I have been told that in the USA in my breed they trim underlines to give the appearance of more leg length, trim tails to take off feathering , and also to give the impression of a higher tail-set if it;'s low.  Use volumizers and textrurisers for the coats, use powder on damp legs which when dried makes them look to have more Bone etc etc.

Wow I never realised so much could be done with the correct products, obviously I realised that incorrect colour can be covered but the powder on the legs never heard of, saying that when I watched the schnauzer exh who incidentally is now a champion groom her dog I could see that she sprayed the legfurnishing to look that bit fatter. People who want to emulate her success are going to watch her to see how she achieves it and then do the same.
However I want to be able to bath my dogs for each show as they look filthy after a few weeks and the blaster gets all the dead skin out. There was a dog in our breed classes recently unbathed and his coat was terrible and he didnt stop itching which to me is as bad as the ott grooming.

> How could this be achieved with say a Poodle or an American Cocker?

I think what several posters are saying is these dogs should not be bred such that they cannot be shown without these products. 
Have they always been used throughout their history?

I think the the biggest eye opener in the last few days for me, was not the coat testing, but the way the KC have handled it. I also presumed that the KC sissored the hair from the coat, but to drag a nit comb through the hair to remove it, (i'm guessing the hair was not brushed first) would have been painnful for the dog. I remember nit combs as a child in the 70's and it was a far from pleasent expirence!

> Good point.  I think rather than asking for a relaxation of the ban we should be campaigning for this.

Do it then, stoping posting on here & actually DO something.
Mr Gadsby has done something and he's been heard..........maybe if you start a petition, you & the others against products will be heard.
Replying to posts on here isn't going to change anything.

> Do it then, stoping posting on here & actually DO something.
> Mr Gadsby has done something and he's been heard..........maybe if you start a petition, you & the others against products will be heard.
> Replying to posts on here isn't going to change anything.

I don't want to change anything :)

there are alot of products used in my breed (chalks, sprays, bryl cream, saw dust etc) but i have always chose not to use them. I hand strip my dogs and shampoo 2 days before a show. There are a few champ shows i have been to and people have arrived at the benches and pulled out their boxes of products and by the time they go into the ring it looks as though the dog is a completely different one. To me this is very unfair as they are changing the complete image of the dog and the small few people in my breed, including myself, that don't do it, don't do as well in the ring. I have seen one champ turn up one colour and when he took his 15th CC he was a different colour.

i agree that shampoo's should be allowed, and also things like de-tanglers and in my case stripping powders as these make grooming kinder to the dogs but think that products that alter the colour of the dogs should be banned.

Ally x

> I am happy with the status quo so nothing to propose

But the status quo isn't working, people do still use products regardless of the rules

> Do it then, stoping posting on here & actually DO something.
>

I don't think it's my place to dictate to others, but I will make sure as much as possible that it doesn't creep into my breed where the doyennes of old were very much hands off and natural, and as long as judges refuse to reward dogs not shown this way we can remain so.

So again like other exaggerations in the look of dogs the judges hold the winning hand.

> But the status quo isn't working, people do still use products regardless of the rules

I think it has already been pointed out that using the argument that we should stop a rule because it is being regularly flouted is not a valid one. 
There has to be a reasoned arguement why it would be better to allow these things and personally I have not be swayed that there is so far.

> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">How do you KNOW for certainty that what you use does NOT contain a silicone material?  On the "word" of the manufacturer?  Manufacturers have no legal obligation to INCI list product ingredients

So much is disallowed in competitions horses feed - I am fairly sure no food manufacturer is legally obliged to disclose ingredients - but if they did not they would not sell their product to the market they are aiming it at.

The exact same effect would apply to show dog products - if they want to continue to sell to the show dog market they would have to accurately list ingredients and state whether the product is designed to remain in the coat after rinseing. If they did not do this they would find their sales fell, so they would do it.

Gwen - where exactly did I state I have a problem wtih dogs being washed and kept clean and comfortable? Do you think my Tibbie and my Affie x hurtle about the place clarted up with filth and tangled to the skin?

It is perfectly possible to use detangling sprays, grooming sprays whatever you want to keep a coat in good condition in normal every day life - the point is that BEFORE you roll up to a show you wash the coat with a product that will remove any build up (and plenty of these exist!) so that when your dog goes around the ring, the judge is JUST judging the dog and his coat and NOT your choice of product as well.

You should not NEED a detangling spray in the coat in the ring, if going around a clean dry flat ring is going to cause massive tangling then I would consider your dogs coat is NOT correct and its an area that you'd want to fix with further breedings! Thankyou Stooge for grasping the point I was attempting to make!

In no way does that mean dogs should be going round the ring tatty and filthy and really that was quite a ridiculous comment to make!

The loss of revenue from the trade stands wouldnt bother me in the slightest, as without them the show would be held in half the space and without the crowding that means its a nightmare to get round and a hellish day for all concerned!

> In no way does that mean dogs should be going round the ring tatty and filthy and really that was quite a ridiculous comment to make!

Do you actually know of a shampoo which is guaranteed to leave no silicone or similar product in the coat - I don't, and a conditioner which did not leave any product in the coat would be pointless.  If this rule was being adhered to across the board then simple coat care product such as you mention are equally in breach of the regulation, but so far are not tested for.  My comment was made to illustrate the ridiculous nature of this regulation in the current dog show world.

As I think you said you don't show your dogs do you have any experience in coat preparation for the ring?  I have never used a detangler spray for ring preparation - a dog with tangles should not be in the ring, you sort that out at home.  But yes, I have used anti static sprays, and other show sprays to stop fly away hair and help achieve smoothness.

> How could this be achieved with say a Poodle or an American Cocker?
> I think what several posters are saying is these dogs should not be bred such that they cannot be shown without these products. 
> Have they always been used throughout their history?

My comment was posted in response to Brainless' post concerning natural coats - sorry, can't go back to pg1 and pick up the whole quote again.  I was asking how a clean, brushed out coat on these breeds can be achieved without benefit of shampoo and conditioner?

I do show thanks, though not currently due to my health - I do have plenty of experience preparing my dogs for the ring, yes. I use a de-mineralising conditioner and I avoid silicone products because though they give a nice glossy feel whilst in use, once you strip them off they leave the coat very very dry.

I prefer to achieve a quality coat by good grooming, and good feeding with plenty of vit E in the dogs meals!

Since the whole testing thing does need to be clarified, I wouldnt think there are any products that can currently guarantee to be fully wash-out-able. Once testing IS clarified I expect manufacturers will be falling over themselves sto clearly label theirp roducts, and produce things safe to use!

> Do you actually know of a shampoo which is guaranteed to leave no silicone or similar product in the coat

What similar product are you concerned about?  Most of the shampoos without silicone will actually remove such residues.

> So much is disallowed in competitions horses feed - I am fairly sure no food manufacturer is legally obliged to disclose ingredients - but if they did not they would not sell their product to the market they are aiming it at.
>
>

The UK equine feed industry BETA members grouped together and agreed to show NOPS in equine feeds.  Reputable manufacturers do generally state if their feeds are free from prohibited substances.  If they did not you can imagine sales plummet from the big companies such as Spillers as competitors would be wary of buying undisclosed products.  The animal grooming sector could easily comply with INCI listings and PIF's.  Product Safety Assesments are cheap and all they would have to do is put an additional inci label on each product.

You can make an analogy to equine sport though of course the testing under BE / BD / BSJA / BEF / FEI / USEF and other governing bodies rules are directed at performance enhancing substances classified under drugs rather than aesthetically enhancing topical products.  Saying that back at the Beijing Olympics the Norwegian showjumper's horse was tested, levels of capsaicin found in the sample, and subsequently stripped of it's medal and the rider banned from FEI and his own country competition for a long period.  Now this substance is classed as an irritant, the contamination was found in a blood sample, not a hair sample BUT it came from a product that was put onto the horses rugs to stop it chewing them.  The manufacturer was not required to list ingredients in this case as it was not a feed but it shows how easily substances can creep into blood, skin, or hair testing when used in innocence and result in the exhibitor being charged as guilty.

> Most of the shampoos without silicone will actually remove such residues.

Not always with one bath, it takes several and then it may need to be a clarifying shampoo to do the trick.

If you are not using silicone generally you are not going to need a clarifying shampoo but if you are so be it.

And again, all effective conditioners will leave a residue in the coat.

> If you are not using silicone generally you are not going to need a clarifying shampoo but if you are so be it.

But you don't know if you are as the manufacturers do not list ingredients. 

> And again, all effective conditioners will leave a residue in the coat.

Of course, that is the aim of these products. 

> But you don't know if you are as the manufacturers do not list ingredients.

Many are advertised as without these products and I can't see the point in them lying about that but the issue does not seem to be much about people accidentally using these addatives does it?

> Many are advertised as without these products

Advertised yes, in reality no.  Manufacturers need to take some responsibility towards encouraging exhibitors to keep buying their products.

> Advertised yes, in reality no. 

If a product says "no silicone" and it is in there then I am pretty sure they are breaking Trading Standard laws. 
Sure, other products are not so specific saying nothing about how they achieve their amazing claims of coat improvement but buy the one that specifically states "no silicone" and I think you will be safe enough.
As others have said if a demand for safe products grows the manufacturers are going to respond with more and more products and I doubt the reputable companies would risk lying.

> And again, all effective conditioners will leave a residue in the coat.
> Of course, that is the aim of these products. 

So, returning back to the  point of how to present a flowing coated breed without any product which leaves a residue?  Your suggestions are?

> So, returning back to the  point of how to present a flowing coated breed without any product which leaves a residue?  Your suggestions are?

My suggestion would be to look to the breeding of less exaggerated coats and a return to presenting them in a such a way that the dogs real coat is the one being judged.

I think we are covering the same ground here, Gwen, as I have already given that opinion previously as have others.

I shall watch the KC response with interest.  Personally, I think they will have an eye on what the public, particularly when the press add their pen'th, will think of any such change together with any welfare issues and don't much fancy your chances I am afraid.

I would wish you luck but I think you know I cannot see this as progress and I know if anyone can rise to the challenge of having to do things differently you and your team can :)

My suggestion would be to look to the breeding of less exaggerated coats and a return to presenting them in a such a way that the dogs real coat is the one being judged.

What a very sensible suggestion :-)

the Lhasa person even made the dog drink from a rabbit water bottle so not to get its hair wet

Our shih tzu and Chinese crestreds also drink out of water bottles but this is not forced upon them we have water bowls available and also the bottles and all except one of the dogs CHOOSE to drink from the bottles!!! The cresteds do not need to keep coat dry and they love using the bottles!!!

A shih tzu coat of half it's length is just the sAme to manage as full coat hence why ones owned by lazy people are clipped to within a inch of their skin, so are you suggesting do away with this type??

Are yours not bathed then?? brushed? trimmed round the feet?

As far as I am aware my brush, blaster  or scissors for feet & anus do not leave any residue in the coat?, mine are bathed when they are dirty and definately not just before a show. The use of dyes & hairspray has implications for animal welfare, we are told all te time how we mustn't use shampoo designed for human use on dogs but its OK to use hairsprays designed for humans on dogs?

The problem is that its such a hard rule to enforce and test for. Its flawed and until someone can come up with an unarguable way of testing there will be people contesting decisions. All this will cost money, and where will that come from?

How is the hair being tested? are they being tested by trained proffessionals in that field? is the equipment used to test thoroughly cleaned after each use? does the person thats testing ensure their hands are washed? does the judge wash their hands everytime they touch a dog? if there is a level of residue that doesnt pass the test what is that level and in what controlled tests have they established that this level cant be passed on by exhibitor touching them with products on their hands?

There are so so many questions that it can always be contested and proved that the test is flawed and therefore should be overruled.

Our shih tzu and Chinese crestreds also drink out of water bottles but this is not forced upon them we have water bowls available and also the bottles and all except one of the dogs CHOOSE to drink from the bottles!!! The cresteds do not need to keep coat dry and they love using the bottles!!!

This dog certainly did not she was so rough with him, but she want a nice person in general

> A shih tzu coat of half it's length is just the sAme to manage as full coat

I think that is debatable.
The presentation back in the seventies was a shorter coat and, clearly from the picture here
involved a great deal less coat treatment and that's in the US! :)

As far as I am aware my brush, blaster  or scissors for feet & anus do not leave any residue in the coat?, mine are bathed when they are dirty and definately not just before a show. The use of dyes & hairspray has implications for animal welfare, we are told all te time how we mustn't use shampoo designed for human use on dogs but its OK to use hairsprays designed for humans on dogs?

Sorry I must of confused your post I was thinking youwas against any products, mine are prepared in the exact same way.

> My suggestion would be to look to the breeding of less exaggerated coats and a return to presenting them in a such a way that the dogs real coat is the one being judged.
>
> What a very sensible suggestion :-)

Unless we were to present the Yankees clipped off, they, and breeds such as Afghans, Lhasas, Shih Tzu, Yorkies , TTs etc etc benefit from the coat being treated with conditioner after shampoo - without it they would be  almost impossible to comb out and dry.  We can do so without much fear of being coat tested, even though we are infringing the letter of the regulation. These are "show dogs", we are presenting to their best advantage - even a  lightly coated Yankee needs conditioning after shampooing.  How many people with medium to long hair shampoo and dry without conditioner - not a lot I bet! How is it then fair that other breeds should go in fear of draconian KC measures because they are on a "hit list" of breeds?

> The use of dyes & hairspray has implications for animal welfare, we are told all te time how we mustn't use shampoo designed for human use on dogs but its OK to use hairsprays designed for humans on dogs?
>

This proposal is NOT advocating that the use of any dye or straightening product should be allowed.  I have never heard anyone suggesting that hairspray or coat spray was an animal welfare issue.

You are mostly being told that human shampoo should not be used for dogs by the manufacturers of dog coat product, hardly an uninterested group, and from some vets who have bought into the dog shampoo manufacturers hype. 

The oft repeated "difference in ph" between dog and human shampoos is mostly down to extreme levels of cleaning agent (ie plain old detergent) in the dog variety - because a lot of pet dogs get washed very infrequently so need a heavy dose of cleaning power and perfume.  High quality show biased dog shampoos often advertise that they can actually be used safely on humans.

Like shampoos there are lots of non residue conditioners.  Neutrogena do one.

I personally hate that heavy feeling of build up and avoid using anything that is likely to.

> Like shampoos there are lots of non residue conditioners.  Neutrogena do one.
>
> I personally hate that heavy feeling of build up and avoid using anything that is likely to.

By the very nature of conditioner it is changing the texture of the hair and leaving a residue, it may be a very lightweight  coating, but a lab test would be positive for a substance. 

Like shampoos there are lots of non residue conditioners.  Neutrogena do one.

Yes and there are also natural condioners that you can make eg

http://www.longlocks.com/hair-care-recipes-cookbook.htm

I have long and curly hair and often use oils to tame my hair. Are oils part of this issue as well ?

> it may be a very lightweight  coating, but a lab test would be positive for a substance. 

Possibly, although Neutrogena claims not. What did the early developers of the American Cocker use to manage the coat?

> Are oils part of this issue as well ?

I can see a market for bottled dog oil, indetectable from the dogs own :)

> Are oils part of this issue as well ?

As oils would undoubtedly remain in the hair, that too infringes the letter of the regulation.

This is all getting a bit silly - quite obviously the KC needs to clarify EXACTLY what substances are banned and what are not, and they need to demonstrate how this will be tested for and enforced. I suspect the rules we currently have were written when testing beyond a persons hand being run through the coat was about the only way to test and that is no longer the case.

I fully support the principle of banning products in coats, and on the spot testing to enforce this - something DOES need to be done because quite frankly the current situation takes the wee-wee!

> This is all getting a bit silly

I don't think the exhibitors who were marched out the rings at Crufts, "escorted" across the show, and watched in horror as their dog's hair was ripped  out by the roots using nit combs found it at all silly - upsetting, disturbing, horrifying were all words used to describe the experience. "Silly" was never mentioned.

Simply by having much less top-knot,and a coat of less abundance.
Don't you think it's become so exagerated?

I also think the style of clip would change and other trims would become more popular. I did see a lady showing her Standard at Crufts last year in what I think was a T Trim and it looked really smart. I must admit to loving the glamour watching the standards going round but watching the preparation is an eye opener and is there for all to see.

Gwen, stop putting words into my mouth, I did  not at any point claim that people being treated rudely in the course of spot testing coats was 'silly', nor would I, there is no need nor reason for that to be done in a rude or nasty fashion.

I also was not there and so I have no idea if this was done rudely and nastily, or if the person it happened to just percieved it as an affront to her reputation. Was she using product in the dogs coat??

But there IS a need for it to be done.

Not that I think the risk of cross contamination is a good thing but actually thinking about it, if that WERE a risk would it not make everyone much more interested in policing the rules themselves rather than turning a blind eye to what the person on the bench next to them is doing? If you risk the wrath of your peers as well as the KC, would that not deter people from breaking the rules?

> I also was not there and so I have no idea if this was done rudely and nastily, or if the person it happened to just percieved it as an affront to her reputation.

We are not talking about 1 person, we are talking about several, why not read the petition and the facebook page - I am happy to "join" you so you can read, and then leave if you still disagree.

The point we are making is that we (so far 1500 signatories in 2 days) think this rule is wrong - outdated, impractical, potentially harmful, lots of people have lots of views about why it needs changing.  Just because a rule is a rule from the KC why should we, if it is basically flawed, not have an input into changing it?  This is what is being asked for, a change in the rule to allow for current custom and practice in many, many breeds, not to allow dyeing, colouring,  straightenting or other permanent changes.  To give equality to everyone showing with regards to this matter, not to target a small number of breeds for something the vast majority (if not all) of exhibitors in those breed do, and which, if carried out in a truly random fashion, could effect every single person who uses any coat care product on a show dog.

I am not against coat testing entirely.  I do think the use of camouflage products, i.e. pigment dyes are cheating and hiding breed faults.  BUT the KC has, like most other things it does, gone about it in totally the wrong manner.  The KC must (legally I would have thought to avoid possible law suits coming back at them) provide:

1:  A list of banned substances. 
2:  A tolerance level of banned substances to avoid honest cross contamination to lead to someone being accused.  Zero tolerance is ridiculous.
3:  A standard testing prodcedure document that is available to all exhibitors stating EXACTLY how the samples are to be taken, and this procedure to be followed accurately for each and every animal selected for testing.

The KC needs to work with exhibitors on this by providing accurate and fair information beforehand otherwise it will get more and more heated.  Ditto the manufacturers and retailers need to be  honest about their product ingredients.

Silicones are covered in the cosmetics industry under many different names and just because a manufacturer or retailer says it does not contain "silicone" it could well contain dimethicone, cyclomethicone, or one or more of the other silicone oils classed as polymerized siloxane.  I spoke with a retailer of a well known shampoo not long ago and asked how they have got around using Organic on the product when only 3% of the ingredients are organic, the detergent used is SLS and SLES about as far removed from Organic is you can get. And it contains a silicone but is not labeled as such and the retailer denied it.  The INCI listing of the product is actually patented and therefore available in the public domain.  Lacquers - are they talking about the polymer and acetate based product or do they also class "natural" holding agents than are non-chemical as a raw material.  They just have no clear policy or guidelines on this at all and to me this is just as dishonest as their claims that exhibitors are cheating by using topical grooming applications to alter coat texture.

> I am not against coat testing entirely.  I do think the use of camouflage products, i.e. pigment dyes are cheating and hiding breed faults.

The proposal does not call for coat testing to cease for dyes, colours or straightening products.

Good post Harkback.

Gwen - I am looking at the group (and ive sent a join request so I can read further), but I still haven't changed my mind.

I agree with Harkback that the KC needs to clarify the issue, and I agree that the manner in which random testing is carried out must be polite and courteous..

But I cannot agree that we should entirely scrap a rule, to allow for the fact that 1/ Lots of people flout the rules and 2/We now breed dogs with coats that need tons of products to look nice.

I am not remotely surprised that out of 4 dogs tested, all four came back positive for substances on the coat - all 4 being breeds that regularly and routinely flout the rules, yes, thats cheating, nothing more, nothing less. I could go around any Poodle, Westie, Afghan, Tibetan Terrier, Old English Sheepdog.... need i go on... benches and watch people blatantly and intentionally, cheating, at any KC show any time.

If you say something, you get glared at. It costs money to make a complaint and I have insufficient trust in the KC that my complaint will be followed up and if it isnt then i stand no chance of getting my money back. So it carries on, but the fact that hundreds, probably thousands of people do it, does not alter the issue. They are cheats.

Its really no wonder I am seriously reconsidering getting back into showing when my health improves!

> I am happy to "join" you so you can read, and then leave if you still disagree.

I would if it was not for the wording of the page suggesting I would be immediately counted as a supporter.

> (so far 1500 signatories in 2 days)

Is there a seperate pedition or is that just counting people that have joined the page perhaps not realising in what way this is being counted?