mita

Did you read the next line? I was talking about myself. Yes, the last line was clearly linked to you....'whippets' is even in your DOL name. But there was first a breed fancier on a lofty perch & who's smug that their breeds aren't under the microscope....who is not you, as you pointed out. Some loftiness & smugness going around. :) I've said as much as I can say on the thread's subject. Still the UK case hangs on actual details about the 2 dogs. I have no idea if they will be known.

.....breeding at the expense of health and for looks. Yep... see my edit. BTW, I'm not sitting here on the lofty perch of a breed fancier who's smug that THEIR breeds aren't under the microscope. There's a few breeding trends in Whippets that need to be kicked into touch ASAP IMO From the same comments by Caroline Kisko, Secretary UK Kennel Club Secretary on 08/03/2012 Work currently being undertaken involves idiopathic epilepsy in Border Collies and hereditary cataract and progressive retinal atrophy in many breeds, including Siberian Huskies, Miniature Schnauzers and Tibetan Spaniels.

.....breeding at the expense of health and for looks.

I also looked for any statement about process from the UK Kennel Club. And found these general comments by the Club's Secretary, Caroline Kisko, in The Huffington Post UK. Many people in this thread, including me, have said that it'll be the details that count. But this is pretty fair as a broad view: Crufts and the Facts about Dog Health Caroline Kisko O8/03/2012 Crufts has been running for over 120 years, spanning three centuries, it starts today at the NEC in Birmingham and has attracted wide spread attention. Dog health has been at the forefront of the public's mind for several years now, but has been for even longer a focus at the Kennel Club, the organisers of Crufts. The Kennel Club is not afraid to address criticism of dog health, it has been working tirelessly with breeders and scientists to improve the health of all the UK's dogs and has invested over £3.8 million into researching canine health problems, who else can claim to have invested so much? There is confusion amongst the public about the causes of health problems affecting dogs, and it is particularly worrying that people believe cross breeds are automatically more healthy than pedigree dogs. There is no factual evidence for this and it has fuelled the trade in unhealthy designer crossbreed dogs, bred by unscrupulous puppy farmers and others. What many people do not realise is that cross breeds are susceptible to exactly the same health problems as pedigree dogs, but breeders of crossbreeds will often not health test, resulting in litters of potentially unhealthy crossbreed dogs. The Kennel Club recently conducted research of over 1000 dog owners and found that pedigree dog owners took the most responsible steps when finding a puppy. This is because the knowledge about the importance of dog health is widespread in the pedigree world... Huge strides have been made to improve dog health, particularly with the knowledge that has been gained in recent years thanks to the advancement of genetic science, but there is still more to do. We particularly need to address the issue of people breeding dogs for money at the expense of health and for looks, whether these be pedigree or crossbreeds. The Kennel Club has conducted groundbreaking research with the Animal Health Trust to look at genetic diversity in different breeds....

Couldn't agree with you more, Sheridan. If there's any issue in the UK, I go to The Guardian to check their coverage and comment. (They're good for a sharp eye on Europe & international affairs as well.)

Sheridan, I looked up the Guardian link, too, to see if it differed from the light & appreciative touch of the New York Times. And it didn't. You're right, they were enjoying a premier dog show. That Guardian blog is great reading about Crufts. I hope people noticed it has a reference to tibetan spaniel, P'zazz Russian Lullaby. That's a relative to our (now desexed) pet, Annie, who came from Europe & was P'zazz Golden Annie in showing. Same lovely looks, sweet cuddly temperament...& who also seems to like 'meditating'. The Guardian blog notes she was snoozing amidst all the business. Typical tibbie, from their 'buddhist monastery' development.

There was a good discussion on DOL about the development of the Pekingese breed. With interesting references to the original 'standard' set down by the Chinese Empress for the specific household lifestyle ]that the dogs were to lead. The processes at the Westminster Show didn't disqualify Malachy for any feature that would have impeded his health or functioning.....within such a lifestyle. Which was why I was curious (& may never know), what feature of the Crufts Pekingese was seen by an examining vet to fall into at category. We expect different things from dogs in these modern times. Probably different from a Chinese Empress I'll wager. We really do expect dogs to be healthy and to be able to come on a walk with us and to be able to see properly and to not need to be carried everywhere. ) So, there's a generic creature called a 'dog' where each one is to do exactly the same tasks? Like there's a standard distance & pace, called a 'walk' in which there will be no differences among breeds? Have you read the 'standards' description by the Empress & its link to a reasonable lifestyle for a mainly indoor companion dog? Have you read the interviews with Malachy's handler/co-owner where he, tongue in cheek, describes how Malachy trains like the 'athlete' that he is? And the extent he describes for Malachy's daily walks? Exactly the same, as I give our tibbies daily. Interestingly, the handler/co-owner now says that Malachy will retire from showing, to 'chase squirrels'. Our tibbies don't chase anything. So M the Peke will be one up on them. I understand there's different tasks from different breeds. We moved to pet tibbies as we approached retirement age, as a dog that would match a changed lifestyle. Before that, we had working breeds like BCs & shelties which, in length of walking & 'interests', matched a more active lifestyle. Do you have an understanding that there's only one lifestyle into which a dog with generic traits must fit in?

There was a good discussion on DOL about the development of the Pekingese breed. With interesting references to the original 'standard' set down by the Chinese Empress for the specific household lifestyle ]that the dogs were to lead. The processes at the Westminster Show didn't disqualify Malachy for any feature that would have impeded his health or functioning.....within such a lifestyle. Which was why I was curious (& may never know), what feature of the Crufts Pekingese was seen by an examining vet to fall into at category.

Heh, you must have been on the wrong forum, one I am on was very riled up about that dog panting and shuffling his way around the ring. The only other forum I'm on, is an international Tibbie list. Mainly really good breeders who are very health conscious about their dogs, and there was only congratulations for Malachy winning at Westminster. And selected media that I read, like the New York Times, reported positively about him. So, you're right, DD, I didn't see that there was another side to the USA public reaction story on Malachy. Thanks for telling me.

You can't predict for individual dogs anyway. Just because a breed is given a group average 'life' of 14 + years (or whatever), doesn't mean every dog of that breed will do so.

Yes. Along with evidence/source.

There's a Dog Longevity website maintained by Dr Kelly Cassidy that assembles data from studies and surveys. I notice that it includes the Danish Kennel Club study which looked at both purebreds and mixed breeds. In that, a bunch of pure breeds came out with the highest average. From memory, it included poodles & dachshunds. From Dr Cassidy's overall data, it's considered a good median life is between 14 & 15 years. I notice smaller Poodles, Min Dachies, Border Terriers & Tibetan Spaniels, fit the group average for 14+ yrs.. Of course, there'd be dogs of those breeds which would live longer & others who'd live shorter lives. All breeds data here: http://users.pullman.com/lostriver/breeddata.htm Overall conclusions here: http://users.pullman.com/lostriver/conclusions.htm We owned a little mixed breed dog that bucked that 'good' average. She lived until 22 years of age. No idea of her breeding (a rescue). Her appearance was like a poodle mixed with a tibbie! But she could have been anything, even a crossbred from a long line of crossbreds.

Yes, at the premier dog show, Crufts. Based on some agreed upon schedule of targeted areas & process. To illustrate the best of the best on show. And to push what changes are now expected, from the top. But again, Mita, as per my previous post: with some breeds how do you know if a dog is healthy? And as per my other post, this also sends a message to the judges because it isn't just breeding for extremes, it's rewarding the extremes and this last is right down to the judges. They put up extremes, they should have a whopping great kick up the arse, too. I agree with you, Sheridan. That's why I've said there needs to be some agreed upon vet exam schedule drawn up.....a checklist. Listing what exactly is being targeted as a 'healthy/mobile/functional' dog across a range of dogs types. That would put a searchlight on conformation features that put mobility & healthy function into peril. So you're right, it would provide lessons for judges.... With, hopefully, more reason to change, filtering down. But all that is easy for me to say. The devil would be in the details. And I find the issue of confidentiality to be a real hot potato. Just saw what lappie posted about the possibility of court action. Not surprising, if there's no appeal or second/wider opinion built into the process. Nor an actual list of what conditions will be checked for possible veto.

Yes, at the premier dog show, Crufts. Based on some agreed upon schedule of targeted areas & process. To illustrate the best of the best on show. However, bear in mind that I'm sure those exhibitors think their dogs ARE healthy. And its the minds of exhibitors that need to be changed. This is why I say, despite confidentiality issues, it needs to be known on what grounds that the pekingese got a vet veto (or any other dog, for that matter). There needs to be a schedule of what's targeted in these health/function examinations.....so that why vetoes are given can be reported on to exhibitors. It would highlight the areas where change is being insisted upon....or you're out. And provide statistics. For all I know, something like this could be planned. It certainly should be more than an ad hoc process. ADDED: alpha bet, what you posted is in the direction of a specific schedule relating to health/function vet checking SSM, I just read your second post. My criticism of the 'after show' vet test was not on the grounds of bluntness but on the grounds that it doesn't reflect a preventative process that could be built into the system. Like you, a lot of what I'm saying is very speculative. I don't even know if some plans are already in train. There are real issues around confidentiality of the professional vet examination that need to be sorted. And even rights of appeal for second opinions. But exhibitors need a schedule & need to be reported back to on what changes are being aimed at, by vet examinations. And the carrot & stick are access to the show ring.....or not.

Yes, at the premier dog show, Crufts. Based on some agreed upon schedule of targeted areas & process. To illustrate the best of the best on show. And to push what changes are now expected, from the top.

You say, SSM, that you're not sure this is the right way to force change. It seems ham-fisted to me, to allow dogs to enter the show-ring, in the first place, if a vet is going to examine and disqualify AFTER they've won. In fact, it seems counter-productive to send the message, yes we allow dogs that will fail a vet test into the actual show ring. When it would sound more rational to say we screen dogs for any vet vetoes, so only those that get the OK are allowed into the show ring. It's still not clear on what grounds the vet has 'failed' that pekingnese. I'm even assuming that there is only one vet. Frankly, there needs to be at least a second vet. And a schedule of target areas relevant to health, mobility & function drawn up and distributed to exhibitors, ahead of time (if that isn't done already). Change not only needs to be done, but it needs to be seen to be done with some sensible, transparent due process.

I just discovered that The Guardian newspaper mentions P'zazz Russian Lullaby as a Tibetan Spaniel of note at Crufts. My Tibetan Spaniel came from Europe and she's P'zazz Golden Annie. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/mar/08/crufts-2012-day-one-live-blog

A Pekingese, Malachy, won Best in Show, at Westminster in February. He wasn't disqualified for unspecified vet reasons. I wonder how he'd compare with the Crufts Peke? Malachy won a lot of hearts with his win, with no screams about being exaggerated. In one interview, his handler/co-owner, said that Malachy trains like an 'athlete', doing daily walks up & down the long driveway (so breathing must be fine). http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/sports/westminster-kennel-club-dog-show.html Why isn't a vet screening done, first, at Crufts? In that way, the Kennel Association could say they have certain veterinary standards before dogs can go in the show ring. Don't know the logistics, tho'.

He's magnificent. That's a spot- on profile. Has the breed information & cautions, but with a light touch about the lovely boy. Good on you for offering the support to a new owner.

I'm not a breeder but I can't see anything incompatible between the ethic of breeding to improve the breed standard....& placing puppies in good pet homes. In order to 'improve the breed', it's necessary to make decisions about mating, and to produce some litters of puppies. Some pups will reflect a high 'standard', others less so. So the breeder may retain some for later showing/ breeding (or pass to another show-person)...but place others in good pet homes. As to the puppies being well socialised to be happy & confident. The good registered breeders do that with all their puppies, whether they're 'show' bound or 'pet home' bound. As little creatures, they're all loved. Which is proven by how carefully those breeders rehome their puppies. I've got show-quality dogs, retired by the breeder after they've done their bit in the show-ring & had 1 or 2 litters. They were treated as loved pets by that breeder as puppies & as adults....so they slotted into a pet home without turning a whisker!

T, you raise the most beautiful, happy & healthy puppies! :) Someone should be following you & the pups & the resident dogs with a camera for a doco. The first pic of Fern, just took my breath away. So pretty & so confident & she's only a baby still. If only all dogs had the 'childhood' you give them.

I hope they've put a sign under Abby's photo that says, 'This dog is a horse. Got it?' :)

That is a fantastically funny.....& cute.....story! :) i bet all the police officers, armed with the pics, could hardly wait to get home to spread the tale.

O/T, but over the years I've seen some lovely dogs & cats turn up with RSPCA Noosa.

I agree about the smallness of the numbers. But the critical thing is that this NSW Government-appointed Committee should be expected to have research about the breeding & sale of dogs/puppies at the centre of what they're doing. This is doubly so, given that RSPCA NSW is supporting it. It's taken as gospel, by the public, that a state's RSPCA is the peak spokesperson re animal welfare. The problem is that this NSW PIAA-Government Committee-RSPCA alliance, is setting out ways to breed and sell dogs which will be taken as an OK model on how to do it. While it leaves out reference to the 2 key areas shown to be related to dogs 'sticking' or not, as companion dogs in homes. Socialisation & reality-checking/screening/follow- up services offered.....at Point of Sale. Is there any group in NSW that argues that breeding & sale of puppies should be evidence-based, if it's to be a welfare model ?