[Aussie3]

Crisovar, on 09 March 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

Aussie3, on 09 March 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

Crisovar, on 09 March 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

wuffles, on 09 March 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

Crisovar, on 09 March 2012 - 09:03 AM, said:

SkySoaringMagpie, on 09 March 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

Telida Whippets, on 09 March 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

Crisovar, on 09 March 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

[quote name='Telida Whippets' timestamp='1331246318' post=There is nothing about their dentition that precludes a healthy crestie from living a normal doggy life. They can eat, chew bones, clean their whelps, chew the umbilical cords, they can certainly bite if they desire. I shall have to ponder that.

But some of them have no teeth.

My guess is that perhaps there may be an alternate view that a dog with primitive detention that loses teeth at an early age may be considered a "health issue" by some outside the breed. And its only a guess but no other breed feature I can identify would promote veterinary interest

Epilation for show ring preparation was what Jemima Harrison had in her sights.

Good grief what a load of tripe

Why? To the general public, epilation for a dog isn't normal.

We are talking here about Vetting out animals that have serious health and conformation issues that need addressing, I don't think hair removal for the show ring really qualifies no matter how odd the public find it.

But isn't the point that these dogs are good examples of their breed? Which should mean they don't need to be altered in any way to win?

A whole different topic from this we could make a list a mile long of breeds that take show preparation to the extreme, but that does not make them unhealthy and unsound.

No, you're right on that one Crisovar.

[persephone]

Quote

You know what? I think this is a GOOD thing. I look at some of those targetted breeds and shake my head and my guess is I"m not alone.

<br style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: verdana, tahoma, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(238, 242, 247); ">

No, you are not alone at all

[lappiemum]

I agree that checking for health is important, and the premise that judges have a responsiblity in this is fair, to a degree (noting they are experts on the standard, and not veterinary health).

However, I think that while at first glance this 'tough stance' taken by the KC appears admirable, I think there are a few questions.

Firstly, why did they wait until after the BOB judging to vet the dogs? I would have thought that, if they were serious about health issues, they would vet the dogs at check in - like you have with cat shows. This way you would be checking all entrants - not just one per breed - and any issues there could be dealt with prior to the show.

By only vet checking the winners, it appaers to me to potentially be more of wanting to appear to be 'doing the right thing' that than actually doing the right thing....so, the question is, was this 'vet check' intended to address the serious issue of breed health, or was it more for publicity and the reputation of the KC (and to allieviate criticism aimed at the KC and Crufts from a certain 'documentary')?

And when talking about reputations, imagine you are the owner/breeder of the disqualified dogs. I understand one is a champion. Not only did the KC media statement name the breeds, but it named the actual dogs too. Now, many people might say, good, they deserve to be named and shamed if they are breeding animals that are in poor health. And on the surface, I would agree. However, this is the opinion of one vet, and if they have opinions that conflict with that assessment from other reputable vets, where does it leave them? Opinion is a grey area, and this may have an effect of the reputation of the kennels they are from.

The KC have taken what they consider to be a strong stance on this issue, but the manner in which they have done so may leave the KC open to possible legal action. Even when agreeing to the rules and conditions of entry, making public a disqualification in such a way that it may effect a breeder's reputation (and future prospects) is not something I would have thought that many would agree to. Maybe I am wrong, but a disqualification and reputation (effectively, moral rights) are two different issues.

Just some points to consider.

[Haredown Whippets]

lappiemum, on 09 March 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

Firstly, why did they wait until after the BOB judging to vet the dogs?

I don't know but I can think of two reasons:

* Economy - breed entries in some breeds number in the hundreds. The time it would take to vet every entry would be considerable.

* Impact - if you want to send a message that the best of the best needs rethinking, this is how you'd do it.

It ain't just breeders/exhibitors that will be impacted by this decision.. I imagine the judges that put those dogs up wouldn't be enjoying it either.

If vetting/potential disqualification were a condition of entry acknowledged by exhibitors, I can't see what legal action they have at their disposal.

This post has been edited by Telida Whippets: 09 March 2012 - 09:28 AM

[Sir Sniffalot]

Have not read the whole thread but are they disclosing the fault / faults which brought about the disqualifications ?

[Haredown Whippets]

Sir Sniffalot, on 09 March 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

Have not read the whole thread but are they disclosing the fault / faults which brought about the disqualifications ?

I sure hope so. I think published reasons will be very important.

[lappiemum]

Telida Whippets, on 09 March 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

lappiemum, on 09 March 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

Firstly, why did they wait until after the BOB judging to vet the dogs?

I don't know but I can think of two reasons:

* Economy - breed entries in some breeds number in the hundreds. The time it would take to vet every entry would be considerable.

* Impact - if you want to send a message that the best of the best needs rethinking, this is how you'd do it.

It ain't just breeders/exhibitors that will be impacted by this decision.. I imagine the judges that put those dogs up wouldn't be enjoying it either.

If vetting/potential disqualification were a condition of entry acknowledged by exhibitors, I can't see what legal action they have at their disposal.

Sorry, but if they can manage it for major cat shows, why can't they do it for dogs? I once stood in line with a friend who had entered her cat that the Sydney Royal - they did it in stages, with a number of vets, and it all went smoothly. At our royals, you need to check in - if you had a couple of vets there doing the check, it wouldn't be impossible to get through everyone.

As for impact, I would have thought it better to assess all dogs, rather than one from each breed. What if the RUBOB had health issues? That still has an impact.

Yes, being notified about the rules for disqualification would have been a condition of entry. However, having the reasons published internationally (and it based on one opinion) and the potential damange to a kennel is not something, I imagine, was in the fine print.



ETA - actually, I note that they only do a vet check on the BOB winner from 15 'identified breeds'. Apparently there are no health issues in other breeds - what a relief......

This post has been edited by lappiemum: 09 March 2012 - 09:45 AM

[Sheridan]

I think the reason to do just the BOB is threefold. One is to be seen to do the right thing. The next is not to have to vet check 26,000 dogs. And, the most important one, is to make a point, not just to the competitors but also to the judges. They are making the point that judges should not reward extremes.

[Haredown Whippets]

lappiemum, on 09 March 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

Sorry, but if they can manage it for major cat shows, why can't they do it for dogs? I once stood in line with a friend who had entered her cat that the Sydney Royal - they did it in stages, with a number of vets, and it all went smoothly. At our royals, you need to check in - if you had a couple of vets there doing the check, it wouldn't be impossible to get through everyone.

As for impact, I would have thought it better to assess all dogs, rather than one from each breed. What if the RUBOB had health issues? That still has an impact.

Yes, being notified about the rules for disqualification would have been a condition of entry. However, having the reasons published internationally (and it based on one opinion) and the potential damange to a kennel is not something, I imagine, was in the fine print.

Crufts is HUGE!!! Have you ever seen a cat show with over 5,000 cats entered?

FYI, here is the list of the conditions under which exhibitors enter wrt vet checks. Interestingly, reasons for disqualification will NOT be published.

This post has been edited by Telida Whippets: 09 March 2012 - 09:50 AM

[lappiemum]

Sheridan, on 09 March 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

I think the reason to do just the BOB is threefold. One is to be seen to do the right thing. The next is not to have to vet check 26,000 dogs. And, the most important one, is to make a point, not just to the competitors but also to the judges. They are making the point that judges should not reward extremes.

But that is my point - being seen to be doing the right thing is precisely that - being seen...
Again, they do it with cat shows. Each dog needs to check in at registration. This would be one more step.



Come on, if we could put a man on the moon people I'm sure they can check these dogs - even if its just in the 15 identified breeds.....

[lappiemum]

oh, this would make me nervous...



The basis upon which legal action can be brought is usually (breach of) contract or negligence (breach of duty of care). The contract with the Vet is between the Society or the Kennel Club not the exhibitor. The veterinary opinion and observation is being sought by and given to the Society or the Kennel Club. It is important to understand that the examination is not intended as a Veterinary diagnosis upon which an exhibitor should rely. In the event that a Vet highlights concerns, the exhibitor is strongly recommended to seek his or her own independent veterinary advice after the Show.

[Sheridan]

lappiemum, on 09 March 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

Sheridan, on 09 March 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

I think the reason to do just the BOB is threefold. One is to be seen to do the right thing. The next is not to have to vet check 26,000 dogs. And, the most important one, is to make a point, not just to the competitors but also to the judges. They are making the point that judges should not reward extremes.

But that is my point - being seen to be doing the right thing is precisely that - being seen...
Again, they do it with cat shows. Each dog needs to check in at registration. This would be one more step.



Come on, if we could put a man on the moon people I'm sure they can check these dogs - even if its just in the 15 identified breeds.....

My issue with the vet check system at a dog or cat show (or any type of animal show) is that it only gives an indication of the physical speciman. If, for example, a wheaten terrier was vet checked for physical issues and passed then hey, the dog's healthy right? Well, tell that to the people whose dogs died of a protein-wasting disease passed down from the sire or dam whose blood tests were clear. No genetic test right now so how do you show that a sire shouldn't be breed from because he's a carrier? You can't so physical tests are a waste of time. Sometimes a pointed 'look you' is the best frightener that can be had.

[LizT]

Crisovar, on 09 March 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

Inevitablue, on 09 March 2012 - 08:28 AM, said:

Shouldn't the RUBOB get a chance to go up for Group?

I don't know if they have similar rules to us in that regard.
Surely though if you are going to Vet, do it before the breeds compete, instead of messing around like this afterwards. This seems more like a bit of grandstanding to try and show that they are acting on the bad publicity they have received.

I agree but it is more costly and time consuming to check ALL the dogs entered just so that they can ensure that the BOB will be up to the required standard of fitness.

Peppered with a bit of grandstanding too I'd imagine.

[Haredown Whippets]

lappiemum, on 09 March 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

oh, this would make me nervous...



The basis upon which legal action can be brought is usually (breach of) contract or negligence (breach of duty of care). The contract with the Vet is between the Society or the Kennel Club not the exhibitor. The veterinary opinion and observation is being sought by and given to the Society or the Kennel Club. It is important to understand that the examination is not intended as a Veterinary diagnosis upon which an exhibitor should rely. In the event that a Vet highlights concerns, the exhibitor is strongly recommended to seek his or her own independent veterinary advice after the Show.

Kind of skips completely over a few other causes of action but I"m still not sure having your dog disqualifed is a direct impact on YOUR reputation.

[megan_]

Why would that concern you? IF the quick vet check says "all is okay" this doesn't mean your dog is in 100% health.

I'm glad they're doing this. Yes - it is very public and could damage some reputations but they needed to do something very public. Also, I would imagine that if you are breeding extreme dogs (or awarding them) you'll be thinking twice now.