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

Ermm where did anyone say it should?

>> 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?

You can join, read then leave if you still don't agree with the proposal.  The FB page is not the petition - the petition is at:  http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/coat-testing/.

> The proposal does not call for coat testing to cease for dyes, colours or straightening products.
> Ermm where did anyone say it should?

Harkback, you wrote:  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.

My reply was agreeing with this statement and pointing out that the proposal and petition also agree with your opinion on dyeing etc.

No - there is a seperate petition.  There is also articles in dog world, with comments.

It affects all dog owners if you use any product other than water on your dogs coat - and I for one want my dogs to roll in smells (uck!), and live a full life as a pet, regardless of show coat - as long as I can wash them with shampoo after

Can't they groom their dogs at home the night before like the majority of us?

hi Dakkobear, I must be one of the offenders :). My dogs are relatively low maintenance but need to be lightly trimmed. I bathe my dogs in the very early hours before a show and with fine coats they seem to take longer to dry off than my pet woolly bear, bless him. I then do most of the trimming, but eventually the dogs would rather get their sleep and as you can imagine, the difference between what you see under electric light very late at night, and what you see in daylight, are two different things (this could be saying more about my eyesight, but...).

I'm also still very new at showing and grooming, and I feel more relaxed if I know I can trim off the ends that have suddenly sprung up between toes, or an uneven ear before we go in. I'm not doing it to show off--more like so people don't cover their eyes and say "who IS that idiot!" At least I don't see them covering their eyes, but it's true I can't lipread :)

There are a lot of breed who need final trimming etc at the show.  Any long coated breed will need, at the very least, and thorough comb/brush through.  Certainly with my "groomed" breed, when the feet are combed out bits of end hair have mysteriously appeared since they were trimmed the night before so need taking off.  In the different light of the show hall yo can often see bits and pieces which look less than perfect so they get taken off in situ too.

With Poodles Top Knots have to be put in at the show, with yorkies/maltese crackers taken out.  These are only a few, lots of other breeds have things needed to be done at the show not at home.  Surely one of the points of showing is to want to present your dog to the best of your ability?  Of course, all grooming at shows should be done in a way not to inconvenience other exhibitors.

The KC's stamce on this is just silly - exhibitors have always presented their individual breeds to their best advantage and in some very specific idiosyncratic ways - some trim and even 'sculpt' the coat - Gun dogs are stacked - Yorkies have their little red Boxes - GSD's are gaited endlessly round and round the ring -Bull dogs are shown head on - Terriers face on to each other to get the desired 'sparkiness' and yes some breeds have more in the way of coat preparation than others SO WHAT ? ....my own breed needs less grooming than say a Poodle or an Afghan but is baited to enhance it's alertness ....is this also cheating ?.....and if it's thought to be unfair to other exhibitors who do none of these things then should we not also ban professional handlers after all they also present their dogs better than less experienced exhibitors ....come to think of it what about banning those flashy breeds that always seem to do well at group and BIS level - after all competing against them just has to be unfair to less eye catching breeds ( when was the last time a Schpperkee, Buhund or Lancashire Heeler won BIS ? ) - is'nt this all just another piece of nonsense aimed at placating our detractors who quite frankly will only stop once there are no pedigree dogs at all  !   ......... what a sad grey world the future of dog shows will be without a the glorious spectacle that some of our clever groomers and handlers present - we all know that those wonderful top knots and flowing coats are not held together with spit and water but who cares ? .....it's a dog show ....!! -...go to any agricultural show and your'll see 'products' used with gay abandon to whiten cows tails - to add sheen to goats hooves and to enhance ponies coats ....what's the difference ?

Yvonne

Well said Yvonne, thanks for your perspective.

I think the worry of a lot of people, myself included, is that it may come down to the skill of the groomer rather than the attributes of the dog. I realise that this is already a consideration to some degree, but if all constraints are removed and permission given for 'grooming aids' then possibly the physique and character of the dog may become of less importance.

It does rather beg the question whether showing dogs is merely a beauty contest or as I believe it should be a tool to evaluate breeding potential and results.

Presentation does not reproduce in the whelping-box.

Anything that interferes with being able to evaluate the true traits of a dog should be avoided, penalised.

> .....it's a dog show ....!!

The biggest reason against it I thought :) 

I think we should also be concerned regarding the negative PR value of all this when breeding and showing of pedigree dogs appears to be at a fairly low ebb with the general public.
When is the KC AGM, anyone know?

think the worry of a lot of people, myself included, is that it may come down to the skill of the groomer rather than the attributes of the dog.

....but equally you could say  it's the skill of the trainer that enables some dogs to be more succesful in obedience or heel work to music - in both cases the natural atributes of the dog are enhanced by their handlers.

> go to any agricultural show and your'll see 'products' used with gay abandon to whiten cows tails - to add sheen to goats hooves and to enhance ponies coats ....what's the difference ?
>
>

Livestock at these shows often live in environments that make it almsot impossible to keep them clean, so some strong shampoos and masking producuts are used.

They are not that concerned about the exterior other than how much usable flesh or volume of milk it produces, and of course fit for living out in a field is shown by them surviving farm life long enough to be slaughtered. 

Maximising profit and reducing costs is inherent in livestock breeding, nto the same thing with companion animals where we are prepared to spend a lot more on their care than their monetary value.

The stockman considering buying from the herd that is shown at an agricultural show will nto be basing their decision on how pretty the animal looks but on the production records they will ask to see before parting with their money..

> I think the worry of a lot of people, myself included, is that it may come down to the skill of the groomer rather than the attributes of the dog. I realise that this is already a consideration to some degree,

But the skill of the groomer is already a consideration without grooming product, as is the skill of the handler, as Trevor  pointed out, we can never have a level playing field as some handlers are just more talented, dogs go better for them, they have the ability to spot a potential top dog .. this list of ways in which some people have an inbuilt advantage over others may be endless.

The other consideration is that the vast majority of breeds are able to use grooming aids with impunity as the testing regime appears to target a very small number of breeds, indeed, it appears that those at risk from testing are only dogs - no bitch testing appears to have been undertaken for several years - at Championship shows.  Neither of my breeds has, to the best of my knowledge, ever been subjected to testing.  One is a short coated breed needing minimal presentation, but often given a wipe over for an extra gloss or even just a sunscreen.  The other is a heavily groomed breed, and most if not all exhibitors use product extensively, why should we be able to do so without any interference from the KC?  The regulation is all encompassing, it's policing extremely selective.

It's on Thursday.

The petition now has almost 1900 signatures in favour of the change in the regulation and many more are being collected at shows over this weekend.

I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, as I don't show, but I'm surprised that more hasn't been said about the way in which the samples are taken. I saw people being marched away from the ring at Crufts, and thought they had been arrested for something...... and as for ripping out hair by the roots! My dogs would probably turn round and try to bite the person doing that!

> The other consideration is that the vast majority of breeds are able to use grooming aids with impunity as the testing regime appears to target a very small number of breeds, indeed, it appears that those at risk from testing are only dogs - no bitch testing appears to have been undertaken for several years - at Championship shows.  Neither of my breeds has, to the best of my knowledge, ever been subjected to testing.

Then this is an arguement for more widespread testing although to be fair they are clearly heading for the likely suspects which obviously reduces expense.  If they manage to create an effect deterent I am sure they would spiral it downwards to other likely transgressors.  Certainly I would see this as no arguement for dropping testing.
I don't understand the arguement being put forward that testing is horrible and intrusive either as it is acknowledged that testing should continue for dyeing etc which, quite frankly, is likely to involve many of the same breeds that are being subjected to it now.  If you are taking samples for dye testing the very same can be used for other substances.

> Livestock at these shows often live in environments that make it almsot impossible to keep them clean, so some strong shampoos and masking producuts are used.
>

Have you ever watched show horses and ponies being prepared for the ring?  Of course, they are shampooed the day before, mains and tails will be conditioned as needed depending on breed/type and method of presentation.  At the show coat gloss is universally used, muzzle and eye area will be wiped with baby oil, chalk used on socks and blazes, hooves blackened and oiled (depending on colour).  It is a matter of pride with the groom/exhibitor to make sure the animal is presented to the absolute best of their ability, products to help with this are the "icing on the cake" as a horse in poor condition is never going to look good, however much product is used, so no one sees them as anyone being given an advantage.  Horses are judged on appearance, conformation  and movement much like dogs, with an additional ridden element sometimes too of course. 

When I first came into the world of dog showing I was amazed to read the coat preparation regulation - we are showing dogs so surely want to present them to the best of our abilities, we can clip, trim and hand strip them, which has to be the ultimate change to appearance and texture of the coat, but theoretically nothing else must be done to the coat for fear of infringing this regulation - lunacy does not even begin to explain the situation.  When it became apparent that for the majority of breed this regulation could simply be ignored the situation became even more bizarre.

> I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, as I don't show, but I'm surprised that more hasn't been said about the way in which the samples are taken. I saw people being marched away from the ring at Crufts, and thought they had been arrested for something......

The KCs version of these events is very different from this.  According to Caroline Kisko exhibitors were treated courteously, I will find the quote and post.

edited to add the KC version of the events: " Coat testing was carried out this way to avoid any possibility of contamination.
While the K.c has absolutely no wish to spoil any ones day - particularly with such a great win, it is imperative that random coat testing is carried out in a very specific way in order to avoid any possibility of any contamination from outside as has happened in the past" said spokesman Caroline Kisko
" while we recognise that competitors wish to enjoy their win, if photos are to be taken then that is allowed providing we can shadow the dogs and exhibitors, and such shadowing is done until the testing has been completed"
Mrs Kisko added that on the day in question there were more stewards than usual as ONE had been taken Ill and an extra ONE was drafted in. "

The memories of those who were marched away form the ring, surrounded by up to 6 officials, not allowed to pause to inform friends or helpers, to collect belongings   .... yet they are marched through the halls among dogs who could have had anything in their coats, passed trade stands selling the product.  It is made to sound harmless, and with an absoutey foolproof scientific test outcome.

> I don't understand the arguement being put forward that testing is horrible and intrusive either as it is acknowledged that testing should continue for dyeing etc which, quite frankly, is likely to involve many of the same breeds that are being subjected to it now.

The current proposal and petition does not call for an end to all testing, it makes it very clear that the use of dyeing and similar permanent chemical process are not supported by this motion.  "The Kennel Club should cease with immediate effect the practice of coat testing for powder,lacquer and silicone-based grooming products."  This is the first line of the petition statement.  Of course, to make any sense of the regulation if this proposal is passed the regulation itself should be amended to make quite clear what is and is not acceptable, and testing to be carried out in a random fashion across all breeds.  I would have thought that the KC would also have to give much thought to the method of collecting samples as well.

> The current proposal and petition does not call for an end to all testing, it makes it very clear that the use of dyeing and similar permanent chemical process are not supported by this motion.

Yes, I acknowledged that my point was this negates the arguement for removing testing on the grounds it is intrusive because it has got to be done anyway.  I think the KC clearly have thought out how it must be done to avoid negating the samples. 

> Yes, I acknowledged that my point was this negates the arguement for removing testing on the grounds it is intrusive because it has got to be done anyway.  I think the KC clearly have thought out how it must be done to avoid negating the samples. 

I don't think the argument hinges on testing being intrusive, this was brought in as a side view,  in that a)testing as it is done now is carried out in an inappropriate manner from the point of view of both handler and dog and b)It's actual value is open to debate at the very least, the manner in which it is done gives a psuedo-scientific appearance to the matter, but would not stand up to scrutiny by either legal counsel or laboratory based challenge.

...ahem.......http://www.vittetoe.com/showstopper/showcattle5.htm

never mind hairspray - cattle exhibitors use GLUE !!!

I think we should also be concerned regarding the negative PR value of all this when breeding and showing of pedigree dogs appears to be at a fairly low ebb with the general public.
When is the KC AGM, anyone know?

really ..with the general public ?- tell that to the thousands of visitors to Crufts - dog showing may be at a 'low ebb' amongst some self serving journalists but quite honestly who gives a flying fig about them and their cronies ? ....it does'nt matter how much we turn ourselves inside out trying to placate them, the whole concept of pedigree dog breeding and showing is an anathma to them and they will not rest until it is stopped -

lets face it other peoples hobbies can often seem a tad odd to thsoe not involved - personally I'd rather lick gravel than play a round of golf or watch snooker but do I try and impose my thoughts on those that enjoy doing these things ? - no  ! - quite why the Kc is taking the sack cloth and ashes route  is beyond me !.

...and to be honest any judge who cannot detect the 'real' dog under the presentation should not be in the ring in the first place - of course that 'rock solid' top knot won't be passed on to any pups but equally neither will that perfect sendaway fromm an Obedience Champion -

> ...ahem.......[url=http://www.vittetoe.com/showstopper/showcattle5.htm" rel=nofollow]http://www.vittetoe.com/showstopper/showcattle5.htm[/url]
>
> never mind hairspray - cattle exhibitors use GLUE !!!
>

I don't know anything about cattle or pony showing I must confess.  Do they have a description of coat texture in their standards I wonder?

I don't know about all cattle breed standard, but certianly in highland cattle there is a lot about both coats in general and forelocks in particular.

> there is a lot about both coats in general and forelocks in particular.

I can't find anything about texture only that their forelocks should wide, long and bushy.  I assume they are not allowed to use hair extentions :)

> I assume they are not allowed to use hair extentions

They do in with some horses / ponies here!  Tail extensions, similar to human hair extensions.  In the USA Saddlebreds, Walkers, and other breeds often have huge flowing tail extensions.

Nothing surprises me about the US :) but what are the ponies here being judged on?  Breed conformation or something else?
Even if it is conformation I think we should leave other animal breeders to sort themselves out although I have to say, I have never been to an agriculture show and seen anything like the exagerations we see in some dog breed showing.

Nothing surprises me about the US  but what are the ponies here being judged on?  Breed conformation or something else?
Even if it is conformation I think we should leave other animal breeders to sort themselves out although I have to say, I have never been to an agriculture show and seen anything like the exagerations we see in some dog breed showing.

then you've never seen the huge variety of pigeon, rabbit, and poultry breeds being shown  - take a look here :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qygTnc82Nk

and horses, ponies and all pure breeds of animals are judged  against their breed standard in just the same way that dogs are  here is the Welsh Cob one http://www.theshowring.co.uk/welshcd.php

Yvonne

we were talking about presentation exaggerations.  Now other animal breeding would make an interesting thread.

Must say why is it that dog breeders get it in the neck for producing mutant freaks,b but other animal breeders get off lightly.  Perfectly normal to inbreed heavily to ensure certain characteristics come though etc.

Some of the Goldfish breeds are pretty grotesque.  Seems that humanity has a fascination with the unusual as much as the beautiful.

> and horses, ponies and all pure breeds of animals are judged  against their breed standard in just the same way that dogs are  here is the Welsh Cob one [url=http://www.theshowring.co.uk/welshcd.php" rel=nofollow]http://www.theshowring.co.uk/welshcd.php[/url]
>
>

Interestingly the Arab details for showing on the same site says:

When turning out, an Arabian is to be left natural with no pulled or platted manes/ tails, the ears can be trimmed around the edge but no hair removed from the inside, no whiskers removed, heels may be tidied if necessary and you may see some horses being shown with long bridle paths, these can't be over 6 inches long. No coloured make up or hoof oil is allowed only clear highlighter and chalk is used to enhance there natural beauty

(spelling mistake there/their is theirs :-) )

Just learned that in view of Dog World's reporting of this proposal and petition on their web newsletter they have been banned by the KC form attending next Thursday's meeting.  So much for unbiased reporting and freedom of the press as far as dog people go!

Each breed/type has it's own presentation and turnout rules or accepted practice.  The flowing mane and tail on the Arab equates to the Afghan Hounds flowing coat, I think.  Show shine, baby oil and chalk are used in lavish amounts, along with leave in mane and tail conditoners.

Fell, Dales, Highlands and Shetlands are left fairly natural,  some other M&Ms such as Welsh (especailly Bs) and Conemaras may be subject to a higher degree of presentation.  Show ponies, Hacks, Hunters and Cobs all have their own usual practice for turn out which are faily similar, but can be a bit more extreme on Show Ponies and Hacks.

> My dogs are relatively low maintenance but need to be lightly trimmed. I bathe my dogs in the very early hours before a show and with fine coats they seem to take longer to dry off than my pet woolly bear, bless him. I then do most of the trimming, but eventually the dogs would rather get their sleep and as you can imagine, the difference between what you see under electric light very late at night, and what you see in daylight, are two different things (this could be saying more about my eyesight, but...).
>

I don't mind light trimming at the show at all, it is easy to miss wee bits here and there, but some people seem to go for a full blown groom at the ringside complete with piles of hair everywhere! Sometimes you would think you were in the middle of a shearing shed :-D

All of my breeds have been shown naturally but I wouldn't dream of putting them in the ring without them having a brush/comb through before they go in. It's the excess of grooming that annoys me. Sometimes there is so much chalk flying about I'm surprised people aren't coughing their heads off. Even in naturally shown breeds excess chalk seems to be the order of the day and I don't see the need for it :-)

> Just learned that in view of Dog World's reporting of this proposal and petition on their web newsletter they have been banned by the KC form attending next Thursday's meeting.  So much for unbiased reporting and freedom of the press as far as dog people go!

Dog World have been banned or the people presenting the proposal? Either way it seems rather ridiculous but then The KC is a private club isn't it ;-) ?

> complete with piles of hair everywhere! Sometimes you would think you were in the middle of a shearing shed :-D
>
>

Very distracting for exhibits trying to show (especially trying to move puppies) in a ring where the hair is being blown about, and it's not even a ring that breed are using/have used.

> Dog World have been banned or the people presenting the proposal? Either way it seems rather ridiculous but then The KC is a private club isn't it ;-) ?

Dog World have been banned - as he is a member I don't think they can ban Mike from presenting a proposal which has been tabled.  Yes it is a private club, but one which rules every aspect of an interest in which 1000s participate.  So, they make the rules, enforce them as they see fit, and control what we, the end user, are allowed to know?  1984 anyone?

> Very distracting for exhibits trying to show (especially trying to move puppies) in a ring where the hair is being blown about, and it's not even a ring that breed are using/have used.

Perhaps that is a seperate issue which should be brought up with the KC by those who find it a worry?  Not really germane to the current proposal, but something to discuss if lots of poeple feel they have suffered from it.

it's pretty similar to the issue of bait being thrown about rings, very poor manners and lack of consideration for others.

In the USA some in our breed have a poor reputation due to using chalk and it getting on other people's coloured exhibits and their handlers clothes.

Lends substance to your argument about the ease of transference of product.  I am glad that no breed I am benched near to uses hair spray for example as I cannot abide it, it makes me gag, and for that reason I never use it on myself.

> The KC is a private club isn't it ;-)

Is this part of the problem with the canine world in general in the UK?  The KC a private club yet they have a monopoly on registrations and shows, and therefore the rules and regulations to suit the inner sanctum.  I cannot think of any other country KC that is a private club.  Surely they have overstepped the mark on controlling so much for too long and it is time they had some of the power taken away.  I am not a legal expert but maybe someone on here is who could enlighten me on the point a club or Ltd company oversteps the mark on monopoly under UK / EU law?

> So, they make the rules, enforce them as they see fit, and control what we, the end user, are allowed to know?  1984 anyone?

That's how it is but nothing obliges us to breed to their standards or attend their shows.  Some breeds choose not to.
Regarding this particular issue I see no incentive from them to continue with the ban in using these substances other than an interest in welfare and the image of pedigree dogs.  Can you? 

> The KC a private club yet they have a monopoly on registrations and shows

No they haven't.  There are both other registers (Mmmmmm) and plenty of shows for working dogs, for instance, that are nothing to do with the KC. 

> There are both other registers (Mmmmmm) and plenty of shows for working dogs

Not for the majority of breeds in the UK.  My breed certainly does not have a working criteria here but it does under most other countries and also working titles and working classes at shows. Yes they have a monopoly.  And as far as "other" registries go how many are recognised abroad if you want to show a dog outside of the UK, export one, or even export it's progeny or have it used as a stud abroad? 

But they don't have a monopoly.  If any other club wished to present themselves to the various authorites elsewhere I am sure they would be accepted provided their record keeping was credible.  After all the KC are not members of the FCI, for instance, they just have an agreement.

> If any other club wished to present themselves to the various authorites elsewhere I am sure they would be accepted

Have you tried it then? UK Championship shows - who else awards CC's? 

Definition of Monopoly : - a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

So the Kennel Club is only a drop in the ocean of UK pedigree dog registry and shows here?  Enlighten all of us on the numerous options to register say 10 hound breeds, 15 toy, 8 Utility, and so on that will be accepted worldwide as an import into another country registery, have it's Ch title recognised, have it's progeny registered.  Oh and what other UK Championship show awards that are NOT under KC authority are recognised worldwide?  Shows - not working titles.

> Definition of Monopoly : - a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
>
>

I don't think the KC have any control over other clubs access to international awards.  They are not themselves members of any international group they have merely forged an agreement.
Of course they are not a drop in the ocean, they have enormous significance but they do not hold it by monopoly but because by and large the various breed clubs that have chosen to use their services wish to do so.
I think, just the other day, Admin pointed out that their are members here who have dogs, unrecognised by the KC, registered with the FCI.

> think, just the other day, Admin pointed out that their are members here who have dogs, unrecognised by the KC, registered with the FCI

Yes but they are not UK residents.

> Yes but they are not UK residents.

According to Admin they are "there are FCI registered dogs in the UK"

In reality, there would be nothing to stop anyone from organising shows in the UK for FCI registered dogs.
As mentioned above, there are already FCI dogs here, most of which are imported breeds not yet allowed on the KC's register.

Doest he KC have any regulations about showing KC registered dogs at shows not organised by them? If not (and I would think not, or it would be awkward to show abroad) an FCI show could be arranged here, which allows KC and FCI reg dogs, held under FCI rules.

I believe the KC does have a rule about showing at non KC events.