The KC has now made it mandatory that all exhibitors or competitors sign this declaration  when entering their shows and trials

" i/we undertake to abide by the regulations of this activity and not to bring to the activity any dog   ....... which is suffering from a visible condition which adversely affects it's health and welfare "

relative to what exactly ? - any dog of my own breed ( BSD ) that had the laboured breathing of the average Bulldog or moved like the average Peke  or had the bent front legs of the average Bassett would surely  be 'suffering from a visible condition which adversely affects it's health and welfare " so logically if its' bad for a BSD then why is it 'good for these breeds ? or is the notion of affecting a dogs health and welfare dependant on the breed? just WHAT is the KC trying to achieve by this ?

yvonne

I've never understood why the dogs aren't 'vetted in' as cats are at a cat show - apart from the added cost (cats shows were about double the price of dog shows when I last checked )

Just be thankful you don't have to sign one of these Standard Declaration

> I've never understood why the dogs aren't 'vetted in' as cats are at a cat show

Dogs were checked over by a vet before competing about 35-40 years ago

no-- you're missing my point - I'm questioning how a 'visible condition that affects a dogs health' can be determined when so many breeds have such hugely different physiologys after all the curved back line of a Borzoi would never be delared as affecting it's health yet if the same topline were seen in a GSD would it not fall foul of this new requirement ? - why ? - if curved toplines ( for example) are injurious to health for one breed then why not for all the others where it is a requirement ?
A Beagle with the bowed legs of a Bassett would be seen as having a fault which impacts on it's health and welfare but would Bassett breeders see such construction in the same light ?

Yvonne

> no-- you're missing my point - I'm questioning how a 'visible condition that affects a dogs health' can be determined when so many breeds have such hugely different physiologys after all the curved back line of a Borzoi would never be delared as affecting it's health yet if the same topline were seen in a GSD would it not fall foul of this new requirement ? - why ? - if curved toplines ( for example) are injurious to health for one breed then why not for all the others where it is a requirement ?
> A Beagle with the bowed legs of a Bassett would be seen as having a fault which impacts on it's health and welfare but would Bassett breeders see such construction in the same light ?
>

I have purely responded to somethin Dill made in a post & nothing more

> cats shows were about double the price of dog shows when I last checked

Not now they're not!  The most expensive cat show is £32 per entry, the most expensive dog show is £26!  And that's 4 classes (AND rosettes) you get at cat shows!

Hi Yvonne

Hmm, perhaps they are just looking at obvious problems regardless of breed such as limping, sticky eyes, coughing and/or sneezing etc ....

I do feel the KC are trying to cram so many amendments into a very short time scale simply to be seen to 'do something' rather than taking the time to work systematically through beneficial changes and, importantly, ensuring each message is clear to exhibitors, breeders, judges and any show officials.  IMO this is just another example of saying something for the sake of doing so rather than for any meaningful purpose otherwise we would be clear, anyone involved in dogdom or animal welfare groups, exactly what they meant by it!

Teri :)

I stand corrected :)

In that case a cat show IMHO is FAR better value than a dog show, the side classes in addition to the main breed class gave a much better idea of the quality of the exhibit in a much shorter time.

> I've never understood why the dogs aren't 'vetted in'

They used to be and cerainly are in Europe.

> I stand corrected :-)
>

Someone had too!  :-P   What cat breed was it you showed?

Burmese - blue   My girl is pictured in The Burmese Cat by Robine Pocock :)  I was a very proud mummy :-D

Was showing in the mid 80's until OH had to take a cut in wages or lose his job   No money for luxuries after that :(

Haven't got any cats now, the last one died about 21/2 years ago.

Why not go further and say any condition not just visible. Dogs could be suffering badly from an invisible condition and not fit for show.

such as what ? -

I agree with Teri I think this another sound bite without any clear 'joined up ' thinking behind it - it's probably done  with the vague aim of preventing overexaggerated dogs entering but some breeds by their very construction ARE an over exaggeration of the basic dog type logically this requirement would mean whole breeds would be disqualified from being shown ! - is this what the KC wants ?

Yvonne

Such as Epilepsy and I'm sure there are other conditions not always visible but still not fit for show.

Why does epilepsy make a dog not fit for show? Not fit for breeding, certainly, but showing is a totally different thing. Many dogs are shown that the owner has no intention of breeding from.

> Why does epilepsy make a dog not fit for show? Not fit for breeding, certainly, but showing is a totally different thing. Many dogs are shown that the owner has no intention of breeding from.

I think that is a point which totally escapes the KC, and is one which has always puzzled me.  The whole scheme of showing is slewed towards breeding - right down to the very basic requirement for "2 normally descended testicles" which is in every breed standard, thereby removing neutered males from any hope of a place.  Coming into dog showing form showing horses, this seemed very odd to me - with horses Geldings are shown on an equal footing with mares, and stallions are, depending on the type of horse, either shown seperately/ in hand/not at all.  I understand the historic roots of where the convention came from with dogs, but not why it is perpetuated.

This new declaration is bizarre, surely if you have a visible problem the judge would pick it up (hopefully) whereas a hidden health problem could be potentially more serious - however probably only as far as porgeny are concerned, not performance in the show ring.  Very mixed up logic, although can one expect logic form the KC?

I was always under the impression that showing was to find the most perfect specemin of the breed. How can one be perfect with a health problem of any kind visible or not. When the declaration would be signed to cover visible and invisible health problems it would be on trust but anyone found to not have revealed a health problem any wins CC and such would be cancelled and removed from the acredited breeders list.

> This new declaration is bizarre, surely if you have a visible problem the judge would pick it up (hopefully) whereas a hidden health problem could be potentially more serious - however probably only as far as porgeny are concerned, not performance in the show ring.

Probably the most potentially serious effect of this new panic measure by the KC is that it will spawn a whole tribe of smart-ass judges who want to make headlines.
There was just such a person who judged CKCS in the last year ( post PDE and KC's first panic dictate) and in his published critique he informed us that he had placed his specimens by dint of their skull size - thus ensuring he has picked the dogs least likely to suffer from SM !

Elevating each and every person who judges to the status of animal clinician is down right daft.

Yvonne's point regarding ones breed's virtue being anothers serious health issue strikes at the very heart of the dog showing dilema....... tiny eyes in the Bull Terrier and cross-eyed eyes in the Japanese chin, each would have us run to the vet if they occured in the others litter.

This new add-on cannot work for that very reason.

>I was always under the impression that showing was to find the most perfect specemin of the breed. How can one be perfect with a health problem of any kind visible or not.

No, showing is to determine which individual, in the judge's opinion on the day, most closely fits the standard. It's not to do with breeding, which is why neutered dogs and bitches can be shown. No living thing will ever be perfect; and of course many conditions that can't be tested for and don't manifest themselves until maturity - 2 to 5 years of age in the case of epilepsy. Having had an epileptic dog in the past I now that they're perfectly capable of having a totally normal life, enjoying shows and agility; it's just that they shouldn't be bred from, even though they might be the only known 'fitter' in many generations.

Two non-fitters can produce an epileptic offspring out of the blue. Why then should the breeder be punished?

The breed standard as set by the kennel club, lists the attributes that make up their idea of the perfect dog. No one is saying that any dog will ever cover all the things listed but a show gives prizes or wins to the nearest perfect dog or bitch. So far the health of dogs was not in question so long as they look good on the day to the judge. I am not against showing or breeding but if you are putting your dog forward as a good specimen, I would expect that dog to be fully healthy and tested for all known defects. I believe that the Kennel Club are trying to address this. Judges can't be expected to be as good as a vet at detection of defaults but it would be nice if entrants only put forward healthy dogs and sign to say that they are. If at anytime it becomes apparent that the shower has flouted this rule that they be banned from showing or holding any titles. Breeding does come into the scenario (but not the only reason) because anyone wanting a successful breeding kennel must first show, have some wins and make the contacts. Why be so defensive? Surely everyone on here must be a dog lover and only want the best for all dogs show or otherwise. Do you realy want unhealthy dogs to be bred from or their breeder owners to get prizes. People that feel the need to compete with a dog not fit for show because of health defects could maybe do agility or obedience.   

Thing is that most health issues are not congenital. 

Many health tests aren't carried out until a dog is mature and some conditions aren't simple pass or fail.

What is a healthy dog, would one that develops a food allergy be then excluded from being shown.

There are acquired health conditions as well as inherited ones, and sometimes it is impossible to tell which is which so what happens????

Hi gaby

At one time dog shows were specifcally held as opportunities for large kennels of stockmen to showcase and compete with their best quality stock with the sole intent of being seen to breed the creme de la creme and so further certain lines and, for those spectating, look to introduce new ones.  While that is still the case for some of the show fraternity it is certainly not the aim across the board - in fact in a great many breeds with large numbers exhibited I suspect it is even more rarely the case. 

Dog showing is now primarily a hobby with a great many exhibitors only ever intending to buy in a dog and never breed on from it.  Even for those wishing to plan future generations the majority have lives outwith the show scene (although some make a living from shows, trade stands, dog paraphenalia etc) and so the original reasons for conformation shows are a dim and distant memory except for a relatively small number in each breed (pro rata of course)

Those genuinely wishing to breed on healthy, well constructed and typical examples of their chosen breeds know the lines inside out across the country, continent and 'pond' because they do their homework and actually know the dogs in pedigrees and their ancestors / progeny plus the health status of them.  Equally those contemplating genuinely following in these esteemed footsteps will ensure they have found a good breeder and mentor to help them do so.

If the KC or any official body excludes dogs which are not health tested to the max for their breed from being exhibited, IMO there will only be a fraction of the numbers currently being shown - quite simply because only a fraction of those showing having any great aspirations to breed.  Far easier - and cheaper! - to buy in a dog from a reputable kennel which follows best practice across the board than to take on the expense of testing, breeding etc oneself.

Most exhibitors are pet only ones - i.e. one or maybe two dogs - not destined to blaze any great trails or hit the high spots but owned by people who love their dogs, enjoy the social and competitive side of the hobby and spend quite enough on the costs of this pursuit without factoring in tests which may require several hundred pounds when they wont be breeding anyway :)

Just another view point but, IMO, a valid one
regards, Teri

"tiny eyes in the Bull Terrier and cross-eyed eyes in the Japanese chin, each would have us run to the vet if they occured in the others litter."

..and THATS why the KC need to stop and think about whether any of their new directives actually MEAN anything - it is all subjective according to what the exhibitor/breeder considers healthy and sound for their breed but that may well not appear healthy or sound for the majority of onlookers - just look at the furore with the GSD - those that own the type decried by the KC as 'unsound' claim that they are both sound and healthy and often they can produce a sheaf of 'tests' to prove it !

to my mind unless the KC clarify exactly what they mean a with this amendment then it will serve only to confuse and alienate breeders and exhibitors even further - we really do NOT need another stick for our detractors to beat us over our heads with !

Yvonne

[url=]Why be so defensive? Surely everyone on here must be a dog lover and only want the best for all dogs show or otherwise. Do you realy want unhealthy dogs to be bred from or their breeder owners to get prizes. People that feel the need to compete with a dog not fit for show because of health defects could maybe do agility or obedience[/url]

I don't think we are being defensive .    just confused ! - the amendment clearly states that the fault should be visible - off hand I cannot think of any visible fault in my own breed that would affect the dogs health ( the way it looks yes as in a soft ear or a curled tail but health ? ) - even a BSD with the worst construction i.e straight or over angulated would still move more freely that a bulldog for example  so it's fault would not really affect it's health - and   a dog with such extreme visible faults would be disqualified form showing anyway ( as per it's breed standard)

and hidden health problems ?-   the judge and exhibitor are not vets - the dog in front of them may look perfect but be a carrier of Epilepsy - or SM - or throw monorchid pups - or a hundred and one other things  ( as indeed humans any EVERY other living orgnanism can)- we can ONLY go with the way the dog looks and then we are back to visible health being subjective !

and why would it be ok for an unhealthy dog to compete in  agility or Obedience but not  showing ? ...are obedience or agility dogs not bred from too ?

Yvonne

We learn something new every day, for instance I was not aware that neutered dogs could now be entered. When was this changed?
Has anyone who is involved in showing put forward a better scheme that the Kennel Club could use?

>for instance I was not aware that neutered dogs could now be entered. When was this changed?

Back in the 1970s it used to be that neutered dogs and bitches could be shown as long as they already had registered progeny. It must be about 15 or 20 years ago (I have an acknowledgement letter from the KC in 1993 granting permission) that the 'registered progeny' requirement was dropped and you only had to inform the KC that the surgery had taken place and you were allowed to show the animal, whether or not it had been bred from.

I have said before why is it that this misconception still abounds that neuters can't be shown when it has been allowed for so long, even before becoming across the board.

The change to not having to have progeny occurred since I got into showing dogs and that was in 1889, as I remember reading the announcement in the Dog Press, and also remember reading the former ruling when entering shows.

> since I got into showing dogs and that was in 1889

Gosh! Didn't realise you were that old, Brainless ;) :) :)

oops 1989

So going by the comments, change is needed but trying to come up with a workable rule to stop the breeding of pups with hereditory illnesses is yet to come. Sometimes rules are made with good intention but are not workable in practice, or thought through enough before becoming regulation. As you can tell by my comments I am a total novice in the dog world but well meant. Making laws is one thing upholding them is another. Breeders are the ones that need to be targeted. I know the Tv programme insenced a lot of people but did highlight the problem of show winners breeding from unsuitable dogs (I refer to the Cavalier winner) knowingly being used at stud and bringing the show world into disrepute.    

I think it would help if existing laws were enforced.  Breeding Licences would not be issued to commercial breeders unless they health tested all breeding stock (after all the sheer volume would have a disproportionate effect on the breeds and dogs bred in general) had suitable facilities and staff ratios (it wouldn't be profitable for someone to breed commercially if these were in place).  Unlicensed volume breeders would be prosecuted.

That would just then leave the casual Back Yarders like shown on the BBC2 program and the people under the umbrella of the KC. 

The latter just need to get rid of the two groups listed above and that leaves us with the rest who are already working hard with their breeds to breed to healthy happy dogs to a breed standard and enjoy competing in canine related activities.

but trying to come up with a workable rule to stop the breeding of pups with hereditory illnesses is yet to come

..you will NEVER be able to stop all inherited illnesses - if you try and breed away from one problem then it's very likely another will surface -all living creatures have hereditary problems  humans, who after all  are not line bred and are health tested from the cradle to the grave have more genetically inherited problems that dogs  do !-

sadly there is no 'magic button' that will solve this dilemma - and the KC should know better than to issue amendments such as this that are frankly meaningless confusing and unenforceable !

Yvonne

> If at anytime it becomes apparent that the shower has flouted this rule that they be banned from showing or holding any titles. Breeding does come into the scenario (but not the only reason) because anyone wanting a successful breeding kennel must first show, have some wins and make the contacts. Why be so defensive?

But not everyone who shows wants to have a breeding kennel. I am new to showing dogs and have no intentions of breeding for various reasons, none are health related by the way!  My dogs are pets first a foremost, they are my autistic son's soul mates, they give me a reason to get out of the house every day, going to shows and ringcraft gives me some respite,  I always take the best dog home from a show, winning is a bonus, I could go on but why presume that everyone who shows dogs wants to have a breeding kennel?

> I have said before why is it that this misconception still abounds that neuters can't be shown when it has been allowed for so long, even before becoming across the board.

While neutered Bitches can be shown on a "level playing field" with the rest, (and sometimes to their considerable advantage - I remember quite a lot of controversy about the big winning Sheltie Bitch Rosa Bleu, some saying it gave her a coat advantage) with males it is a different matter, as they obviously do not have the required "two normally descended......" and are therefore bound to be discounted, or at best placed at the end of the line.

I can't get my head round this new regulation at all (the amendmend to the form, not the netered question, which is not new).  It seems a charter for the dissatisified and jealous, on the one hand, to inundate the KC with complaints about dogs whith health issues who have been entered - we all know what the rumour grapewine can be like.  On the other hand it seems completely impossible to enforce and police, even if it was clarified.  So many health problems are not able to be tested for whislt others which may make a dog unsuitable to be bred from would not be at all detremental to it showing.  The only definite outcome I can see is an awful lo of wasted paper and printer ink when it has to be reproduced time and time again - entry forms are either going to get bigger or print a lot smaller!

> with males it is a different matter, as they obviously do not have the required "two normally descended......" and are therefore bound to be discounted, or at best placed at the end of the line.
>

I can see why castrated males would have a disadvantage even if the absence of the testes was not an issue, as in moist breeds a castrated Male will not develop the secondary sex characteristics, other than when done at full maturity.

In my won breed and others I am aware of castrated male veterans seem not to be penalised, so it isn't just the lack of gonads it is the effect they have on the male development that seams to put them at disadvantage.