I must say that it worries me that the majority of members of this board immediately go on the defensive at any type of criticism. I always did agree with the PDE programme, and am happy that GSD's for example have come under the spotlight - but that is another argument we have already had. So the headline of this thread 'The Latest Target' says it all really. Not OMG is this happening to some poor dogs!

Yes, the size zero headline is somewhat silly, but typical media. The real issue to my mind is that some people ARE withholding food and water and that is abuse.

This isn't Jemima Harrison giving an opinion on the underweight dogs, but a judge. Clearly the weighing is causing some problems, and certainly it should be done away with.  All that has happened here is another unacceptable practice has been brought to light, and good job too. Just because members on here don't do it, it doesn't mean that others don't, and we should ALL be concerned with that.  The knee jerk reaction AGAINST this reporting appears to either passively condone the actions of the few, or stick heads in the sand and say because you've never seen it happen that it doesn't and it's all sensationalism - an even worse form of acceptance. Or perhaps it's just because Jemima Harrison brought it to light and anything she does has to be bad because of PDE.  Well for what it's worth I applaud her for both actions. It was needed, and it's needed in this case.

Nobody likes criticism, but we all need it from time to time, because sometimes we can't see what is right in front of us. We become entrenched in our own world and a belief that we are right no matter what. My view of the article that it was more on the slant of withholding food and water, the underweight dogs was rather marginal. However, again, the only reason it appears for doing this IS to win at shows - surely this is an undeniable fact. Certainly I would think a good approach would be to instantly ban weighing, then dogs won't be deprived of food and water period, as there will be no need.  A good outcome - surely? Another problem solved very easily. If a judge is then unsure at a show, measurement of the chest would be a far better indicator of conformation and size.

If everything was OK within the dog world, these situations couldn't arise, and as dog lovers surely we should support changes that will benefit the health of all dogs in the long run.

Jemima, if you are reading this, please tell me that you will investigate puppy farming and include it in your programme. Along with Pet Shops who are the main drivers of the puppy farming trade.

Kat

As a groomer I see far more fat dogs than skinny ones - I appreciate these are mostly pets rather than show dogs, but the average pet dog is much more likely to be fat.

How ridiculous!! I'd say in my breed you see more overweight dogs in the ring than you do underweight !!

Dogs Today is not my cup of tea at all - I bought an issue last month as it was featuring the Samoyed breed, the Samoyed articles were fine and a couple of the other articles interesting, the rest of the magazine was very anti-showing and not my scene really...as Jeangenie says, I prefer 'Your Dog' if I was going to buy any dog mag.

I don't want to see any dog starved or without water for the sake of winning at shows but I would also like the media to look at both sides, ie the overweight dogs too, pet and show!

i think what we ...well i am geting at with all this, is no one wants to see any dog suffer EVER!!! but this as been brought up now because of cruffs just around the corner ...and maybe more storys like this should be out in the open but its only being done now because there against showing thats all !!! ( i dont agree with food or water not being given )

Perhaps it has been brought up now as Crufts is around the corner. The fact is though that it obviously is happening, and if their message is going to get more impact while Crufts is about to be shown, then I guess it's it's a good time. The original PDE programme wasn't shown anywhere near Crufts though so perhaps there is an element of paranoia creeping in?.

This practice among (hopefully) a few has been 'exposed',and that can only be a good thing because it is animal abuse and needs to be stopped. If it wasn't for Jemima Harrison it would probably have been swept under the breed carpet as usual. Yes there are overweight dogs and that is more harmful than underweight, but you cannot feature everything in a programme, and to my mind this was the lesser point of the article. Fact is, dog show entrants/breeders hold their dogs up as the best and healthiest example of their breed (highest accolade - Crufts) so when there are bad practices going on they are (rightly) to be in the spotlight. It is after all only those who judge and breed (often one and the same) who can effect long term change, and clearly if left to their own devices are reluctant to do so, or indeed accept that there are any problems.

> The original PDE programme wasn't shown anywhere near Crufts though so perhaps there is an element of paranoia creeping in?.

probably not, you get a spate of articles like this every year at crufts time. (though may i say well done the guardian a couple of weeks ago for writing a crufts inspired article PROMOTING shows and show dogs!)

of course no one here wants to see that kind of thing happening, its barbaric, but what bugs me is don't write an article take the testimonials that jemima mentions and report it to the authorities. these are 'actual' (as in legislated) acts of animal cruelty (rather than something we all consider to be so) so could be prosecuted. i asked jemima if she reported it to the rspca and silence was the loud reply. take the issue through appropriate channels rather than start the nonscence that ensued after that program again.

> It is after all only those who judge and breed (often one and the same) who can effect long term change, and clearly if left to their own devices are reluctant to do so, or indeed accept that there are any problems.

i disagree with that, we have all admitted to problems existing in various areas and it is good breeders that try and correct them

>> Isn't that what happens in nature? Wild canids don't eat every day, and indeed there's a theory that pet dogs should have a fast day every week for their health.

Exactly what I was getting at JG.  :-)

>Isn't that what happens in nature? Wild canids don't eat every day, and indeed there's a theory that pet dogs should have a fast day every week for their health.

Yes, that is true and many did it years ago, our lot included.  However, I don't of anyone back then who would even dream of withholding water from a dog even for 1 day.  It also beggars the question as to how long these dogs are starved for before the main event.  :-(

> It is after all only those who judge and breed (often one and the same) who can effect long term change, and clearly if left to their own devices are reluctant to do so, or indeed accept that there are any problems.

>I disagree with that, we have all admitted to problems existing in various areas and it is good breeders that try and correct them.

In all fairness, many good decent breeders do indeed admit to problems and do their best to correct them to improve their chosen breed with some, not all, even going so far to leave the show ring because they feel the dogs that win is not improving the breed.  However, these breeders haven't had much influence on other breeders to the point of enforcing change. 

To influence change, one has start by targeting the biggest and most influential role models if you like, and for that to filter down and across in a ripple effect. 

Good breeders have their work cut out in gene pools that have many genetic problems.  Good breeders are only as good as the available stock for them to use and the choices they make are only as good as what other breeders choose to do.

As much as we would like to, and truly decent good breeders must be commended for the work they put in to improve their chosen breed in what can be difficult genetic navigation, they cannot be isolated because they are only going to be known as good for so long until they run out of good healthy stock.  There is a much bigger picture in this to consider. 

Jemima, obviously you have concerns about the mini dachsunds but as you say this is a relatively small number. Could you please answer the question posed by another poster regarding the obese dogs. This is a truly massive problem (no pun intended) which remains unsolved-perhaps a more efficient use of airtime?
Jeff.

> If it wasn't for Jemima Harrison it would probably have been swept under the breed carpet as usual.

Ah, isn't Jemima Harrison just the saviour of the dog world?!

I agree with the post about reporting it, if it's against the law, why didn't she report it?   

So when are the obese pet mutts going to be covered?? Let me guess, never.

> So when are the obese pet mutts going to be covered?? Let me guess, never.

Probably next Crufts???

lol

By the way Tweetiepie, if you wish to award Jemima, the "order of the giant wooden spoon, for the use of pot stirring", try to remember we do have young dog owners on this forum.

Why would she report it? If she followed the proper channels and allows the appropriate people to deal with said individuals she'd be out of money ie her wages for her follow up program! 

We have mini dachie folk at our ring craft and have had this discussion many times, non of the folk I train with or have had contact with would dream of doing such a thing to their precious pets, they hope their dogs don't go over the mark but don't disregard them if they do.  We discuss bone and muscle density which can have a huge bearing on the weight of the dogs.  I then show them 2 of my dogs both the same height ie breed standard but from 2 very different bloodlines my American boy is 7kgs whilst my European boy is 6kgs thats over 2lb difference yet both dogs are equal size and fitness - bone and muscle density is greater on the American line.

I can never understand why weight is a guide to size ie standard or mini it has too many variables to be of any true value.

> By the way Tweetiepie, if you wish to award Jemima, the "order of the giant wooden spoon, for the use of pot stirring", try to remember we do have young dog owners on this forum.

Apologies... goes to show how furious this "journalist" makes me *rages*

> I can never understand why weight is a guide to size ie standard or mini it has too many variables to be of any true value.

true, surely a good judge should be able to tell a mini from a standard by eye?

> Why would she report it? If she followed the proper channels and allows the appropriate people to deal with said individuals she'd be out of money ie her wages for her follow up program! 
>

but schip! Jemima maintains that she is out to help the dogs! of course it could not be about producing scandal and money! perhaps these dach's have read the report and found solace in the interest it generate rather than in actually being helped? ;)

>surely a good judge should be able to tell a mini from a standard by eye?

If they were all the same breed, then yes. But when you think about the different sizes of poodle, when an oversized Miniature poodle can be bigger than a small (but within breed standard size range) Standard poodle, it might not be that straightforward.

but a mini and a standard would not be in the same class except perhaps in group. are the dogs pedigrees not checked when they are entered in to a show?

>are the dogs pedigrees not checked when they are entered in to a show?

Not to my knowledge. But that's immaterial if we're talking about telling the difference between the two just by eye.

> are the dogs pedigrees not checked when they are entered in to a show?

Only the KC has records of each dog's pedigree (apart from their owners & breeders of course).  Show entries are not sent to the KC, not even for Crufts.  Crufts however is the only show to my knowledge which requires each dogs' registration or stud book number to be supplied on the entry form

Dogs entered at shows have their sire and dam, DOB and breeder recorded on the entry forms and in cases of irregularities it would be up to the owner or other exhibitors to spot a problem from the catalogue.  Occasionally genuine mistakes are made but if these go unnoticed until after judging it is likely that any award given out could be withdrawn by the KC so a dog entered as sired by the wrong stud for example could forfeit any award won if the mistake was not pointed out to the show secretary prior to judging taking place.

HTH Teri

thats very surprising, i would have thought that they would check with the kc.

At many open shows often all entries are dealt with by one individual - with somewhere in the region of a 200 - 1200 dogs that's a lot of checking :)  At champ shows entries are in the thousands and, except perhaps for breed club shows and perhaps some single/dual group shows, generally received direct by the printers.

On-line entries are IMO the ideal - dogs are recorded once only and then it's easier for everyone involved to just put a tick in the box beside each dog's name :)  Less opportunity for mistakes.

AFAIK pedigree details for CC, RCC & JW winners are checked by the KC before being officially awarded - as opposed to certificates given out in the ring for the CC.  Mistakes re breeding, breeder, age etc have previously only been uncovered at that point - which is very unfortunate for the owner/breeder of any dog concerned.

Our BC is a big dog and with a bad paw our vet is concerned he will put on too much weight so we have been told to cut his back whilst he is being lead walked. Blimy you cant win can you, we are told that we should be able to feel their ribs and have a clearly defined "waist".

Dogs in the wild eat to excess and they starve until the nexzt meal could be a week away, in zoo's we had starve days so that animals (meat eaters) could clear their gut.

Size zero my left foot!!

>> Isn't that what happens in nature? Wild canids don't eat every day, and indeed there's a theory that pet dogs should have a fast day every week for their health.

So this an excuse for saying it's OK to starve the dogs for this purpose? This certainly comes across as an excuse for it otherwise I fail to see the relevance.  Really, it doesn't do good breeders or the show world any favours at all by trying to defend bad practices like this.

And, let's face it, if she reported it to the RSPCA she would as we all know be wasting her breath - we all agree on this board that the RSPCA are useless. Let's face it, this has far more effect than wasting a call to the RSPCA.

> we all agree on this board that the RSPCA are useless.

Errr, no we don't :-)

Deepest apologies Isabel - I though that was a given. I should amend to say most of us who have ever had dealings with the RSPCA have found them useless.

Certainly all posts that include the RSPCA have given this view previously.

>So this an excuse for saying it's OK to starve the dogs for this purpose? This certainly comes across as an excuse for it otherwise I fail to see the relevance.

Not at all. It's saying that fasting isn't a Bad Thing per se. Let's face it, we all know that the standard treatment for an upset stomach is a 24-hour food fast followed by a gradual reintroduction of food. A day's regular fast is seen by many as beneficial to health. I used to have a dog who couldn't be fed less than 12 hours before a car journey, or she'd be horribly sick - so if we knew we were going anywhere (like a show, perhaps?) she wouldn't be fed.

Withholding water is certainly bad, but not necessarily food for a day or so.

>we all agree on this board that the RSPCA are useless.

Are you certain of that? I've known them to be equally good and bad at various instances.

> Certainly all posts that include the RSPCA have given this view previously.

Not all :-) and yes I have had dealings with the RSPCA.  They are not perfect but then neither are some of the notions that some posters have regarding just what their remit is.  Anyway, we digress :-)

> but then neither are some of the notions that some posters have regarding just what their remit is

Sorry, not entirely sure what you mean here - elaborate?

I mean they sometimes appear to be thought of as an Ambulance service or even an animal transport service.

> Not at all. It's saying that fasting isn't a Bad Thing per se. Let's face it, we all know that the standard treatment for an upset stomach is a 24-hour food fast followed by a gradual reintroduction of food. A day's regular fast is seen by many as beneficial to health. I used to have a dog who couldn't be fed less than 12 hours before a car journey, or she'd be horribly sick - so if we knew we were going anywhere (like a show, perhaps?) she wouldn't be fed.

I'm sorry, but the only relevance here is to imply that nothing wrong is being done in the situation in question, because it is acceptable in other situations which are solely for the benefit of the dog. I think it is depressing that so many have quoted the same stock response, to minimise or even trivialise this particular situation.  I would be utterly ashamed to withhold food or water for my own benefit (in this case meeting a weight requirement in a show) and I would be even more ashamed if I tried to rationalise an excuse for it.

Fair enough. My own dealings with them (and I will stick to that and not impose my views on others here - learned that lesson :) ) have always been in either animal cruelty situations or wildlife emergencies, and they have been worse than useless. Back to my original point, had they even taken any action or interest in a report such as this, they wouldn't have involved the KC, so going some way to bring about change. It likely would have stayed between them and individuals, only to recur when the RSPCA weren't around any more. At least the KC have the opportunity to bring about change that will ensure that it is never necessary to indulge in this practice. Whether they take the opportunity and abolish weighing across the board remains to be seen.

Jemmima,
            As you state as a fact that some dogs are being starved for up to two days before a show and having water withheld,
it stands that such a statement of fact can only be made with supporting evidence, if you have such evidence are you not conscience
and duty bound to provide it to the relevant body along with a complaint of cruelty ? or are you taking hearsay and giving that as a
statement of fact ? is your factual information gained on a personal level or provided 2nd/3rd hand ?
Stan Berry

As I understand it, what Andrew Brace was saying is that 75% of mini long haired dachs hes judged are underweight.....

NOT that 75% are starved, emaciated or dehydrated!

My immediate question is that if any of these dogs had been sufficiently underweight to suggest either a health problem or that they had been intentionally starved/had water withheld, then surely he would have kicked them out of the ring/withheld placings.

How many judges HAVE withheld placings due to such concerns? How many placings has HE withheld because of this?

I worked out he should have only placed 16 out of the 62(I think there's a post of mine with the figures I took from the results site), however he didn't withhold any places !