs visual characteristics and traits If I was to show a judge the dog I linked in the above picture as a pug would it win BOB? HELL NO it wouldn't yet the kicker is that pug in the picture is more likely to be an accuracte and true representation of the breed standard than today's misshapen caricatures.

The foxes that are in the breeding program in Novosibirsk are also in a way proof that the current set of breed standards will never allow (IMO) for healthy sound dogs to be bred in many breeds. We are picking for colour, size, shape of skull and curl of tail etc with breed standards yet the Novosibirsk researchers have stared repeatedly that when they pick for temperament they also get a colour change inadvertently. 

When we pick for looks and looks alone we change or re-affirm other things, things we may not be trying to encourage, things we can not by the way we are breeding move away from ever. As a for instance... if for arguments sake a poodles curly coarse coat was found to be tied to a life threatening more severe version of Addisons (I know this is not the case but for arguments sake lets say it is) do we ignore the health concerns because according to breed standards Poodles must have a coarse curly coat or do we look to breed out that coat and encourage the soft wavy one?

I'm glad we don't see eye to eye on this because both sides of the debate have raised some very interesting issues and points that I had not considered.


----------



## georgiapeach

As a former boxer owner, there has been talk for years about the need to change the standard to improve the dogs' ability to breathe. A applaud Crufts for taking a stand this year. I thnk they're finally drawing a line in the sand... The designer look in many of these breeds is ruining them.

An example in point: the mascot at The University of Georgia, UGA, is a bulldog. At least 3 of them have passed away at an early age just in the past few years. They all come from the same line. Obviously, something is wrong.


----------



## fjm

KC response: News >Dog World >Dog World Home >Dogworld I found the remarks on possibly amending standards to improve eye shape, and move away from diamond eyes and exposed haws altogether, very interesting.

Statement by one of the vets involved: News >Dog World >Dog World Home >Dogworld

and from the Basset clubs here: News >Dog World >Dog World Home >Dogworld


----------



## cliffdweller

fjm said:


> KC response: News >Dog World >Dog World Home >Dogworld I found the remarks on possibly amending standards to improve eye shape, and move away from diamond eyes and exposed haws altogether, very interesting.
> 
> Statement by one of the vets involved: News >Dog World >Dog World Home >Dogworld
> 
> and from the Basset clubs here: News >Dog World >Dog World Home >Dogworld


Yes ! Thanks ! Long time comin' ...


----------



## cliffdweller

Keithsomething said:


> ... PDE ... a crappy documentary (full of lies and innuendo that the gullible public took as the golden truth!).
> ...


Keithsomething, I am curious to know what, in particular, you regard as "lies and innuendo" in PDE. It is not very helpful to sling such general, accusatory remarks without substantiating them with particular instances.


----------



## cliffdweller

*PDE : 3 Years On*

I was unaware of this sequel to _PDE_ 'til today : Pedigree Dogs Exposed: Three Years On - Watch Streaming or Download Full Episode


----------



## Sookster

georgiapeach said:


> As a former boxer owner, there has been talk for years about the need to change the standard to improve the dogs' ability to breathe. A applaud Crufts for taking a stand this year. I thnk they're finally drawing a line in the sand... The designer look in many of these breeds is ruining them.
> 
> An example in point: the mascot at The University of Georgia, UGA, is a bulldog. At least 3 of them have passed away at an early age just in the past few years. They all come from the same line. Obviously, something is wrong.


As a recent graduate of UGA and someone who has taken up permanent residence in Athens, I can attest to the tragedy that has been UGA's mascot for the last few years. The dogs are just unhealthy, period. 

Uga VI passed away in 2008 after a 9 year reign and was replaced with Uga VII, who died in 2009 of heart failure. He was replaced with Uga VIII for the 2010 season, who died less than 6 months later of lymphoma. The problem is that UGA will only use solid white bulldogs as their mascot, and these lines are so severely inbred in order to try and produce those solid white dogs that it is detrimental to their health. I think this is happening with a lot of breeds. 

Uga I









Uga VIII









Breeding to the "standard" has gotten so out of control that these dogs don't even look (to me at least) to be the same breed.


----------



## NOLA Standards

Well it's GEORGIA for cryin out loud!

...oh ...wait.... POODLE FORUM...

Still - it's GEORGIA - what do you expect.

:loser:

(if no one else gets this I bet CB will! Though Sookster might take up the fightin' words!)

Geaux Tigers!

P.S. UGA 1 was rough.


----------



## Sookster

NOLA Standards said:


> Well it's GEORGIA for cryin out loud!
> 
> ...oh ...wait.... POODLE FORUM...
> 
> Still - it's GEORGIA - what do you expect.
> 
> :loser:
> 
> (if no one else gets this I bet CB will! Though Sookster might take up the fightin' words!)
> 
> Geaux Tigers!
> 
> P.S. UGA 1 was rough.


I'm no sort of sports fanatic  

I also have no idea what a "good" bulldog would look like or if one even exists. Only used these photos to illustrate how drastically the breed has changed in such a short time... and to such detriment. I would think that Uga I would have had a much easier time breathing than Uga VIII. Or maybe at least have been able to breed and give birth naturally. This change occurred in less than 50 years.


----------



## mdwcarolina

I work in pet shipping for a living. Mostly international, but domestic as well. I'm new to it, but learning fast. In this field, among the airlines for example, it's easy to see examples of "reactive regulation" ... complete with all the unintended consequences, but originally motivated by trying to solve a problem.

The brachycephalic breeds were dying on airplanes. I'm glad the airlines have moved to try to stop animal deaths. It may be because it was bad PR, but they have a good consequence anyway.

When pit bulls get lumped in with "brachycephalic" breeds, we all moan and sigh. Someone decided that if there was a "bull" in the name, it's brachycephalic. This will eventually be corrected. If the airlines have an issue with pit bulls, they might have to justify it otherwise than by incorrect structural identification.

All I know is, those of us who work to try to help folks with animals who are already born, in homes and loved, and already hampered by structural problems, will be driving a lot of dogs back and forth across the country this summer because they cannot be transported by air, and their owners are at least trying to keep them alive and healthy and with their families, rather than abandoning them. I would not want to own one of those breeds, and I am so sorry for those who do and are trying to take care of their animals.

For what it's worth, I applaud everyone, and every movement, that substantively attempts to save future animals from unnecessary and untimely deaths due to flaws that are deliberately created.

I apologize that, having read this thread entirely, my comments are quite a bit less on-point than those others have so well made. It's a big and important subject and I am grateful that it has been raised.


----------



## fjm

Thanks, mdwcarolina - I think your points are exactly on topic. They show that the results of breeding for extreme type can have far reaching consequences for both the dogs and their owners. And I too am glad the airlines have taken steps to protect the dogs.


----------



## JE-UK

Not sure why we can't all agree that all the players love dogs ... Jemima Harrison loves dogs, breed judges love dogs, owners of the dogs DQ'ed at Crufts love dogs, the KC loves dogs ...

BUT ...

The consensus in the KC was that love isn't enough. In the KC health report for 2011, there is a very interesting chart showing the difference in perception of health between breed judges and independent health observers. Judges consistently rated the health of the at-risk breeds higher than the observers did. And did so consistently when 2010 and 2011 were compared.

Independent observers consistently rated the health of the at-risk breeds significantly lower than the judges.

The KC isn't saying that breed traits are bad, just that extremes that cause the dog a life of discomfort are bad. To see this as an attack on pedigreed dogs is just wrong.


----------



## Keithsomething

JH also believes in hybrid vigor...also if she were so in love with dogs and their health her own flat coated retriever would have the tests done and reported that ALL flat coated retrievers registered with the KC are supposed to have...


----------



## fjm

Keith - the KC recommends tests for dogs that are to be bred, not all dogs. And even if it were the case that all dogs should be tested, I cannot see that whether JH tests her dogs or not, believes in hybrid vigour or not, likes or dislikes brachycephalic breeds, or anything else she may or may not believe is the issue here. We are talking about the health of dogs, and the viability of specific breeds, not the beliefs and opinions of one individual.


----------



## Countryboy

NOLA Standards said:


> Well it's GEORGIA for cryin out loud!
> 
> ...oh ...wait.... POODLE FORUM...
> 
> Still - it's GEORGIA - what do you expect.
> 
> :loser:
> 
> (if no one else gets this I bet CB will! Though Sookster might take up the fightin' words!)
> 
> Geaux Tigers!
> 
> P.S. UGA 1 was rough.


Poooor Georgia. Maybe they should'a stuck with a healthy line . . . . . like Raptors!! 

WARRRRRRRREAGLE!!!!!


----------



## Keithsomething

My apologies if I misinterpreted the health thing...but I disagree when so many people blindly follow you, your opinion is no longer one of a mass it becomes singled out and for good reason. This woman is completely anti showing which I can see several people on this list are as well...but when one never experiences the beautiful side of showing (and in most cases never will because of twir bullheadedness) I dot understand the out and out attack by people...

Does anyone here own a cumber? Does anyone own a neo? No so you all blindly (yes blindly because you aren't vets, you aren't breeders and exhibitors of those breeds, and most aren't even fans of showing because of whatever reason...) what gives ANYONE the right to say what is better for a breed when they have NO involvement with it!?


----------



## fjm

An interesting point Keith, but when I decided the time had come when I could once again have a dog, just about the first thing I did was to look at the health issues for the different breeds. I probably would not have considered a Clumber or Neo anyway, as I quickly decided a small dog would be a better fit with the life I had to offer, but I would in any case have discounted them because of their various health and longevity problems. I don't think it is true that no one other than vets, breeders and exhibitors is qualified to express an opinion about a breed - I have walked behind too many GSDs with weak, wobbly hind quarters and excessive cow hocks to be persuaded these are desirable elements of any breed standard; I have a friend who, after many years owning dachshunds from different lines and different breeders, now swears never again after the serious back problems they have all had; I know of too many people whose delightful little bull breeds suffer from Brachycephalic Obstructive Airway Syndrome ... and so it goes on. 

If it were just JH saying these things perhaps the impact would have been less, but she is voicing concerns that the veterinary profession have been raising for years - the KC themselves date their interventions back to a BVA report of 1987, and their has been a whole series of reports over the last 10 - 15 years. But until now the KC preferred to work with the breed clubs through persuasion (or was dominated by powerful breed club interests, depending on your point of view) - only with the huge mobilisation of public awareness and pressure that came with the showing of PDE have they changed their stance. 

I would like to see more celebration of success on JH's website, as well as highlighting of failures, but she is in effect a pressure group, and that is what pressure groups do. I think the testing methods could also be improved - testing all breeds would remove the issue of unfairness, and extending the BVA/KC/ISDS eye scheme to include central recording of external, as well as internal, eye issues would also help (I believe this is what CERF does already). But the bottom line is that breeding to standards has, for some breeds, caused an exaggeration of certain features to the extent that they would be considered a significant health issue in a dog not of that breed. Excessively brachycephalic faces, elongated palates, exposed haws, screw tail, deep and permanent folds in the skin, etc, etc are undesirable because they make it far more likely that the dog will not be able to live a long, healthy life free from pain. 

We all grow accustomed to what we see all the time - I never think of my dogs as particularly small, for example - to me they are a perfectly normal size. Most people consider them tiny. We can quickly get used to poodles in wonderfully esoteric clips, valuing the huge top knot that needs to be banded and bubbled, and not be able to understand why anyone might consider this bizarre, or even ugly. We can even come up with explanations as to how it is an intrinsic, historic part of the breed profile. And in just the same way I think breeders - and judges - come to see elements of their breed such as exposed haw or a very flat face as being normal - and the more exaggerated the better. Not all breeders, of course, but those who are committed to winning prizes in major shows are also committed to breeding to the current fashion, defined by what is currently winning in the ring. At some point a line must be drawn to protect the health of the dogs - and this is what the KC have at least attempted, firstly with the revised standards, and now with the health tests. Imperfect perhaps, but at least a first step.


----------



## rikkia

fjm said:


> An interesting point Keith...
> 
> ...SNIP...
> 
> At some point a line must be drawn to protect the health of the dogs - and this is what the KC have at least attempted, firstly with the revised standards, and now with the health tests. Imperfect perhaps, but at least a first step.


I could not have worded that any more eloquently and without resorting to pettiness myself, so thank you. If I could endorse with more than a simple thanks I would a hundredfold.

To address a point directly raised by Keith...


> Does anyone here own a cumber? Does anyone own a neo? No so you all blindly (yes blindly because you aren't vets, you aren't breeders and exhibitors of those breeds, and most aren't even fans of showing because of whatever reason...) what gives ANYONE the right to say what is better for a breed when they have NO involvement with it!?


I think the only way I can answer this is by saying I look at all dogs from a less biased mindset they are first and foremost dogs not 'breeds then dogs'. I have no idea of the standard for a clumber nor a neo and I honsetly have no idea of the breeds, my beefs are the pug & show GSD mainly and I can say that my opinion is based on what I see with my own eyes.

As for how qualified I am to have an opinion because I don't own, show or judge. Nor am I a breeder or vet, well I'm not any of them I am a member of society and If society at large deems that these dogs are wrong then eventually society will win out. we live in what we call civilisation and unfortunately for those who disagree the hive mindset of the uninformed will win out if they feel so adamantly about something. look at GM foods, stem cell research... hell even in some states of the USA Evolution lost out to the hive mindset of the creationists. 

So to answer who am I to have an opinion, I am just one person but I am backed by a lot of public supporters who may be right or wrong in their beliefs but they outnumber the detractors and numbers will win this battle.


----------



## cliffdweller

Keithsomething said:


> My apologies if I misinterpreted the health thing...but I disagree when so many people blindly follow you, your opinion is no longer one of a mass it becomes singled out and for good reason. This woman is completely anti showing which I can see several people on this list are as well...but when one never experiences the beautiful side of showing (and in most cases never will because of twir bullheadedness) I dot understand the out and out attack by people...
> 
> Does anyone here own a cumber? Does anyone own a neo? No so you all blindly (yes blindly because you aren't vets, you aren't breeders and exhibitors of those breeds, and most aren't even fans of showing because of whatever reason...) what gives ANYONE the right to say what is better for a breed when they have NO involvement with it!?


It appears to me that what is being discussed is not breed specific, but health problems in dogs that affect their quality of life and which are the result of breeding for specific, extreme breed characteristics considered "desirable" by breeders. These _are_ extremes, and what would be better, in most of the cases at issue, is rather obvious to any perceiving, thinking person, involved with the breed or not (in fact, it seems, often, those _not _involved with the breed may be better judges in such instances).


----------



## Keithsomething

rikkia said:


> So to answer who am I to have an opinion, I am just one person but I am backed by a lot of public supporters who may be right or wrong in their beliefs but they outnumber the detractors and numbers will win this battle.


actually...there are several THOUSAND exhibtors, judges, and backers (the ones with money ;D) who are tossing around the idea of boycotting not only Crufts but the KC because they certainly care little to nothing for these people that feed money into their pockets hand over fist!

if they only punishing breeders that were breeding unhealthy dogs that would be one thing...but they are singling out breeds and attacking even the breeders that ARE doing it right! Its a sham and when it blows up in their faces because the only "numbers" they have are pet people...GOOD


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

Keith, it is not only the pet people who feel this way. I have spoken to many respected Spoo breeders who are very pleased to see the beginning of change under way. Some are terrified to say it publicly, others don't care what people think about their opinion. But the support of what took place at Crufts is there, inside the show arenas and out.


----------



## Countryboy

Keithsomething said:


> ...but they are singling out breeds and attacking even the breeders that ARE doing it right!


For certain breeds, the 'right' way is wrong. There are NO Bulldog breeders that are doing it right . . . none! It's 'desirable' for Conformation . . . according to their Breed Standards. But these Standards are wrong for the health of the dogs.

So their breeding practices WILL be changed . . by us. They can go along voluntarily *which they've refused to do so far*, or they can be dragged . . . kicking and screaming, if necessary . . . into a dog world where the overall health of the breed is foremost.


----------



## petitpie

Given the controversy surrounding bulldogs' breathing, I was not surprised at the ban of Delta Airlines on flying pug-nosed dogs and cats. Other airlines might follow suit, and ground shipping will be the only alternative, maybe enough to change some minds. But Uga has a long tradition and college sports' mega bucks behind his line, a "show" line times squared. I could be wrong, but in this country everything "sports" is "god." I don't see UGA (or Uga's family) changing his breediing very quickly because of health problems and he will probably never need to fly to his games. Uga is only one individual but a very high profile one. He could end up being a "poster child" for changing habits of breeding bulldogs.


----------



## JE-UK

Keithsomething said:


> if they only punishing breeders that were breeding unhealthy dogs that would be one thing...but they are singling out breeds and attacking even the breeders that ARE doing it right! Its a sham and when it blows up in their faces because the only "numbers" they have are pet people...GOOD


I think the Kennel Club and most breeders realise that "pet people" are the bulk of their market. Only a fraction of pedigreed dogs end up showing in breed; the vast majority are pets, performance dogs, service dogs, etc. The recent activity by the KC was designed to SUPPORT breeders as a whole, as PDE had awakened the "pet people" to the problems with extremes in some breeds, which was in danger of mutating into a meme that would tar all pedigreed dogs with the poor health/function brush. 

Given that many people take more time and do more research over deciding what type of coffee to order than they do choosing a pet, even a vague sense that pedigreed dogs are unhealthy will drive even more of them into the designer mutt market.

The Kennel Club has responsibly taken the long view, with the success of pedigreed dogs over the long term in mind.


----------



## rikkia

Keithsomething said:


> actually...there are several THOUSAND exhibtors, judges, and backers (the ones with money ;D) who are tossing around the idea of boycotting not only Crufts but the KC because they certainly care little to nothing for these people that feed money into their pockets hand over fist!


They are well within their rights to do so if they feel so strongly but I question the sense of doing such a thing. There may be several thousand of them and the backers may have huge wads of cash but I bet not every breeder sees a profit from the backers. Conversely there are millions of pet owners in the UK with a large number of them owning a pedigree dog, who all pay the breeders wages so to speak. 

Also I question the validity of the the KC being so dependant on backers, registering a new puppy is not a free process and I'm sure the multitude of puppies registered makes the KC a small fortune. Add onto that the pet insurance they sell I would say without backers the KC would still be financially viable. Without breeders registering litters they would run into trouble but I don't see the public buying into a dog registered at anywhere other than the KC.

If the breeders disassociate themselves from the KC and Crufts all they will do is back themselves into a corner. From PDE we can see what happens when breed clubs and those breeders seen to be non caring for their dogs are backed into a corner, with no escape from the firing squad of public scrutiny they come under heavy fire even worse than they would have done if they embraced public opinion from the outset. 

In the UK the KC is seen by people as a British Institution. We have no other registering bodies and setting a second one up will put Crufts and the KC into the position of the underdog, and if there is one thing you can count on it is that the underdog almost always carries public support in the UK it's just out way of doing things.


----------



## papoodles

I have had 3 wirehaired dachshunds- two lived to a ripe old age without a single health problem, and my present dachshund is 14 years old, also perfectly healthy all its life just now failing due to old age, so obviously not every dachshund is doomed to live a crippled life. My mother's dachshunds too lived to a crotchety old age ...Sure it is anecdotal evidence, but it is what I know about the health of dachshunds.
My sister in law only adopts dogs from shelters, and all of her 'mutts' have had major, expensive health issues, so I don't see any hybrid vigor there.Also just anecdotal, but still- that's what I know.

As for the majority determining public policy, that rikkia, is also not such a panacea as you might think; I am reminded of Prohibition, Jim Crow laws, etc.- all strongly supported by public opinion, but were those views and opinions correct? But it was a majority view..

The problem is that if/when you get zealots taking over a movement,there are no guaranties that all opinions will be heard equally or allowed. I am not saying that we are there , but it is a possibility, right?
I am thinking of PETA..if it were up to PETA, there’d be no purebreed animals; nobody would be buying pets from shops or breeders- the only pets allowed would be pets that came from rescue..Sooner or later you’d have no pets left at all, and that would make PETA very happy. And then, there’s be no need for a Poodle Forum :-(

I just believe that it is up to the AKC to dermine breed standards, and the public can vote with their pocket books if they agree. 
Just my two cents worth.

Animal Rights Uncompromised: 'Pets' | PETA.org


----------



## fjm

You have to remember that this is the UK, not the US - PETA and the animal rights extremists do have a toe hold here, but their efforts are aimed far more at animal experimentation than pedigree dogs. The KC in the UK has a rather different role than the AKC, I think - on the one hand it is a consortium of dog breed societies and manages all the conformation championship shows, on the other it is positioned as a body that speaks for the welfare of all dogs and for all dog owners. How it deals with the issue of health in pedigree dogs is extremely important for its continuing reputation as the benchmark of quality in pedigree dogs (whether it deserves that reputation is a matter for another debate), and for its position as an authority on health testing and research. There are other registries in the UK - the kind where you pay the fee, and anything goes - but they get their business because for the vast majority of puppy buyers "registered" means "KC registered", and they do not know the difference.

As others have said, if the KC does not act - and act publicly and openly - the winners will be the designer dog breeders. There is a growing perception that cross breds are always healthier (a misinterpretation of the research, but few people bother to read and understand the data behind the headlines), "designer" pups can't be KC registered, so the breeders can side step even the rather imperfect systems the KC has put in place to certify breeders while at the same time labelling their pups with a fancy name and claiming them as pedigreed because the parents have pedigrees, and they appeal to buyers who are easily impressed by the "rare" and "unusual". Without a strong pet market for pure bred puppies the numbers bred will decrease, the gene pool will shrink even further, health issues will proliferate, and breeds will die out. And unless the KC can reverse the growing perception in the UK that pure bred = exaggerated, inbred and potentially sickly, people looking for a pet will increasingly choose not to buy a pure bred puppy.


----------



## papoodles

FJM- thank you for your response- but on this issue we will just have to agree to disagree. While I strongly disagree with the actions of your KC, I've been to the UK enough times to understand that though we pretty much speak the same language, we certainly don't think alike..
Chacun à son goût?


----------



## JE-UK

papoodles said:


> The problem is that if/when you get zealots taking over a movement,there are no guaranties that all opinions will be heard equally or allowed. I am not saying that we are there , but it is a possibility, right?
> I am thinking of PETA..if it were up to PETA, there’d be no purebreed animals; nobody would be buying pets from shops or breeders- the only pets allowed would be pets that came from rescue..Sooner or later you’d have no pets left at all, and that would make PETA very happy. And then, there’s be no need for a Poodle Forum :-(
> 
> I just believe that it is up to the AKC to dermine breed standards, and the public can vote with their pocket books if they agree.
> Just my two cents worth.
> 
> Animal Rights Uncompromised: 'Pets' | PETA.org


It's a pity that anyone interested or vocal in advocating for animals ends up being lumped in with the PETA whackos. The breed clubs' false argument that any action to enhance the quality of life of animals leads inevitably to a world where there are no pets is a straw man, a favoured tactic of those who would choose to argue from a position of illogic.

We have a duty to animals in our care to ensure they live long, healthy, contented lives. We have a duty not to impose upon them, through poor or extreme breeding practices, lives of discomfort or disability.

In the UK, the breed standard is set by the breed clubs, not by the KC. The KC has an oversight role, but doesn't define the breed standard.


----------



## papoodles

*To Each his Own? :-(*

I have sent you a PM-


----------

