I don't know if any of you have received the links to join the facebook page discussing coat testing, how it is done, why it is believed by many to be an outdated rule for certain products, the feeling of those hauled out of the ring at Crufts to be tested, and a link to an online petition.  I don't think I am allowed to post hte petition link here, but if anyone want to join the facebook group (currently at 1200 after about 24 hours) or see the petition link please either PM or email me.

As I dont use any products on my dogs, I dont have a problem with it.

Ditto Lexy

I saw the people who were taken away from the Poodle ring to be tested at Crufts this year. Until someone told me what it was about I thought there must have been some sort of crime committed - they looked as though they had been arrested. It must have been really embarrassing!

Ditto Lexy and Brainless

BUT after reading the account in Dog World about the manner in which those Poodle exhibitors were removed from the ring, I do hope that more thought is given to way in which these tests are handled and that 'clear' results are given immediately and in an appropriately public manner

why do they pick on the coats that they have to test, for example some breeds go into the ring after they have been standing there and you can see the stuff on the floor they have used you can see it all over the trousers of the handlers so why not have a go at the stuff that they can actually see,and maybe people would then not mind having their dogs coats tested, i don't have a prob as i use nothing on them well i hope the shampoo i use is ok ?

I hope you dont mind me asking but what are the products and what is there purpose.If you cant name them could you provide a link to allow me to read up on this.

i think it is flawed, and i heard all about the poodle and westie being frogmarched from the ring at crufts from my boss who was there.

if you do not put products on your dog, but the dog in front of you does....the judge goes over the front dog, gets product on his or her hands then puts their hands on your dog...hey ho your dog has contraband on them and if it your misfortune to have the test done, you are fined.

i agree that you can usually tell the people who over use the chalk, spray etc.... so quite right chat to those offenders and not in the ring i would do it outside and catch them at it on the benches.

personally i do not see the harm in a little product to cover blemishes or anti static spray. however I do object to the extremes it is used in.
at a show earlier this year in my breed a dog was chalked up so much it was falling from the dog walking into the ring, the judge put his hands on it and sent the dog out until the 'muck' as he put it was removed.

celtic lad, chalk is used to cover white coats, blemishes, ticks etc....charcoal block on black coats again to cover blemishes and different sprays are used on other breeds like hairspray, anti static spray de tangling spray. they are all used to enhance the appearance of the dogs.

I don't have a breed where you use products and I do agree with coat testing- rules are rules BUT I don't agree with the way it is handled. Some breeds are blatant about it, some shake and a cloud of chalk appears.

The proceedure is flawed as when in a show environment the product used by someone else can land on your dog.
Whilst I agree with testing in the grand scheme of things there are more important issues to be concentrating on.

Don't know whether I can sign.  Rules say that nothing but water can be used on a coat, but I've seen all sorts sprayed at shows.  I've always been very anti it and annoys me when I've seen dogs go in my class (not the breed I show now as they are totally rustic) that have been sprayed and not with just water to enhance their coats.  If a dogs coat can't look a certain way without something being sprayed on it then should they actually be shown in that way?  Is it time that certain breeds were shown with their styling being different?

Agree that maybe the way they go about matters when they do test though could be changed.

Anyone that uses shampoo and conditioner on there dogs can be fined - its the silicone in the product, left in the coat.  If you use handcream, perfume and hairspray on yourself, they can be transferred to your dog.  It would help if there was a list of products you could use.

Absolutely Snwoey, that is one of the points.  The rule means that any product residue in the coat infringes the rules - so if you shampoo, condition, or even use a sunscreeen spray you are as liable to being found guility  as a hair sprayed poodle - but that is part of the problem, becasue the KC only pick on a very small number of breeds to test.  There is nothing fair or random about it, even though all "groomed" breeds will have some degree of product in the coat.  And of course any breed can have it via transference from another dog, it's handler or even the judge!

I understand the feeling of those who say "rules is rules", but some rules have outlived their usefulness - a rule about coat product brought in when dogs were washed outside with cold water and carbolic soap and any coat product could well have been highly detrimental to the dog, probably being a noxious substance, is no longer relevant in the dog showing world.

I understand for those breeds who are shown completely natural, this is not an issue and htey don't understand the fuss, for those in the relevant breeds it is a very big thing, and for those of us with breeds who use products but are not a targetted breed - how will you feel if the KC decide to spread the net further?

There are a lot of other issues here too, the manner of the testing, upsetting for owner, painful for the dog.  Then the fact that it would be impossible to actually prove when the product was applied or by whom, so actually the whole procedure is pretty pointless, a sort of rule for rule sake.

We seem to have got into the mind set that rules have to be adhered to regardless, surely democracy means we should have a voice, and if a majority see a need for a rule to change, there should be an opportunity to put the facts to the powers that be and have common sense listened to?

the kc might test the coats but they also allow the stands at shows to sell a lot of the stuff that they may have banned double standards to me.

Personally I have no objection to products being used - within reason
Using hair removal cream on a crested I don't agree with, as hair removal cream can irritate, it's causes my skin to burn so I'd hate to think what it may do to a dog.

As has been said, the rule needs reviewing & changing(not abolished as we do need rules for such as the above)

A dog being bathed the night before in a doggy friendly shampoo would fail a test, which I think is totally stupid. Nobody wants to take an unclean dog in the ring & nobody wants to go over an unclean dog.

> The proceedure is flawed as when in a show environment the product used by someone else can land on your dog.
>

Is there any suggestion that is what is happening?

From what I have read it is a case of certain breeds having a culture that regards certain products such as silicone based shampoos as acceptable despite the KC rules and that the rules appear to be being broken and it is not a case of false results.

I suspect if you start to allow one or two products you will rapidly see "product creep".

If tests are going to be conducted they have to be done in a way that excludes the possibility of the owner claiming something has gone on outside their view and negating any findings hence the close escorting. 

If no testing was every carried out there would, I feel, undoubtedly be an absolute free for all with dogs entering the ring blindingly white and as rigid as cardboard!

>

> Is there any suggestion that is what is happening?

If you go to the petition page you will see exactly what the proposal is.  The point about transference of product is that it makes a farce of the testing process as anything found could have been transferred anywhere - even on the march across the show venue.  Therefore the test is worthless as proof of misconduct. It is not done under sealed clinical conditions.  The large group of exhibitors who agree that a rule change is needed feel that as many, many show dogs are prepared with coat product which would come within this regulation if they were tested, then the regulation is not relevant to the show world as it is now.  As things stand the KC habitually target only a very small group of breeds for testing, if it was widened to be truly random the outcry from people in other breeds would be much, much louder.  How many of us are prepared to to bathe our dogs and use conditioner for fear of testing.  The online petition now has over 600 signatures, not bad in less than 24 hours.  Dog World have featured the story online and in the paper.

it is not just shampoo or conditioners, dying,hair spray,mousse,these are all used as well.

> If you go to the petition page you will see exactly what the proposal is.

Do you mean the description page of the Facebook group?  I have not joined the group to learn any more because the title suggest I would be counted as a supporter.

I do understand about the transference thing although I would think it fairly clear from the quantities found in the samples whether it is a case of contamination or generally used throughout the coat.  But there does not seem to be any attempt to say this is an error but rather everyones doing it so why not?

> We are asking for an end of testing for powder, lacquer and silicone-based products.

>We are NOT suggesting that other substances which permanently change natural colour or natural texture such as DYE or chemical straighteners should be acceptable.

So they would still have to go through the same random checking procedures and therefore it can't really be about that.

>How many of us are prepared to to bathe our dogs and use conditioner for fear of testing.

None silicone based products should not be difficult to rinse out.

I would imagine with many of these products the judge is certain to know if they are on the dog when it is being 'gone over' . If this is the case then the owner should be asked to leave the ring with the dog and if they object then the dog should be coat tested. The only problem that I see in the Crufts scenario is that the people were apparently marched off like criminals - surely a simple ringside booth for coat testing beside those breed rings where this is a problem should suffice?

I do think that it is very unfair that people are winning where coats have obviously been enhanced at the expense of those who have followed the rules resulting in a less flashy coat and no place in the line up. I don't see why all these products should suddenly be allowed to remain in the coat to create a level playing field where there is already a rule in place that just needs enforcing at every show.

It does annoy me when I see piles of 'products' beside grooming tables for breeds which are supposed to be presented naturally. We turn up to a show with a small bag containing some wipes, a couple of brushes, comb, and a wee towel, some folk seem to have a suitcase filled with 'stuff'. Why on earth do people need all this 'stuff' at the ringside? Can't they groom their dogs at home the night before like the majority of us? I've even seen dogs getting trimmed before they go in the ring - why is this necessary? - hair can't possibly grow that much overnight and the whole thing seems to be more about the owners showing off than the dogs.

> I don't see why all these products should suddenly be allowed to remain in the coat to create a level playing field where there is already a rule in place that just needs enforcing at every show.
>

Exactly.  There already is a level playing field when everyone abides by the rules.

This is the proposal:

The Kennel Club should cease with immediate effect the practice of coat testing for powder,lacquer and silicone-based grooming products.

After witnessing the treatment of Poodle exhibitors this year at Crufts by Club officials, I, supported by many others across a wide spectrum of breeds, felt compelled to challenge our Kennel Club's regulations with regard to the preparation and presentation of show dogs and the practice of coat testing.

Currently it is considered unacceptable for exhibitors to use products which may alter the texture of the coat. These include chalk, powder, lacquer, and grooming products which contain silicone. The latter is commonly found in shampoo and conditioners for both human and canine use. These items are used to enhance our dogs for the ring and make them appear at their best for exhibition.

I know that the KC endorses the views of most exhibitors in that ''freedom and a natural life'' is paramount for our beloved companions. Dogs with white coats who enjoy such a lifestyle will no doubt experience some dulling of the hair as a result, and therefore benefit from the use of brightening powders and chalks. Dogs with drop-coats such as Maltese, Yorkies and Shih Tzu are normally washed and conditioned in shampoos which invariably contain silicone as a way to maintain a sleek appearance and prevent the coat from tangling. Poodle exhibitors traditionally use lacquer to enhance the topknot of hair which frames their dogs' face. In fact, most breeds regularly use products to simply increase shine, and others to increase (or decrease) volume. No unfair advantage is gained as everyone has access to these materials and uses them where appropriate, but all mentioned about should technically disqualify a dog from competition under current regulations.

The fact is that each time we bathe our dogs we alter their coat texture and thereby break the KC's rules.

Adding to this frustration is how the KC enforces these rules. The practise of ''coat testing'' for foreign substances is carried out in a supposedly random fashion across a small minority of breeds most commonly including Bichons, Poodles and a selection of Terriers. In all cases during the last decade only the Dog CC and Reserve CC winners have been tested. These facts reinforce the belief of many that to call the process random is a contradiction of terms.

The winning dogs and their handlers are removed from the ring immediately after their wins, and taken to a designated area. A vet drags a selection of flea combs through the coat to obtain samples of hair, perhaps to the discomfort of the dog himself. The samples are sent to a forensics lab to be tested for foreign substances such as the ones mentioned above.
As an experienced exhibitor who has been through this process firsthand , I can say that it is thoroughly intimidating and distressing for both dog and handler. For an exhibitor who has just experienced the joy of winning a coveted card, the euphoria is quickly drained away as he finds himself embroiled in this unexpected scenario.

Following the dog judging at Crufts this year, this scene played out in the Miniature Poodle ring. No fewer than 8 suited officials escorted the two female exhibitors (one of whom was Swedish and spoke only broken English) to the testing area. Confusion and frustration grew around the ringside as judging was delayed until further notice. It was a sad reflection on our sport, at our most publicised and publicly-attend event, for an air of wrong-doing and the inferred allegations of ''cheating'' to pervade the hall. More than one exhibitor was heard to say ''I can't believe I paid money to see our breed treated this way!''

The owner of the RCC winner, 80 year old June Clark, is a longtime breeder/exhibitor of Miniature Poodles. She was terribly upset and distressed at being made to feel as though she had done something wrong, and later needed much consoling from fellow exhibitors on what should have been a day of celebration. Why were these two animals tested from the 20,000+ who competed at Crufts? When health and welfare are so rightly a top priority, enforcing these regulations is a distraction from more important issues.

If KC-sanctioned testing was used to ward off dangerous substances or performance-enhancing drugs, none of us would argue at its importance in maintaining a safe enviroment for our canine friends. But when such force is used to detect what boils down to high-street beauty enhancers, which pose NO welfare risk or potential ill side-effects, it is time for re-evaluation.

It is important to note the specific wording of this proposal. We are asking for an end of testing for powder, lacquer and silicone-based products ONLY. We are NOT suggesting that other substances which permanently change natural colour or natural texture such as DYE or Chemical straighteners should be acceptable. We support the continued testing for dye should the KC choose to do so.

Some might fear that if regulation on grooming products is relaxed, then the proverbial flood gates will open. However, when one considers that out of the 4 tests carried out at Crufts this year (Miniature Poodles and Westies), all 4 samples came back positive for substances, it is clear that the current methodology is NOT effective. Nor is it conclusive as to how the substances arrived on the hair samples. Cross-contamination from other exhibitors within the grooming area is one very plausible explanation. What is obvious is that exhibitors want to present their dogs in a manner which affords them the look they desire, whilst remaining safe and harmless to the dogs themselves.

We are asking for common sense to prevail in this matter. We implore the KC to accept that the practise of coat-testing is no longer appropriate and conjures up more negatives than benefits.

I feel sure the Judge going over a poodle would know by the amount of lacquer needed to keep up the top-knot that it is not there by transference. I don't think you would find a poodle without lacquer in the ring, look around the grooming area and lacquer,and many other products are openly used before entering the ring.

All "this stuff" really is needed to make the poodle look the way it does for the show ring,as for grooming the night before,an average of 2 hours to bath and dry and thats not including all the combing out. To then have to scissor would mean even longer on the table and they do look so much crisper when freshly scissored

I wonder how the poodle would look without any product and would the style of trim alter for the show ring, I know some competitors would welcome a more manageable style, what do others think

A firend of mine use to show poodles and she told me they had to be scissored the same day as the show as they wouldnt look quite right.
I was at Foleshill show and the Miniture Shnauzer exh sprayed that much hairspray on the dog i felt sure it would need a oxygen tent and then earlier this year at Swindon a couple that was sat next to us spent the best part of 3 hours brushing , combing and spraying her lhasa it looked bored to tears, i think that is when things get far to silly and goes far beyond a little extra boost, the Lhasa person even made the dog drink from a rabbit water bottle so not to get its hair wet.

> Exactly.  There already is a level playing field when everyone abides by the rules.

But there isn't !  Many, many breeds routinely use harmless coat products to acheive a ring ready coat, from simple shampoo and conditions, through coat sprays for sun protection, right up to hairspray and chalk.  Only a very small handful of breeds are subject to testing, so the vast majority use product with impunity, secure in the knowledge they won't be tested.  Similarly, only the Dogs get tested, historically (no idea why) so again, not a level playing field.  To acheive a level playing field random testing has to be carried out properly, or even more fairly, all exhibits should be tested! 

Some breeds are very glamorous, this is a big part of their appeal, others need product such as chalk to  aid hand stripping, if all (or at least the vast majority ) of owners/exhibitors in that breed already use product, does this not suggest that the KC need to look at the regulation?  This is not
giving anyone an unfair advantage, just updating a rule inline with current practice.

There is then the further argument that the testing process itself cannot in anyway produce a legally conclusive result of product present - because of the chance of cross contamination which renders the whole unpleasant process ludicrous.

This has given an interesting insight into fellow CDers mindsets - are there no KC rules which any of you fell are unfair, unjustified or just plain pointless? I can think of quite a few more which I would like to see discussed, explained or chucked out, but with the KC current format the exhibitor does not have a voice.

> Dogs with white coats who enjoy such a lifestyle will no doubt experience some dulling of the hair as a result, and therefore benefit from the use of brightening powders and chalks. Dogs with drop-coats such as Maltese, Yorkies and Shih Tzu are normally washed and conditioned in shampoos which invariably contain silicone as a way to maintain a sleek appearance and prevent the coat from tangling. Poodle exhibitors traditionally use lacquer to enhance the topknot of hair which frames their dogs' face.

>Nor is it conclusive as to how the substances arrived on the hair samples.

I don't think you can claim both that everyone is doing it anyway and it's probably a error.

I find the rule pretty silly really ecspecially as they allow all these products to be sold at shows but on the other hand i think some of the products are excesively used like i said in previous post, i feel for sure that the whitening shampoo is used in my breed and in quite alot of others and i can't think of anyone who has been tested the same goes for the white paste that they put under the eyes if they weep.

> This has given an interesting insight into fellow CDers mindsets

I hope it might make you take a step back and try to see this without your understandably personal connection to this breed and group of breeders that you clearly hold strong emotions for.
I think it is clear the handful of most tested breeds are the handful most likely to be not conforming to the rules but I do not think you should conclude that the rest are using products with impunity but I certainly would not object if testing was more widespead.

> The fact is that each time we bathe our dogs we alter their coat texture and thereby break the KC's rules.
>
>

It's for this reason that I bath my dogs only about once or twice a year...I am lucky I have a breed which is very clean naturally.

    The fact is that each time we bathe our dogs we alter their coat texture and thereby break the KC's rules.
    >
    >

It's for this reason that I bath my dogs only about once or twice a year...I am lucky I have a breed which is very clean naturally.
Quote selected text

Mine are bathed quite often and even if i didnt show i would still bath them the same amount, if they're left to long without bathing there skin can get quite itchy and sometimes can get hot spots, i see it as simple personnal hygine for them just the same as i like to keep my hair clean.

>> Nor is it conclusive as to how the substances arrived on the hair samples.
> I don't think you can claim both that everyone is doing it anyway

The point here is that the tests cannot prove how or by whom any product was applied anyway - the whole draconian process of dragging handlers and dogs away to do a test the result of which is not only open to argument but would be torn to pieces by any legal advisor in the subsequent hearing from a positive test makes it a questionable excercise, at best.

This point was further made as an example of what could happen if the KC  decide to actually do random testing, rather than selective breeds only - after all, it is meant to be random.  Would we all adhere to the "letter of the law" and cease shampooing etc, yet would still be at risk of passing spray from less rule conscious handlers, or even from exhibitors own products - hand cream, hair spray etc.  Yes, it may be a bit far fetched, but if the rule is applied to "maintain a level playing field" as the KC insist, this would be a reality.  There is nothing in the regulation about how much product is present to be in contravention of the thing, just that it is present.

> Would we all adhere to the "letter of the law" and cease shampooing etc, yet would still be at risk of passing spray from less rule conscious handlers, or even from exhibitors own products - hand cream, hair spray etc. 

I think the samples would be so different both in scale, spread and depth into the coat from that of a dog where these products had been applied deliberately that it really would not be in doubt.

I understand for those breeds who are shown completely natural, this is not an issue and htey don't understand the fuss

I have a utility breed that is shown natural and get a little peeved when I'm in a ring with other utility breeds that use products. At a limit show there was a boxer exhiitor using eye liner on her dog :-(  My AV Utility class was a eye opener, a poodle exhibitor asked the judge if she could leave the ring to tidy topknot was allowed to do so and proceeded to use lacquer on her dog in full view of all including show secretary & the judge!! My girl won the class but why was this allowed to go unchallenged? It should be a level playing field for all.

>

> I hope it might make you take a step back and try to see this without your understandably personal connection to this breed and group of breeders that you clearly hold strong emotions for.
> I think it is clear the handful of most tested breeds are the handful most likely to be not conforming to the rules but I do not think you should conclude that the rest are using products with impunity but I certainly would not object if testing was more widespead.

From my experience all flowing coated breeds use product to some extent or another - shampoo and conditioner are essential, sprays used by most.  These breeds are not among the group who have been subject to testing.  I have no idea how it would be possible to keep an American Cocker, an Afghan or a Yorkie  to name but 3, with it's coat in show  readiness without using conditioner which will invariable leave product in the coat (if it didn't then there would be no point in using it.)  We do so with impunity because they are never tested - how is that fair to the breeds who use spray or chalk, simply because the KC apply only part of their own ruling?

The world of dogs has moved on a long way since this rule was drafted, the exhibitors who have signed the petition (now over 700 in just over 24 hours) want the KC to acknowledge they have an opinion in how their breeds are dealt with.

I have a utility breed that is shown natural

Are yours not bathed then?? brushed? trimmed round the feet?

> The world of dogs has moved on a long way since this rule was drafted

Not necessarily a good thing.  A petition to move it back to a little less exageration on the coat and grooming front might win a few votes too :). 
My fear would be a relaxation of the products allowed would lead it even further down the path.

Well, so far we have 800 people who have singed the petition and think it is a good thing - I guess the KC meeting next will will be rather interesting for those who are there.

I fully appreciate your point that some exhibitors would like dogs to be shown more naturally.  Unfortunately the current KC system does not give the average exhibitor any say in such matters.  Mike was able to have this question raised as he is a KC member, there must be lots of other issues which cause dissent and upset , but we all follow along blindly like sheep because we have no means of being heard.

The "coat regulation" was the one which struck me as being most ludicrous when I first came into dog showing about 16 or 17 years ago.  How could a regulation demand nothing be used to change the appearance or texture when no product makes such drastic changes as clipping,trimming and stripping - mandatory in lots of breeds.  No one has ever been able to explain this to me.

Along the way other things have seemed equally ludicrous, and without reason, for instance why do Junior Handlers dogs have to be entered in a breed class too?  I have heard lots of Juniors parents/supporting adults say they have to cut down on entries because of the cost of the extra breed entry, why can't the handling entry be a first entry without CCs pricewise?  There may be a reason but no one seems to know it, and is it a good reason or should it be reconsidered?  Moving from showing into Agility, why do toy breed have to compete in the "Small" class - small in agility include fairly large spaniels etc, and why do the smalls (inc Toy breeds) have to compete over the same "contact" items (A frame, dog walk) as a GSD sized dog?  There are probably dozens of other things which have cropped up over the years, and I am sure other peole have equally annoying bugbears with no explanation or route to suggest change effectively.

Honestly?

No. Not signing.

Your basic argument is 'we have a rule that lots of people break as a matter of course, openly and it is discussed openly, understood and accepted - we should now change the rules to accomodate this.' Discussion of the validity of coat testing or how upsetting it might be for an exhibitor to be taken to one side and have their dog coat tested, holding up the judging is not relevent in my opinion.

In dog showing we now have all eyes on us, EVERYTHING we do is up for scrutiny and I fail to see now how we can purport to be doing things for the best interests of the dog, to 'caretake' breeds for the future, yadda yadda yadda..... when SOME breeds ONLY look the way they do for the half hour after they got blow dried, and the two minutes whilst they mince round the ring crusted in lacquer and weighed down with silicone sprays.

Some of our much loved and wonderful breeds are NOTHING MORE than a mobile bleddy hairdo. A wig on legs, the canine version of the Girls World hairdressing head, for grown ups, with prizes!

I can see some people now throwing things at the screen and shouting 'who the h*ll does she think she is chucking accusations like that about' - I DO own two coated breeds (well one is a xbreed). A Tibetan terrier and an Afghan x Saluki.

As far as I can see when you allow products to be used in the ring it becomes NOT a contest to see which is the best dog, but a contest to see who can source the most innovative products! Who can groom their dog the best, who can preserve (and at what cost?) that coat? Who can spend the most money and time on products and gizmos and gadgets, on miracle sprays and hair straighteners...

Is that REALLY what you want dog showing to be about? Do you love your breed PURELY and SOLEY because it looks glamorous swishing round the ring with a Tina Turner 'do' - is the dog underneath that do no longer relevant?

I am sure if I take my Tibetan to crufts (ha! he'd have to quit shouting at everyone first to get placed anywhere!) we would get laughed out of the ring. He is not regularly oiled, he does not have a floor sweeping ironed flat coat, he does not look like a glossy aristocrat, breezing around the ring. He is bathed every few months, he is brushed regularly and is in full coat - but a NATURAL full coat, it breaks off where it touches the ground it is less dense and shorter where it naturally tangles and that is a GOOD thing, or hed have so much coat hed not be able to move. His coat keeps him warm when its cold, and cold when its warm, it is unbelievably waterproof with the obvious exception of his massive spongelike hooves. He functions well a nd quite honestly WOULD cope wiht a winter in Tibet (hed be horrified and write to his Union, but hed cope!)

How many of these breeds you want to have the right to use product willynilly to preserve their coat WOULD or COULD cope in their natural environment, doign their breed job, with the coats they have now?

I would love to see a show afghan hunt - if it didnt plait its knickers together and fall over it would drop from heat exhaustion carrying that coat. And a standard poodle retrieve, from water, in that coat, its so huge and ridiculous the poor beggar would drown, it certainly wouldt see where it was going once the water washed the lacquer out of the topknot. And does it matter if a boxers white bits are super white, this isnt a doorstep washing whites challenge?

It isnt just the conformation of some of our breeds that has suffered, for some of them the coats we insist they have, that we think look wonderful, arent - and if you NEED product on the coat in the ring to maintain that look then I say there is something fundamentally wrong with the way you are viewing and producing that breed.

Just because poodles or other dogs with coats for that matter are in show trim does not mean that they still dont swim in water or go for walks in woods.  They are still pets first and foremost.  The topknot in poodles is the problem, and I hate to see them walk with hair in their eyes.  Either they change the guidelines for the way they are shown, shorter topknots, and allow more banding, making them more comfortable.  I have watched people use hairspray, and hate the way that a tin is almost used, not only on the topknot but on the body.

I am well aware that a lot of show dogs (my own included! I didnt mention the Deerhound as they really ARE a natural breed, 'dragged through a hedge backwards' is their look!) do live happy normal lives ...

But you cannot tell me that a standard poodle or an afghan for example, could do the job they were bred to do with the show ring coats they now have, and they are not the only ones. Lets face it, these products in their coats are NOT natural and lead them to have an unnatural coat and mean we can continue to favour these unnatural coats.

Without heavy oiling, detangling products and the like, the Afghans coat would break off much shorter. Without specialist shampoos, conditions and hold sprays the poodles coat would NOT stand off like it does and the top knot would flop in its face. Ditto the Old English Sheepdog and I can assure you that Tibetan Terriers do not naturally look glossy, ironed smooth and poker straight and the original tibetan imports had coats a LONG way from floor sweeping!

If we ditched all these products adn REALLY showed dogs naturally, could we not get back to the more accurate origins of our breeds? Or do we not want that really.

I cannot deny that an affie in full coat is a glorious sight to behold, but the much less hairy originals of all these breeds were every bit as great looking! And  seriously, we DO limit the lives of these dogs, they do have to go through many hours of grooming which although they may sleep through and tolerate is never going to be as much fun as rolling in sh*t or hurtling about in the woods. Even if we dont lock them up in cages and wrap them in cotton wool all the time, most heavily coated or fine long coated breeds DO end up avoiding mud and tangles and soaking wet weather, its human nature to avoid it and protect the coats and save ourselves work. Is it really fair?

Not all dogs want to roll in s*** though do they, 2 of my dogs are totall premadonas and get so excited when the grooming box comes out, one of them even wiggled her behind as I brush in excitement she loves it so much, the problem is becoming though there is no middle ground some of it is so ott and then the other side wants them all to go in he ring as nature intended, well nature intended us to be naked but I sure as hell am not gonna do that! Times change as long as the dogs welfare is not compromised I see no problem in grooming but the extremes need raining in. For instance at southern counties last year which was very hot I saw a poodle groomed holding the dogs mouth shut whilst doing it's face so it could not pant, that is not a nice experience for the dog.

> but the extremes need raining in.

To do that I think you do have stop the use of these products as they are what will allow excesses to succeed.
You say there is no support for the middle ground but I think I would describe my views as just that.  Let people have their long coated, white and glamour breeds but do not let it excalate beyond what can be achieved with unadalterated grooming.
Theemx raises the issue of the public image of dog showing.  I think if the KC allowed this the press would have a field day.  I can see now the coverage of Crufts in the following year.

We are never gonna please the Public now in regards to showing thanks to the program, I only use shampoo and blow dry but if they were all disallowed then that takes away the choice of shampoo and it will also take a nice little earner with all the show stands.

surely the KC can/would understand it's kinder on the dog to use a tangle free grooming spray, rather than having to spend hours with a knotted up coat. (something not needed in my breed) but we do bath, and of course blast the coat against the direction of the way it lies, to enhance the look, maybe i should try taking an unbathed dog to a show (as not to alter the natural apperance) and see how far i get with my brown/grey spitz (that was cream yesterday)

> None silicone based products should not be difficult to rinse out.

Now here lies a problem.  How do you KNOW for certainty that what you use does NOT contain a silicone material?  On the "word" of the manufacturer?  Manufacturers have no legal obligation to INCI list product ingredients unlike human cosmetics and toiletries unfortunately.  Having read just one website last night of a shampoo and conditioner manufacturer / retailer and looked at their products at shows it is clear that, even from the claims of the action of some of the products, that these would in reality leave a substance residue in the coat.   Time has come for manufacturers and retailers to help us exhibitors on this and be honest about their products and provide full INCI labeling, and have PIF and MSDS for all products available for public viewing.

And likewise the KC should legally and morally produce a list of "banned substances" so we know exactly what to avoid.  And a statement of level of tolerance of product in the coat - is it zero tolerance or 0.05 or what???  As someone points out you could fall victim of cross contamination if it is zero tolerance.  Personally if it happens to me I will be recording the whole procedure on my phone!

And going onto chemical straighteners.  What about those who sit ringside with gas powered flattening irons and a hair dryer straightening the coat for a good hour or more?  Surely that is as much altering the natural texture as an topical product?

IF we had a crufts with absolutely no grooming products used do you think there would actually be a show the next year?  For a start  the loss of revenue from the grooming stands would be enormous, and the stench form the smelly, unwashed dogs would be appalling!  For those who want dogs shown "au naturel" are you suggesting that all breeds should be left to grow any old how, with no trimming or clipping either, or do we just give up on the coat and show any long coated breed clipped right down once the dirty coat gets too much too cope with?  For those who advocate a middle view why not try and put forward such a proposal yourselves?  If you can find a route to do so, of course.

> surely the KC can/would understand it's kinder on the dog to use a tangle free grooming spray, rather than having to spend hours with a knotted up coat. (something not needed in my breed) but we do bath, and of course blast the coat against the direction of the way it lies, to enhance the look, maybe i should try taking an unbathed dog to a show (as not to alter the natural apperance) and see how far i get with my brown/grey spitz (that was cream yesterday)

I think you should consider Theemx excellent post covering this point.  Rather than depend on products to keep dogs in excessive coats perhaps we need to draw back from these excessive.  Did the Victorians have access to these products or were their dogs coats just simply more moderate?

> I wonder how the poodle would look without any product and would the style of trim alter for the show ring, I know some competitors would welcome a more manageable style, what do others think

Having a breed that in this country at least is shown clean but natural I would hate for the grooming e=enhancements to get a hold here.

I have been told that in the USA in my breed they trim underlines to give the appearance of more leg length, trim tails to take off feathering , and also to give the impression of a higher tail-set if it;'s low.  Use volumizers and textrurisers for the coats, use powder on damp legs which when dried makes them look to have more Bone etc etc.

The most well known US judge of our breed was in raptures about the correct coats with correct coat texture she found in the UK, including my spayed Veteran she gave RCC to(though she didn't know at the time as they don't allow neuters to be shown in USA).

As a breeder I want to evaluate future breeding prospects, and as I don't judge I want to be sure that what I see from the ringside can reproduce itself as I see it in the whelping box, not need to learn to be a beautician.

It's not a level playing field at all, those who groom well, and know the tricks have an advantage over those that don't, it's bad enough that often under some judges the best handling wins over a less well handled but better quality dog.

Personally I would love presentation to be totally natural but clean and brushed in all breeds.

> Time has come for manufacturers and retailers to help us exhibitors on this and be honest about their products and provide full INCI labeling, and have PIF and MSDS for all products available for public viewing.
>

Good point.  I think rather than asking for a relaxation of the ban we should be campaigning for this.

> For those who advocate a middle view why not try and put forward such a proposal yourselves?

I am happy with the status quo so nothing to propose.  I don't see why dogs should go unwashed or ungroomed. Just don't use products that are designed to leave a residue on the hair.
I don't see why it should lead to a ban on stands selling what they want either, even if that was possible.  These products are not banning only their use in the show ring.  Exhibitors and visitors alike have dogs that never enter the show ring and if people wish to use them why not?  It is only the dogs in the show ring that drive choices in selective breeding and therefore they are the ones that should not be using products that can drive excesses.

> Personally I would love presentation to be totally natural but clean and brushed in all breeds.

How could this be achieved with say a Poodle or an American Cocker?