> Lordy lordy...the lesser spotted Hebeboots

:-) Have you missed me?!  (yup, I'm still alive ;-) )

Just watched interview with the owner of the clumber she was very dignified I thought and the dog looked lovely panting slightly but then it was surrounded by a small army.

Just switched More 4 on to watch and wondered if the winners of the "other activities" are being tested, doubt it because of the sanction being targeted on just the 15 breeds. Really do think it should be all principle winners and all breeds and crossbreeds if the KCs efforts are to be taken seriously.

> Just switched More 4 on to watch and wondered if the winners of the "other activities" are being tested

I don't suppose the winners of the agility or the likes would mind one bit if their dogs were health tested, the competition itself is a rigorous health assessment :-)

I don't suppose the winners of the agility or the likes would mind one bit

This is not about whether they mind or not is it thought it was to show that the KC was interested in the health of the dog.

Just switched More 4 on to watch and wondered if the winners of the "other activities" are being tested, doubt it because of the sanction being targeted on just the 15 breeds. Really do think it should be all principle winners and all breeds and crossbreeds if the KCs efforts are to be taken seriously.


I never gave that a thought, it seems even more unfair, what is good for one is good for everyone.

Looks like the Mastiff has failed also.

> I don't suppose the winners of the agility or the likes would mind one bit
>
> This is not about whether they mind or not is it thought it was to show that the KC was interested in the health of the dog.

It's a standard rule in agility - and has been for many years - that an agility judge can deem a dog unfit to run if the judge believes there is a health problem with a dog and running that dog would be detrimental to it's health  and that includes a dog being overweight and at increased risk of injury due to it's weight. Harsh handling can also get one disqualified, receive a fine and be banned from the sport. Behaviour outside the ring but within the confines of the showground can also earn a fine and a ban. The KC's interest in the health of agility dogs has been a standard part of the sport for years and those health requirements cover all dogs competing at KC agility shows whether they be purebreds dogs, crossbreeds or mongrels. The safety of the dogs is the uppermost consideration in every single aspect of the sport.

Unaffiliated shows also run under the same rules with regard to health issues.

It's a standard rule in agility - and has been for many years - that an agility judge can deem a dog unfit to run if the judge believes there is a health problem with a dog and running that dog would be detrimental to it's health  and that includes a dog being overweight and at increased risk of injury due to it's weight. Harsh handling can also get one disqualified, receive a fine and be banned from the sport. Behaviour outside the ring but within the confines of the showground can also earn a fine and a ban. The KC's interest in the health of agility dogs has been a standard part of the sport for years and those health requirements cover all dogs competing at KC agility shows whether they be purebreds dogs, crossbreeds or mongrels.

The rules are the same in the breed ring and have also been for years so apart from the fact that the breed rings do not have cross-breeds there is little difference & I can't see why if all principal winners were to be checked that should not include all dogs competing not just those in the breed rings.

> The rules are the same in the breed ring and have also been for years so apart from the fact that the breed rings do not have cross-breeds there is little difference & I can't see why if all principal winners were to be checked that should not include all dogs competing not just those in the breed rings.

Maybe they will if the winners come from the 15 breeds they have been checking so far :-)

Maybe they will if the winners come from the 15 breeds they have been checking so far

That was my original point - that was is it fair to only check 15 dogs why not all principal winners.

After all we only know for certain what one of the dogs was rejected for and that is a complaint that can effect almost if not all breeds so I question is it is fair to reject a dog that is suffering from a problem when it is possible other winners may also be effected. 

But agility dogs never ever have a vet shine a torch in their eyes!

My grade 7 agility dog is fit and healthy but sustained an injury to her eye whilst a youngster and for all I know it may show up if a vets torch was shone on it .It in no way hampers her performance or fitness levels and certainly isn't visible with the naked eye!

Will be insteresting reading in the dog papers next week

I am not particularly talking about agility I am asking that all dogs who are exhibits (in the widest sense) be treated the same so all dogs not just 15 breeds because that is not fair. The only reason we know of at the moment that caused a dog to loose its award will be present in others being exhibited (in the widest sense) and the treatment should be the same for all not just those breeds that may have been brought to the public eye of late but all breeds.

Also think it a problem when it is the best that are penalised for one fault when it is obvious that the animal as a whole is a huge improvement on what was around even a short while ago, the way forward is to encourage and I can't see that picking a few breeds and penalising the best is any help at all. Perhaps the vet could still make a report but only remove the BOB award if the dog is considered grossly unhealthy not to penalise an example of the best available at the present time.

All judges in all factions of dog sports and hobbies should know that they need to only award fit animal but the vets must understand what is available to the judge in order for them to make this decision.

I understand from posts on the Crufts FB page that the Peke has been examined by an independent vet  given a clean bill of health and litigation has started.

Nova I think you misunderstood where I'm coming from.

I am agreeing with you and feel it unfair to single out only certain dogs.

Also just watched the interview with the clumber spaniel owner on dogworld tv and have to say her dogs eyes looked an awful lot better than many I have seen on other breeds

Neo Mastiff has no BOB either.

On dog pages forum it has a copy of the vets report as to why it failed to go through.

States bilateral ectropion and conjunctivitus.

Also vets name is on bottom of the page.

Look under the heading-don't go to crufts

The Mastiff has no BOB either! Ooops! sorry I see someone else has already pointed this out!

On dog pages forum it has a copy of the vets report as to why it failed to go through

Which breed? I saw the Clumber yesterday and was a bit shocked that it had the BOB removed.

Oh, did realise you were not disagreeing with me but having watched some of the videos of the dogs that have been penalised I have changed my mind & go on my soap box, sorry.  I was please about the checking to start with but I did not realise the test would not be tempered with common sense and I am not at all surprised that legal action is being taken.

> All judges in all factions of dog sports and hobbies should know that they need to only award fit animal but the vets must understand what is available to the judge in order for them to make this decision.

But then one could argue that maybe if the best of the best available isn't as it should be then maybe it is right to withold the award? I have absolutely no idea at all about showing dogs - as you may well be able to tell :-) - but would have thought that all who entered - especially in the breeds in question - would have known the rules in advance and knew there would be a vet check if they were awarded BOB. Maybe the dogs chosen as BOB  are the best example of the breeds as they now exist but that doesn't automatically mean that they are as healthy as they should be and maybe the vets' reports will clarify the situation when full details are known. Not meaning to be argumentative and obviously speaking from a Joe Public point of view but is it not a good thing that health is now being given as much consideration as type and conformation?

For those dogs who have had their award removed but also have health certificates showing they have passed the relevant health checks then hopefully they will be able to contest the decision and go on to prove their dogs are healthy and fit for purpose.

The Mastiff has no BOB either!

nor the Neapolitan Mastiff

Already said that Jackie!  :-P

GSD has got BOB though! 

Harley
My point was that to take a breed example that is probably healthy and a vast improvement on those exhibited in recent years and penalise it despite all the improvements it shows is perhaps not the way to encourage breeders to carry on with the good work after all what is the point. For example entropion & ectropion can be found in most breeds so why would it only be a disqualifying fault in the 15 breeds and only if they are taking part in the breed rings not in any other activity.

If any dog is going to be bred from it should be tested---in any of the activities. The whole point is the fact that these winning breed dogs are likely to be bred from a lot and so pass on any health problems.

was it just the neo mastiff or the English too. ?

If any dog is going to be bred from it should be tested---

Agree that dog should be health tested and I think most breeders do but it would seem this is back to the baby with the bath water thinking, you have to use dogs with faults sometimes in order to improve the breed. There is no perfect dog so you take the dogs with the best conformation, temperament and health and breed them to  a complementary partner even if they do have a fault, well you have no choice all dogs have faults.

was it just the neo mastiff or the English too. ?

Both.

I totally agree nova this is crazy knee jerk behaviour. I'm afraid though as is often said on the pde blog they want these breeds to be left to die out.

i do not think they want the breeds to die out . anyone can see some of these breeds are totally unable to functional now and certainly could not manage the jobs they were originally bred for.can anyone think a bulldog could even run across a field to bait a bull ? the fact is these breeds have been virtually ruined by breedrs producing dogs with gross exaggerations and judges have for too long rewarded the same exaggerations. i think some of these breeds are only going to be able to save via the use of outside blood, unfortunate but that seems to be the sad reallity.

Well when you say it's best to let them die out or is it really a bad thing if they go, then yes I think that's exactly what they me.

I totally agree nova this is crazy knee jerk behaviour. I'm afraid though as is often said on the pde blog they want these breeds to be left to die out.

I was all for this until I watched the video of perhaps the best most moderate Bulldog I have ever seen and yes it was the one penalised, now I am sure it will still be used in peoples breeding programs but what a loss it would be if it was not. OK accept it will have problems but come on lets encourage the best to get better not penalise them for being the best available.

>but come on lets encourage the best to get better not penalise them for being the best available.

Quite right - you've got to work with what you've got.

I actually know one of the 'non awarded' dogs well and it is a beautiful dog although the breed isn't at all my cup of tea, I can honestly say that I don't find this particular dog in the least repellant - to me it has always looked in the peak of health and I know that it is also physically pretty fit too. I'm no vet but I don't remember seeing anything that made me feel uncomfortable for its health or welfare. I would have said that it was a really positive example for its breed so I'm also starting to wonder about these checks and where this will end... It must be devastating for the owners of these dogs and I really feel for them and the judges. Many of the dogs in question were bred before the revised breed standards came about, (some before PDE) so one would imagine some degree of departure from 'perfection' (in terms of the vetting criteria) would be permissable providing not extreme and the dog wasn't in discomfort. Especially if they are considerably better than the majority of the breed. It would surely send out the message that the breed is moving in the right direction.

I think this post http://www.vetstreet.com/dr-marty-becker/veterinarians-kick-out-champion-purebreds-at-crufts-dog-show-for-poor-health by vets and supporters showing the bulldog when it was shown at Midland counties, moving well, and looking very unexaggerated to my eyes, shows that some will never be happy with any bulldog, and want to see the end to all brachycephalic breeds, no matter hoe they improve.

> these winning breed dogs are likely to be bred from a lot and so pass on any health problems.

Actually many top dogs are nver bred from, either because theri owenrs are not breeders or if they own males do not wish theri dog used at stud.

In the toy breeds many of the bitches shown are considered too small to breed from.

>Neo Mastiff has no BOB either.

Just tagging on - I thought that breed would have trouble getting through. Surprised the GSD did - no reflection on the dog which I haven't seen, just on the average vet's opinion of the breed! Will look forward to watching the group!

It would take a brave man or organisation to take on the GSDs owner, he will have been ready for this.
The dog probably has a lawyer :-)

> was it just the neo mastiff or the English too. ?
>
> Both

I sat and watched the entire mastiff group today from the start and (granted from ringside and not hands on up close) she looked great. really nice mover i thought and it looked like reasonably tight eyes.

I spent the whole morning watching the mastiffs because they are the breed I plan to move into in a few years. I have a notebook full of my own critiques of the dogs being shown today but I was pleasantly surprised at how few were overdone (i really don't like exaggerated features). Particularly impressed by the 9 year old veteran bitch who moved around the ring with real drive and power. I guessed she was maybe 6 till i checked her birthdate.

I really don't like the terrible impression that this business is giving to the whole breedsconcerned. By banning the BOB it effectively says none of the breed are fit and healthy to the GP.

Interested to hear about the peke. It's poor owners, I can't even imagine how upset they must be :(

I agree about the Bulldog Barbara. Just watched the video of Midland Counties and to me it wasn't lumbering like a lot do, no signs of breathing problems and moved really smartly. I think it is a very sad affair if Vets ARE punishing the dog just because it is a certain breed.

some of the replys show that many of us have become so used to exaggeration that we do not see it anymore.the dogs failed basic health checks by a professional in animal health, nuff said.

Well said cooper.

> the dogs failed basic health checks by a professional in animal health, nuff said.

not really. in the case of the peke they have passed the same health checks by another professional. as such far from enough said, certainly from the point of view of its owners and their lawyers.

> the same health checks by another professional

The exact same?
*Wry raise of eyebrow*  Here's the rub....

the vet can only assess them on the day they are presented, a dog can pass a health test in febuary and fail in march, that is common sense. its the same as i can be fit one week but not the next.

I am not used to seeing exaggeration, owning a breed that has moderate size, weight, angles, and everything else I can think of including being a neutral colour, grey LOL.

Did you watch the video of the Bulldog and the clip with the vet at Crufts with another bulldog being praised for lack of exaggeration.

I am not a lover of flat faced breeds, nor short legged ones, nor heavy eared or jowly ones.  I like personally like the Spitz type which is fairly close to the prototype canine pattern.

But that bitch moves soundly, and is an improvement on most bulldogs I have seen over the last 20 years.

> The exact same?
> *Wry raise of eyebrow*  Here's the rub....

fair point :) though if they are indeed taking leagal action i would assume the same tests must have been done for comparison. however we of course do not know yet.

The point I was trying (and probably failing due to being sleep deprived!) was that its not enough said, we don't have enough detail as yet about what has happened with each entrant and as a new scheme feedback and discussion are vital in order to improve it in the long run and (here is really hoping!) improve things for our dogs.

> the vet can only assess them on the day they are presented, a dog can pass a health test in febuary and fail in march, that is common sense. its the same as i can be fit one week but not the next.

naturally, things come up all the time, but until we know exactly the whats, whys and wherefores it's really not enough said :) proffessionals of all ilks have professional disagreements as well so one vets word is not gospel.

someone suggested earlier having a best of 3 style system of vet judging. might be an interesting idea.

The exact same?

> *Wry raise of eyebrow*  Here's the rub....

The crux or the matter is dogs are not 100% any more than people are. There probably is not a dog living that you could not find a health problem with it is all a matter of degree. So glib remarks are not helpful at all. 

> So glib remarks are not helpful at all.

Are you accusing me personally, of being glib?