No sorry HuskyGal I was not, I read down the posts and picked up the comment from the post I clicked reply on but in fact it was not you that prompted my remark.

I was alluding to semantics compounding this debate, hence my use of itallics and the use of a wry raise of eyebrows... this was meant to denote caution, not to be seen to be 'glib'. I would hope (in context) my posts through out the various threads evidence that.

Yes, forgive please, I should not have picked up your comments it was lazy behaviour. And it was not you comment I was referring to.

> I am not used to seeing exaggeration, owning a breed that has moderate size, weight, angles, and everything else I can think of including being a neutral colour, grey LOL.Did you watch the video of the Bulldog and the clip with the vet at Crufts with another bulldog being praised for lack of exaggeration.I am not a lover of flat faced breeds, nor short legged ones, nor heavy eared or jowly ones.  I like personally like the Spitz type which is fairly close to the prototype canine pattern.

I feel exactly the same as my own breed are also 'prototype canine' pattern and I dislike flattened faces, wrinkles, drool etc. I can think of plenty of dogs I know personally that do make me wince about 'some aspect of their conformation', but the dog whose BOB was witheld isn't one of them.

In fact having watched the Group, I saw dogs there that were not 'high profile' that possibly wouldn't have passed a vet check either. It does seem exceptionally unfair to single out certain breeds simply because they have been under the 'media' spotlight.

> I can think of plenty of dogs I know personally that do make me wince about 'some aspect of their conformation', but the dog whose BOB was witheld isn't one of them.
>
> In fact having watched the Group, I saw dogs there that were not 'high profile' that possibly wouldn't have passed a vet check either. It does seem exceptionally unfair to single out certain breeds simply because they have been under the 'media' spotlight.

Quite it just seems to be very unfair to single out somr for sacrificial lambs, so no-one looks too closely too soon at others maybe???

My breed isn't very prototype canine but I'm also not a fan of flat faces or drool. However it does seem unfair that these breeds are being penalised if the would-be BOB is in fact less exaggerated than some. :-( If the KC has any sense they will have issued a statement with the vet check statement saying that the vet's decision is final and no complaints are possible no matter how many other vets the owners get to state the dog is healthy. It's going to be an ugly situation all round. I wonder if the bloodhound will get through today....

> However it does seem unfair that these breeds are being penalised if the would-be BOB is in fact less exaggerated than some

But how is the vet to know whether the dog is less exaggerated than others of the breed? I doubt they have time to watch all the judging. They have been asked to check the best of breed does  not suffer from particular conditions and if the dog does have the condition then it should be penalised.  The only way some of these breeds will improve quickly is if the dogs with health problems no longer win top prizes.

And it is not the breed that is penalised it is the owners. The dogs couldn't care less about winning. The owners knew the breeds were going to be vetted so if they still go ahead and enter a dog with problems then they must realise that they run the risk of having their BOB removed. Maybe they didn't think the KC actually meant what they said. Now people realise that this will happen maybe they will think twice about entering unsound dogs.

i totally agree with lilyowen,
the vets are there only to insect the dog that won B.O.B. not to say whether there are others in a worse state in the same ring.personally i would have liked to see the winners of every breed assessed as i am sure others would have failed.
all breeds have to some degree been affected with exaggeration, it is the way of people to read a breed standard then aim for extremes in what they believe is asked for.if we imagine our own breeds and then ask (if the dog had an original purpose or job) could our dogs do their tasks as well as their ancestors then many would have to truthfully answer NO, this is what fit for function should mean, a bulldog should be able physically to bait a bull etc , most i see  have trouble walking a couple of miles.

> If the KC has any sense they will have issued a statement with the vet check statement saying that the vet's decision is final and no complaints are possible no matter how many other vets the owners get to state the dog is healthy. It's going to be an ugly situation all round. I wonder if the bloodhound will get through today....

It would be very interesting to see such a statement issued, although I have a feeling this is what the KC assumed would happen with the Vet checks.  It is naive to think that an individual or organisation can make damaging statements and no right of reply will be demanded.  This is a bit on par with the notices in dry cleaners saying that you have items cleaned at your own risk -  tell that to trading standards!  You cannot take peoples money and then deny responsibility for an outcome you (or your organisation) contrives.  What appears to be the case is that the Crufts' vets cursory exam trumps full health checks by specialists.  Once your dog has been found unfit and unworthy of BOB how can it ever be shown again - at least in the UK?  Is this going to mean that no Bulldog is ever going to get a Ch show BoB until the whole breed has reached a more moderate standard (which this bitch looks to be well on the way to acheiving for the breed) and that small acquired defects which may or may not have been caused by accident will rule any of the 15 breeds out of showing in future?  Lets face it, vets make mistakes, and it seems that at least some of the vets at Crufts have areas of expertise far removed from Canine Opthamology which seems to be the biggest reason for the  disqualifications.

Edited to add - I am not trying to make out health checks are wrong, but I think that a) the KC made a big PR mistake in starting this at Crufts and b) I don't see the sense in applying this only at BoB stage - surely it would make sense to have it done at least at CC stage?  I dont' even think that is ideal, but I do think that a lot more thought should have gone into this to make it effective and not a PR and litigation nightmare.

I applaud what the KC are trying to do although as ever they dont appear to have thought it through. I think the vet looks at the big picture whilst individual health specialists look at only one health issue.  In one breed, featured in the programme  and also not in the group, I feel the fact that the mouth now appears to face upwards is  a major exaggeration and would stop the dogs surviving if not fed at home.  It is exaggerations such as this that I believe  many people are becoming to closed minded to see

Looking at the crufts FB page there is now a ton of bully pictures and so many of them have normal eyes and normal teeth.

There is news circulating that a DDB died yesterday at crufts....not sure whether it is true or not.

edit: nevermind, it has been confirmed he died :(

It seems that other countries aren't as impressed by the health testing going on at Crufts as people are over here:

AKC takes a stand

Bassett failed and Bloodhound passed!

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

Cooper, I wouldn't have a Bulldog given to me to so I have no axe to grind so I find your comment  very demeaning. I am going on the video I watched (have you?) and based my opinion on that!

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

Cooper, I wouldn't have a Bulldog given to me to so I have no axe to grind so I find your comment  very demeaning. I am going on the video I watched (have you?) and based my opinion on that!
Quote selected text


Surely you just want to base your response on hearsay and unflattering pictures caught at just the right angle, instead of basing your opinion on the facts like how some of these dogs already had all and in some cases more of the current health tests required :-p

having seen the dog, and a great many other winning bulldogs at shows i stick by what i said, i have never seen 1 that is fit for function.the same goes for lots of the other breeds highlighted. if there was not a problem then they would not be under the spotlight.

Tagging on the end again and a slight change of subject - CB was just joking about one of the pedigree names, the affix of 'Bottomshaker', and I couldn't help but think that she should not have said the full pedigree name of the dog with Frank Kane sitting right there???

I have looked at the video of the bulldog bitch and she does look "better" than a lot of bulldogs I have seen, but hardly fit for function. I presume the vet who did the vet check was not  examining her on a "best of a bad bunch" criteria, and that vet was quite right to assess the dog in front of him, without taking into consideration that there are worse examples out there. I am delighted that a stand is finally being taken against over exaggeration of unhealthy features in pedigree dogs, and I hope it filters through to ALL pedigree dogs, not just the breeds with the most obvious problems. It is beyond belief how much bad conformation is nowadays regarded as desirable. 

> but hardly fit for function

fit for what function?,

illegal bull-baiting? 

The function of a bulldog is as a sedate companion. 

If it can move freely (this one does), breathe without difficulty (she does appear to, doesn't even pant as much as mine did at Manchester in that same lighted ring, with space heaters blowing above), see, and eat, it's pretty fit.

One worry with the breed is reproducing naturally, and breeders are having to address this and in future no bitch of any breed will be allowed to have more than two C sections, so elective C sections should reduce and only be done for valid reasons, and not as a matter of course.

nobody is advocating baiting bulls, but a bulldog by definition of what it says on the tin should at least have the physical ability to be able to do such imo...just like a greyhound should physically be  capable of running etc etc etc. if the breed was physically capable of the job you can bet your life it would not be on the list of 15 dogs being singled out for problems.

fit for what function?,

illegal bull-baiting?

The function of a bulldog is as a sedate companion. 

I am glad you highlighted this, the majority of dogs nowadays sole purpose is to be a pet, i think only a small percentage only do the jobs that they did many moons ago, which incidently were all mostly man made roles.
I tired of the but could they do this argument now as my dogs are pets thats all nothing more nothing less and if they happen to look prettyu whilst bringing me endless hours of joy of giving me a reason to get up when id rather put the pillow over my head then hey presto they have fufilied their brief!

Clearly I am not advocating bull baiting, but I think to have the criteria for any dog to be able to function only as a sedate companion is dangerous. I knew a young bulldog once who had a wonderul personality, and dearly wanted to run and play like any young dog, but his hind legs were so much longer than his front legs that if he tried to run his hind end overtook his front end and he somersaulted or fell over. He would have been capable of being a sedate companion, but in his head he was A DOG.
The engineering of dogs to be nothing but sedate companions is one of the reasons so many breeds are in the mess they are in. Breeding only as a sedate companion taken to its extreme would be to breed little blobs who can breathe, see and eat, and move freely when not doing much, but somewhere inside there would still be a dog longing to run and play.

I knew a young bulldog once who had a wonderul personality, and dearly wanted to run and play like any young dog, but his hind legs were so much longer than his front legs that if he tried to run his hind end overtook his front end and he somersaulted or fell over. He would have been capable of being a sedate companion, but in his head he was A DOG.

So are you basing your opinion of the dog at Crufts on a Bulldog you once knew?

> So are you basing your opinion of the dog at Crufts on a Bulldog you once knew? <

Absolutely not. I was responding to the suggestion that a bulldog is simply a sedate companion.

As a lover & owner of one of the 16 breeds in the spot light; short legged, heavy eared, lozenge eyed & very drooly, I've nervously waited for today's results. I welcomed the vet checks, having in past years watched a noble (in my mind) hound often reduced to an over weight, over skinned painful plodding beast.
But it has saddened me that the checks have not been for all & that having dismissed a BOB they have not chosen to look at the runner up & further if necessary, not to allow any to represent the breed is a kick in the teeth for those who are attempting to turn things around. I'm well aware of many of the health issues  - I pay for them most months - but it's madness to dismiss an entire breed when only twelve months ago there may have been concerns but which were happily overlooked. I'm no expert but the Bull dog was (is) such an improvement, so why dismiss it, the whole thing has been a complete fiasco. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

> Bull dog was (is) such an improvement, so why dismiss it, the whole thing has been a complete fiasco. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.
>

Maybe it's because she was born before PDE, showing that the breeders of this breed did not all have their heads in the sand re exaggeration, and that some were already trying to improve matters.

This must be such a kick in the teeth for them.

> re exaggeration, and that some were already trying

Am I being too harsh in my personal feeling that a Crufts placing is the highest accolade in the land and I don't want a 'nearly at the standard' dog taking a BOB, I want a shining example of absolute breed standard (finished product!) to take this placing.

I fully appreciate and support my learned show friends above who magnanimously want the the breeders that are making progress to be rewarded, I absolutely do too... it's a must! but I just balk that, that 'must' should be a Crufts BOB! ( )

And I very much fear for this 'statement placing' in groups that Judges may or may not have done... it's not just the breeds in the spotlight that are losing out on a rightful placing! And if I'd worked hard in a breed that has a good house in order I'd be livid and I think rightly so.

>I fully appreciate and support my learned show friends above who magnanimously want the the breeders that are making progress to be rewarded, I absolutely do too... it's a must! but I just balk that, that 'must' should be a Crufts BOB!

Why not? What higher appreciation of their efforts could there be?

>And if I'd worked hard in a breed that has a good house in order

I think many who know they are in breach of their standard but aren't (yet) in the firing line are breathing a huge sigh of relief and peeping out from the battlements.

>This must be such a kick in the teeth for them.

Absolutely right. Why should they bother when this is their reward?

> Am I being too harsh in my personal feeling that a Crufts placing is the highest accolade in the land

No it's not for most, it's just another, but better known show.  A breed club show win is the top award. Crufts is simply the best known show as Mr Cruft was akin to the showman Barnum in USA.  The KC took it over as their own show as it was more well known that theirs.

Granted it is the only show that you need to qualify for, but that was purely originally done to restrict numbers of entrants due to space considerations.

Also these vettings are going to be done at all the general and group shows, and to pick on 15 breeds is just totally unfair.

> Crufts is simply the best known show as Mr Cruft was akin to the showman Barnum in USA.

His grave is in Highgate Cemetery in London, where I once (many many years ago!) trained as a guide to take tours round. It's a beautiful, historic maybe slightly creepy place, and as a trainee I got taken into some places out of bounds to others, including into the catacombs. So many sculptures and monuments, and an aspect of architecture long forgotten. If you ever get the chance to look around on an open day, it's well worth it.

Charles Cruft's grave in Highgate:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2136/5800253308_3f85c7c986.jpg

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

Sorry, I had to pick up on your comment here Brainless, as I believe it to be a highly significant one.  I know also that this is the case. I also believe it to be totally wrong. The original purpose of dog showing was to sift out the best breeding stock (as oppose to it being a beauty pageant!). It makes a total mockery of the world of dog showing if many of the show bitches are considered too small to be bred from. I have heard that breeders will keep back the larger bitches for breeding, whilst their smaller stock will be the ones exhibited. This desperately needs to change imo. :-(

I'd agree, and I think one way forward would be for breeders in toy breeds to collate statistics of the actual sizes their puppies grow to, and if a significant number normally go over the desired weight/height then perhaps the standards need changing to reflect this and in fact the lower end size wise raised to be not desirable.

Lets face it even oversize toy breeds are small enough to be lap dogs for people requiring a little dog.

I know there are many toy breed breeders who do keep upper end of standard bitches to show and breed from, believing going for the smallest is harmful. The Ozmillion Yorkies are one such kennel who do not seem to prize ultra small.

We have an ideal height in my breed with tolerance of about an inch either way, perhaps a little more upwards.  The hunters maintain that this size is the best for working as too big and you get lumber and lack of agility in this breed, and too small,l lack of stamina and strength.  In at least one country it always seems the bigger the better is often rewarded in the ring and the resulting dogs can then be very different to those typical in their country of origin.

So there are good reasons to stipulate size parameters to keep a breed typical.

Man in domesticating and animal and plant species has always pushed the envelope of genetic variability as far as it can, now even playing with splicing genes from other species primarily in plants.  Must be the basic need in man to mimic the creator, if your religious then we were made in Gods image, maybe that is why (that's tongue in cheek) ;)

We are now realising more and more that perhaps we have pushed too far into the edges of what is possible and still viable.

So yes, rethink toy and giant breeds (it has been happening piecemeal for decades), flat faced breeds, short legged breeds, heavy floppy eared breeds, jowly/wrinkly breeds, heavy lidded odd eye shaped breeds etc.

Just because is has been possible to alter the original conformation of various species (and dogs are not the worst take a look at goldfish, and some Pigeon/fowls, even some breeds of Rabbit). 

But we don not have to get rid of the variability we have created, simply moderate it to functional healthy levels.  Do we want every breed as energetic as a border collie working Cocker, God no.  A more sedentary nature and build are essential or most pet dogs, which is the species prime role in the 21st century.

My own breed for example needs the stamina to work all day in the hunting season, but it is required to be an easy going family/farm etc companion, not pinging off the walls for probably the majority of the time so fortunately they are easy to keep happy with average exercise levels, even though they will take as much as you can give them.  Ditto sight hounds, bursts of speed, but couch potatoes at home.

Seems strange that many of these breeds don't get the public support (because thery are less well known I suppose) that some of the breeds in the high drive/energy classes get, and the resulting problems pet owners expereince with fustrated under stimulated dogs.

>> Am I being too harsh in my personal feeling that a Crufts placing is the highest accolade in the land
> No it's not for most, it's just another, but better known show.

It's probably worth saying at this point that although, from a showing perspective, Crufts isn't the be all and end all - it is the most important dog show, and often the ONLY dog show, that the General Public know about.

From a publicity angle Crufts is the show that, rightly or wrongly, has the highest profile and the largest audience if anyone wishes to make a stand.  Of course this is why there is a rash of dog programmes at this time, and this is the event which gets targeted by a variety of action groups and charities.

The KC have a number of lesser known shows at which they could trial initiatives and practise their PR in order to be fully prepared to operate in the full glare of the spotlight that is Crufts...

> The KC have a number of lesser known shows at which they could trial initiatives and practise their PR in order to be fully prepared to operate in the full glare of the spotlight that is Crufts...

indeed, not sure what posessed them to introduce this at Crufts, the most high pressure occasion of the year for the KC when the world is watching.

"But we don not have to get rid of the variability we have created, simply moderate it to functional healthy levels. "

Absolutely :-)

Excellent post btw brainless (nothing new there though lol).

This thread is compelling, so many expert points of view. I hope the relevant people are taking in all your opinions/suggestions.

indeed, not sure what posessed them to introduce this at Crufts, the most high pressure occasion of the year for the KC when the world is watching.

I totally agree with these sentiments.  It was obviously a very high profile manoeuvre by the KC to appease the likes of the PDE watchers, but I thought it was cruel and I do feel terribly sorry for the owners of the dogs concerned - how will they pick up from here? even if they can legally argue that the vet was wrong, the damage is done.

Perhaps it was impossible for vets to have vetted the entire entry, but surely all the first place winners before BOB, so individuals could be eliminated before the challenge? - but then that wouldn't have resulted in the very dramatic disqualification of the few breeds... the cynic in me wonders if Crufts will now win back its BBC coverage.

I agree with the principle of sorting out some of the unhealthier breeds, but can't see that this 'stunt' helps anything.  Will the BOB vetting now continue at all champ shows? Does anyone know how this will be followed thru' hereafter?

> I agree with the principle of sorting out some of the unhealthier breeds, but can't see that this 'stunt' helps anything.  Will the BOB vetting now continue at all champ shows? Does anyone know how this will be followed thru' hereafter?

Yes at all championship shows now for the unlucky 15.

To all the other posters on this thread who feel that these breeds (and their owners), are in some way distanced from yourselves because your own breeds have less obviously contentious features.

If the next programme or campaign is about dogs with too much coat, arctic type coats in a temperate country, short legs, long faces, too small, too big or what ever reason they are deemed unsuitable as pets....your breed could be next.
The Pom, the borzoi, the Lhasa,the old english, the IW spaniel will no doubt be seen by some very vociferous people as mutant, too hairy, too non-generic.

Look down ...do you have the 21 inch, smooth coated generic dog?
Why stop at these 15?

I agree that is is beyond belief that the KC decided to implement this at Crufts, but we should know by now that their lack of PR knowledge and ability to judge a given situation is amazingly poor.  I still don't understand how they can remove a BoB but the dog could go back in the ring at other shows, win more CCs and become a Champion, surely more meaningful that being in the group ring?  So many questions, will they release the names of the vets to be present at future shows so people can vote with their feet if it turns out some are harsher than others?  What if exhbiitors decide not to challenge for BoB after CCs awarded?  Are the judges who awarded BoB to these dogs going to be re-trained, removed from the judging list for the breed, or indeed are the judges going to take a stance against the insult the KC has handed them?  So many questions!

I still don't understand how they can remove a BoB but the dog could go back in the ring at other shows, win more CCs and become a Champion, surely more meaningful that being in the group ring?

They can't Gwen. You now cannot claim a Champion title in those 15 breeds WITHOUT having passed a vet check first. Even if you've won 3 tickets, if none have been with BOB you will not have seen the vet, and so you have to arrange for the vet check to take place at a show before the title will be confirmed.

>

> They can't Gwen. You now cannot claim a Champion title in those 15 breeds WITHOUT having passed a vet check first. Even if you've won 3 tickets, if none have been with BOB you will not have seen the vet, and so you have to arrange for the vet check to take place at a show before the title will be confirmed.

Well that makes a bit more sense, but not a lot.  We could have a scenario of a mulitple CC winning dog not a champion - if they never submit for vet check.  I simply cannot understand why anyone at the KC would consider that BOB level was the right place to do the health check.

Is there a KC page with full details of this initiative please?  I'd like a read of their rules etc

Incidentally was it explained in more detail in the show schedule?  I only had an online version and didn't read it cover to cover

We could have a scenario of a mulitple CC winning dog not a champion - if they never submit for vet check. 

Indeed -that would be seriously weird!!

Is there a KC page with full details of this initiative please?  I'd like a read of their rules etc

Incidentally was it explained in more detail in the show schedule?  I only had an online version and didn't read it cover to cover

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/3964/pg_dtl_art_news/pg_hdr_art/pg_ftr_art

All it said in the schedule was that the 15 named breeds could not be awarded BOB before they'd been examined by the show's official vet.

Where were the vets when the Pastoral group was in?  And of the whole show the most "unsound" dog that was clearly unsound to spectators was the lame border collie pulled into Group 4.  There is a whole thread on this on the Horse and Hound forum.  Watching it walk to the G4 place board at the end made me wince.  As a friend said we found ourselves nodding to each lame step in trot when it came into the ring.

So what about the statement from Prof Dean in January 2011 about judges and unsound dogs?  Quote "Sadly though, a few judges in some breeds simply can't or won't accept the need to eliminate from top awards, dogs which are visibly unhealthy. Sometimes, and this is very much in the minority of cases, dogs which are lame". He went onto say the KC would take a firm stance against such judges. 

Now we did not see this in the breed so probably ( hopefully ) it was sound when it took BOB. 

I heard that this dog was sound in yhe breed ring, but shouldn't of ever been given a group placing!  I'm getting sick of lame dogs being placed in yhe show ring and more so when they go on yo yake top honours, seeing it time and time again. I don't have yhe money yo hand over to complain, why should we have to pay for that?

Anyone any further suggestions on this? Yo carry yhe cash on you in order to make a complaint, they would also need more than mine to do something? How can they test lameness I'd yhe dog has gone home too?

If a dog is unsound it has no place to be in yhe ring, I don't care how good to breed type it is or how much winning its done before, if at that show it's lame it should leave yhe ring! I've done it, my boy went lame at Windsor ch show one year, I withdrew!

> All it said in the schedule was that the 15 named breeds could not be awarded BOB before they'd been examined by the show's official vet.

Just wondering does the vet check last for life? Once passed does is that dog then OK or does it have to pass a vet check every time it gets BOB? Similarly if it fails is that also it? The dog cannot aver be pronounced fit again?

Sue am I reading this right ( giving our iPhone spelling issue ! ) you have to pay to lodge a complaint