Cat among the pigeons?

so the vets will be doing bloods, dopplers and mri's to check on the health of these dogs??? think not.

Do Basset Hounds, Bulldogs and Pugs require those tests?

Do Basset Hounds, Bulldogs and Pugs require those tests?

It's on the KC site too.

tbh i dont know but surely they should be heart tested at the very least. i just dont think its enough for a vet to take a look and say yep that dog is healthy when it could have a grade 4 heart murmur etc..

My breed is one of the 15 and I am more than pleased that the KC are bringing this in. We only have a small gene pool world wide, and breeder have not help with constant line breeding, using dogs with known health problems, and trying to breed monsters for the ring. There are those that are trying to move the breed forward and we have been saying for a while if breeders/owners didn't take action and introduce health screening and generally improve the breed, others would. I think anyone who believes in healthy dogs will have issues with what the KC are tying to do, and trust me the first 15 breeds are just the start. The KC are under pressure themselves to act after recent events and certain BBC programmes, and if they wern't taking action the goverment would. One of the requirments is the dog isn't out of breath after gentle exercise, I'm sorry but who in their right mind is going to have an issue with that.

i agree the dogs need to be health tested but what can a vet do by just examining by eye on the day?

Probably the Aussies sh*t stirring as they are still sore from the cricket results!

Obviously any vet can tell if a dog is in good condition on the day or not -we're not talking about unseen problems. Quote:
"The guidance which we will issue to Show Vets will focus on clinical signs associated with pain or discomfort which will come under the main headings of external eye disease, lameness, skin disorders and breathing difficulty. The show veterinary surgeons will be looking for signs such as ectropion, entropion, corneal damage, dermatitis, breathing difficulty on moderate exercise, and lameness. The fifteenth breed is the Chinese Crested where the principal issue will be the presence of skin damage arising from hair removal and thus signs of clipper rash or chemical insults to the skin will be looked for."

From what I gather, the vets can't discriminate on "aesthetic" grounds.

So - in theory - if they did think a dog had too many wrinkles, too short a nose, too long a nose, too heavy a coat, too little coat, too bandy-legged-looking, or maybe was merely walking a bit oddly..... they won't be able to do anything unless they can show a health issue is present....

They will be looking for entropion, skin infection within wrinkles, swollen or painful joints, shortness of breath due to short nose (are they going to run the dog up & down to listen to its 'wind' as they do with horses?) (and will they scan or x-ray anydog that wobbles?)

Things that are least likely to be present in a dog that gets as far as Crufts in the first place, but may well be presenting in a badly bred dog. It's lip service, I guess.

ETA: posted same time Marianne.

The trouble is, the media has already got the wrong end of the stick. This afternoon the news on my local radio said something along the lines of "Dogs at Crufts will now have to be health checked due to the problems of overbreeding". Nothing about next year, nothing about certain breeds -and what is "overbreeding" anyway?!

> and what is "overbreeding" anyway?

That's the one which always makes me fume. If anyone is 'overbreeding' it's the puppy farmers, and of course they and their dogs won't get within spitting distance of Crufts.

If they mean 'inbreeding' then people who don't register pups or register with the more dubious agencies could be doing that without knowing, or maybe with knowing.

Pity the poor vet!

If he/she a KC member he/she will be damned if they dont disqualify.

The KC, wanting to look squeaky clean, may appoint one from outwith the KCs auspices - what vet could they have?

We all know that there are some who think all pure bred dogs are mutants and only approve of crosses.

The vet's personal opinion of the rights and wrongs of having some breeds could play a large part in this scenario.

Interesting times?

>chemical insults to the skin

Sorry a bit OT:  I read something recently online about a woman who wanted to give her Ch Crested a tattoo matching her own (I wish I could remember where I found it).  She was asking to find a tattoo parlour for dogs...

Does that count as a chemical insult too!!

> i just dont think its enough for a vet to take a look and say yep that dog is healthy

Sadly many Pet owners think that is all they need regarding health testing before breeding from their Flossie, LOL

It's not just Crufts 2012, it's all Champ shows after that!! 

I would have read it as the vet will be checking certificates to prove the said dog has had all the health tests which that breed should have done if the KC say they are compulsary? and then a general health check by the vet with regards to coat, ears, heart, joints etc like you get whenever you go to your own vet? If that is the case then maybe it could work? better than doing nothing?
Paula xx

"The guidance which we will issue to Show Vets will focus on clinical signs associated with pain or discomfort which will come under the main headings of external eye disease, lameness, skin disorders and breathing difficulty. The show veterinary surgeons will be looking for signs such as ectropion, entropion, corneal damage, dermatitis, breathing difficulty on moderate exercise, and lameness. The fifteenth breed is the Chinese Crested where the principal issue will be the presence of skin damage arising from hair removal and thus signs of clipper rash or chemical insults to the skin will be looked for."

There IS a great opportunity for change at the moment but in my opinion it isn't just the breed standards and judging that need to be addressed. Its the entire Hierarchy that exists from the Big Pharmaceuticals to the Giant Pet food manufacturers..... to the Veterinary Colleges...to the Vets in practice... to the Insurance Companies....to the Kennel Club....to animal welfare organisations....to the pet owner who buys a pedigree dog and is immediately sucked up into the Hierarchy on the first vet visit...and finally down to the pet at the bottom who has no voice at all

Whilst it cannot be underestimated that over-exaggeration of breed standards has led to significant health problems in some breeds....it also cannot be underestimated how much the effects of an outdated adherence to annual vaccination...the overuse of veterinary drugs....the unsuitability of kibble diets to the carnivore's digestive system...are also having a major and destructive impact on the Health of Pedigree Dogs...and thus their resulting offspring...

The CDRM..the lameness...the dermatitis...the cardiomyopathies....the convulsions...etc....are not solely the result of "faulty breeding"...there is just as much blame to be laid squarely at the door of those who control the...Uppermost Lair of the Hierarchy...and thereby have the controlling influence over the lower lairs.....and the resultant "best advice" that gets meted out by them all.... 

"Best Advice" should be an all encompassing ethos with an emphasis on...or at the very least an alternative description of....Natural health and well-being

But the health...or rather the lack of.....is all big business to those at the top....dead and deformed puppies are accepted collateral damage to them....afflicted young dogs....personal heartbreaks and struggles....who cares as long as the money keeps rolling in to the bank accounts at the top...keeps the investors happy....

Time to take a step back...and view the picture as a whole....if we do truly want our Dogs to be "Fit For Life"

> I would have read it as the vet will be checking certificates to prove the said dog has had all the health tests which that breed should have done

No I don't think so :(

I think it's a visual examination to check that the dog appears to have no heath problems.

Whilst I would broadly agree with Freedom of Spirit why is it that more often than not whenever these discussions take place the whole "plight" of non-pedigree and none show dogs is ignored or glossed over. Owners of these dogs are just as vulnerable to the whole industry (with the obvious exception of the KC and breed clubs) if not more so.
As an example I meet an owner on our normal walk with a border terrier cross who had sore ears. She took it to the vet who informed her it had an genetic ear condition that borders get but it also should not mix with other dogs as this was also infectious as well. Before anybody asks is if she had misunderstood the vet - no she hadn't. I went to the vets with her and after talking (politely-ish) with the vet obtained refund as all the dog had was ear mites!
So the question must be if she had a dog (any breed or cross) from a quality breeder would they have backed her up in the same way I did?
Jeff.    

I would have read it as the vet will be checking certificates to prove the said dog has had all the health tests which that breed should have done if the KC say they are compulsary?

There are no compulsory health tests for ANY breeds unless you are an Accredited Breeder (actually there is just one exception -the Irish Red and White), and even then, the tests are mainly (with a few exceptions) for the PARENTS of any puppies, not for the offspring themselves. Logically it would never work to have a vet check any dog that wins BOB has had the relevant health tests. First off, why should it need to? It may never be intended for breeding at all. If it's got say a higher than average hip score but is fit and healthy and will never be bred from, why should that owner be precluded from winning with their dog? They may only have one dog they can show, with no possibility of keeping more. Secondly, say a puppy wins BOB -that would then be too young to have been hip scored, as just one example.  If dogs shown would HAVE to have had hips scored, elbows scored, eyes tested, hearts tested etc etc, then surely it would be just as (if not more!) important for any dog competing in agility or similar to have had them as well -even if they're neutered mongrels.

If the KC feel they have to do something, it does make the most sense to just have a vet check the dog is apparently fit on the day.

The thing is if a judge is supposed to remove from the ring any dog they think is unhealthy just with the aid of their eyes and hands then surely the vets can do the same - this new rule is welcome but I do wonder if it is more to force the judges to be more careful in what they place than anything else.

> but I do wonder if it is more to force the judges to be more careful in what they place than anything else.

Exactly Nova - and if you read the KC quote from Ronnie Irving it implies that this initiative is actually aimed at the judges.  Whilst I wholeheartedly support the reasoning that show dogs must be healthy, I can see so many problems for this line of action, not the least potential legal action from owners who disagree with vets opinions at shows - do they get the right to have an immediate examination by another vet of their choice, at the KC or shows' expense?

Surely the KC could have handled the problem of judges either ignoring or not being aware of unsound dogs with direct action towards policing judges and their awards, perhaps with ongoing judge appraisals?

..and is this only to apply to show dogs ?- what about dogs taking part in other KC controlled events - will they require a vet check too before becoming Obedience or Field Trial Champions ? - or is the KC just 'proving' the lie that ONLY show dogs are inherently less healthy  than others !

Yvonne

Don't think there is a legal problem they only have to add the word vet to the "judge's opinion is final" and the exhibitor signs away any right to do anything but complain.

Not sure how I feel about it but like most people I have seen judges award top honours to dogs that are lame or who to me seem to have anything but clean eyes but as a judge I know that most will be concentrating on what they are looking for and one can miss something one day that you notice latter and wonder how you possible placed that dog.

Perhaps the KC could in some way offer support to the judge, not taking the final decision away and giving it to the vet. There is a limit to the amount one can see when judging in the ring in the way of health problems but we all know there are judges who continue to put up dogs who do, in fact, not even fit the standard because they like a feature not just to be prominent but overdone and this does need checking.

That said, inappropriate judging takes place in other than the 15 breeds named we can all remember seeing a variety of terriers and toys with slipping kneecaps being placed at Crufts in front of millions of TV viewers, we do have to start somewhere to encourage some judges to rethink what they are doing but whether this is the best way I do have my doubts as it would seem to be more to gain publicity and I think that will backfire most of the media ignoring the fact that the KC is trying to control the breeders and judges and claiming a victory.

yep ..I can just see the headlines before Crufts ...the chorus of " I told you so " from our detractors will deafen us all ...

Yvonne

> Don't think there is a legal problem they only have to add the word vet to the "judge's opinion is final" and the exhibitor signs away any right to do anything but complain.

I think there is a big difference!  The "Judges opinion is final" is, in fact being removed in this instance, and a judge not placing a dog is not as damaging as a dog gaining an award and then, very publicly, having this removed.  In the current litigious society, if this happened to a top winning dog I can see the potential for big claims (if they would be upheld is another story), and a lot of damaging column inches for dog showing.

I too have seen dogs being placed, and sometimes awarded CCs who are not sound - don't think I have seen dogs with icky eyes highly placed, but have seen them being shown.  IF this is aimed at judges, as Ronnie  Irving's quote suggests, then in my opinion this initiative is starting at the wrong end of the problem, and needs aiming at the poor or incompetent judges much more directly.  I do appreciate that this is not an easy task - but perhaps on the spot checks for judging performance? 

Problem is gwen if the judges were to be spot checked who would do that? Much of the KC commitee who are judges at Group and BIS level are inept at judging half the breeds they are supposed to be passed for.  Having been to a recent KC seminar given by a so called top BIS judge after they judged my own breed not so long ago they clearly had not idea on the breed standard at the time of judging (the critique was appalling in terminology and reference to the standard), nor when they mentioned the breed in the seminar.

Also how many of them have vested interest still in the show ring, whould they stomp on someone who they may find themselves before in a group situation a few months later?

Would'nt the vets be looking at the dog before they go in the ring or as they go in, or looking round the benches, any lame or unfit dog  would be picked up then.


Any that were missed would'nt the judge send any dog out, so the dog would not get judged anyway.

The wellfare of the dog has to come first, and any dog with health problums caused by breeding or other cause, such not be at a show and if it is such not get in the ring.

In other activities corcerning animals there are vets present, in eventing horses and endurance racing, it is normal for the horses has to be passed by a vet before and after the event/race.

At sales of farm animals Defa are there and fine anyone who has an animal who is lame, and mostly it's happened during transport not breeding so is just an accident. They fine then a lot of money and may even inspect the premisses afterwards.

I think any judge who even lets an unfit dog in the ring such be sacked off from anything to do with showing anyway. 

Vets are present but do not check dogs unless asked to, the KC is saying that the winners of the 15 breeds that cause worry will be checked after they have won - in effect the work of the judges in these breeds will be checked, not to see if they have awarded the best dogs but to make sure the dog is not exaggerated to such an extent that it is effecting it's health.

They, the judges, are supposed to make sure their placed dogs are, as far as they are aware, healthy something which a few seem incapable of doing.

Have some sympathy for Group and BIS judges because they have every reason to expect that the breed judges will send forward good and fit examples of the breed they are judging whether they are breed or all rounders. That said in the last few days I have seen a judge short list a very lame dog - there were two of the same breed standing together so perhaps they called out the wrong one - at least this particular judge did not place this dog.

Years ago as can be seen on the old British Pathe news reels, dogs were checked by vets for health problems prior to getting into the show. So it is not really a big deal in that sense and when these checks ended there were still vets listed as the attendant vet as required, (maybe a question we need to ask is if vets are and have been so concerned why did we not see them at the ring sides of each show, championship or open or companion show?)

However this new scheme is a bit of a double edged sword, firstly the media is going to have a field day saying that it has to be done because of in breeding / line breeding and over breeding, that is going to be the case what ever. So looking at it from a different point of view perhaps we should all be insisting our dogs are health checked at shows to prove once and for all we are doing everything possible for our dogs? So while being targeted the listed breeds owners will over time be able to say they are doing as much as they can to eradicate health problems.

This kind of thing needs breeders and owners to be more and more proactive in yelling from the roof tops exactly what testing we do, when we do it and how it affects our breeding decisions. It is also why I have started a facebook group page  http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_170959846274011&ap=1 Already within 60 hours of being circulated we have 240 members. This site will list events such as eye testing health seminars and much more. I think we should all make our 2011 resolution to do at least one thing to educate a section of the public and hopefully the media that there are breeders and owners who are working very hard health testing and breeding from healthy dogs.

in the last few days I have seen a judge short list a very lame dog

If there was a very lame dog in the ring why was'nt it sent out to the vet straight away? More to the point why didnt the handler take it WITHOUT being told to.

> the chorus of " I told you so " from our detractors will deafen us all

But if we get on the case first and make ourselves more media savvy and show the media and detractors we are doing everything we can before Crufts we might just have a serious stake in what the public end up thinking?

We have often said here and in the dog press it has been said that dog breeders should 'go on the offensive' rather than wait for some idiot reporter to spout the usual rubbish. The KC can only do so much, so has anyone here got any ideas of things that could be done?

> in the last few days I have seen a judge short list a very lame dog
>
> If there was a very lame dog in the ring why was'nt it sent out to the vet straight away? More to the point why didnt the handler take it WITHOUT being told to.

Equally why did nobody report it to the show secretary and put down their £5 or what ever it is now to make the complaint official?

May be they did, would think the dog arrived at the show ok and it may well have developed the limp in the ring the fact remains that the judge did not notice it - the dog was not off it's feet but was not moving smoothly.

Doubt if anyone would complain what would you complain about, that the judge did not notice the dog had sustained an injury, or, the handler had not noticed. To be honest one sees far worse walking up and down the street.

I mentioned it because this dog was not sound but was short listed, so the judge is not likely to send it out of the ring because they did not notice, I did but would not think of making a fuss when the dog had probable been out for a romp between the breed class and the class I saw it in and stepped on a stone no one would risk showing this particular breed if it was congenitally unsound as it would not stand a hope in hell of being placed.

I once took a lame dog into a ring, breed judge, not many entered, wished to support, dog stood on wasp, dog given Piriton, dog entered class on three legs, dog found foot no longer hurt when it was his turn and went on to take BOB but I took him in for the sake of the judge and the breed as we do not want to lose classes from lack of numbers. Don't think that applied in the case I saw I think perhaps the handler was not aware the dog had gone lame.

Oh, by the way it is I believe £30 to report to the KC and we have all had dogs go lame but the inexperienced do not always realise when the dog is on the lead only when they see it running free. Would expect someone told them when they left the ring.

Ah right I assumed you meant it was not moving right because it had a definite problem not something that happened at the show. I have seen dogs which I know should not have been shown due to unsoundness (even had one entered under me many years ago when I first started judging).

No Polly I am sure it picked it up at the show but the judge should have noticed and had it been place it would have done another dog an injustice. Think I was trying to say that particularly in groups, BIS or stakes the judge does not seem to notice lack of soundness assuming may be that it would have been sorted by an earlier judge.

Oh, by the way it is I believe £30 to report to the KC and we have all had dogs go lame but the inexperienced do not always realise when the dog is on the lead only when they see it running free.

Why is that?  Is it to do with the type of collar and/or lead and the way the dog is held??

Why is that?  Is it to do with the type of collar and/or lead and the way the dog is held??

No it is just that some people do not know when the dog is pacing or not moving correctly without looking down at them and if they do look down they are in danger of tripping over the dog. It needs experience to feel through the lead if a dog is unsound when it is walking at heel of to the side of you.

No it is just that some people do not know when the dog is pacing or not moving correctly without looking down at them and if they do look down they are in danger of tripping over the dog. It needs experience to feel through the lead if a dog is unsound when it is walking at heel of to the side of you.

So, it's just down to handler inexperience then.  I wondered because  I would often ask if I could hold a dog and work it to feel how it was responding when owners advised me of problems they were having.  But these would be dogs on ordinary collar and leads in ordinary everyday situations.

I wondered if in this situation (showring) the handler couldn't tell because the show lead/collars are different and the handler may not be able to 'feel' how the dog  moves because of it.

Thanks for explaining.

> So, it's just down to handler inexperience then.

I wouldn't say so as a generalisation, no.... you just can't see how your dog is moving when it's beside you, and that's speaking as an owner not a show handler. But I have stood with people watching a horse being trotted up & down for soundness, and seen a slight movement that wasn't right, even though I'm not a horse expert.

The dog show judge is the person on the ground watching the dog being trotted up & down, same as the people watching the horse. When you're on the horse you can't see what the legs are doing, but if you're a good rider you might be aware that it's slightly out of kilter, but not know for sure or where until it's trotted out in front of you by someone else. There may not be enough time in a dog show to do this, or anyone around to give a trustworthy opinion.

No the tack is the same sort as you use for road walking but often lighter but not always. We use a slip or half slip with lead, others use the all in one (either in woven fabric or rope sometimes in rolled leather) think the solid collar would be little used because it makes it difficult for the judge to follow the line of the dogs spine from skull to tail and disturbs the coat but I have seen them used on occasion, Whippets, Greyhounds and other short coated breeds use a wide flat collar.

I don't know if it is down to the handlers experience or not, some people know if their dogs gait is not right and others do not I would think it is likely to be experience but it may be that some can't tell with some dogs. We move on a lose lead and it can be difficult to tell unless you tighten the lead which you would not do in the ring just to tell how the dog was going but you can do it when practising.

it needs experience to feel though the lead if a dog is unsound when it is walking at heel

All the more reason to have a vet present then.

If the dog is 'pacing' or not 'moving correctly' they such be sent out.

Also in a previous post that one sees worse walking up the street, is not the point, and is no excuse.

Years ago as can be seen on the old British Pathe news reels, dogs were checked by vets for health problems prior to getting into the show.

Surely that was only the same as it still is for cats here, and is for dogs in many other countries -checking they are not ill with something that can be passed on at the show? I.e. it was never to check the dog wasn't limping or similar -the vet wouldn't have time to check such a thing as it would involve moving the dog. It was checking there were no runny eyes, obvious coughing, fleas and similar.

.and is this only to apply to show dogs ?- what about dogs taking part in other KC controlled events - will they require a vet check too before becoming Obedience or Field Trial Champions ?

This is exactly what I said above somewhere -surely it would be even MORE important to check the fitness of a dog taking part in agility, for instance.

Jocelyn where do you get your information from - pacing is a normal dog gait why on earth should a dog be sent out of the ring for pacing. It is obvious from your post you have never been to a show or any other type of dog meeting or you would not suggest that every dog not moving like a thoroughbred horse should see a vet. Dogs like people are not perfect and you very rarely see a dog move perfectly well never really but some do better than others and we will keep trying to obtain the perfect dog but we know we will never succeed.

No it is just that some people do not know when the dog is pacing or not moving correctly without looking down at them and if they do look down they are in danger of tripping over the dog. It needs experience to feel through the lead if a dog is unsound when it is walking at heel of to the side of you.

So, it's just down to handler inexperience then.

I wouldn't say so as a generalisation, no.... you just can't see how your dog is moving when it's beside you, and that's speaking as an owner not a show handler.

Maybe it's a bit of both then- inexperience at not being able to 'feel' and not being able to 'see'.

I do think that the breeds that are of most concern are unlikly to become Obedience or field trial champions or take part in agility, simply because they couldnt do them with breathing problems, slipping knee caps etc. So they would'nt be there.
When did you last see a bulldog at an obidience comp or do agility? They can't because they can't breath propaly, they are panting with their tougues hanging out just to walk around. Their bodies are to heavy for their legs. It is a real shame and so unnessary.

> All the more reason to have a vet present then.

Won't work, can you imagine how long it would take to pace each & every dog up and down before a vet before being allowed into a show?

Part of the high price of cat shows is that each & every cat has an examination before being allowed in. And that doesn't include gaiting.

> I do think that the breeds that are of most concern are unlikly to become Obedience or field trial champions or take part in agility, simply because they couldnt do them with breathing problems, slipping knee caps etc. So they would'nt be there.

So what is your point here? (as per your earlier question?). We were talking about shows not working.