Wondered what everyone's thoughts are on the new Canine Alliance - have you joined the FB page (I have), are you going to become a paid up member (Yes from me), do you have questions you want the Alliance to put to the KC (Yes, both about the High Profiles test and other failings too)?  Have you seen areas where the KC is not working as it should be?  It's a very big new thing in dogs, was surprised to see no mention had been made of it since 1 or 2 posts up to last weeks meeting.

So how do my fellow CDers feel - looking forward to the mood of change, not sure, happy with the status quo?

I have joined the FB page but haven't paid yet. I catch up on the posts every day. I'm a bit concerned to see the petty bickering going on at the moment, but most are focused and level headed and speak a lot of sense. If the Canine Alliance can stay focused and professional ( which I'm sure it can :-) ) than it should be a force to be reckoned with. We need a group like this to fight our corner. What some fail to realise, is that many more breeds will be added to the High Profile list - what happened at Crufts is surely only the beginning.

I'm supportive of the Alliance and welcome the chance to have an organisation that stands up for the Pedigree dog breeder and exhibitor . For too long we have been left to fight our own corner against those who would like to see an end to our hobby and in some cases to pedigree dogs entirely. I'm fed up with waiting for the Kc to grow a backbone and stick up for us - and frankly what happened at Crufts was the last straw - it  back stabbed the very people who have always supported the kc and who have worked with them on health issues and who have done the most to make positive changes - just WHAT did they expect ?

The whole 'raison d'etre' for the vet checks was to educate judges so that they did not send though to the group any dog that was visibly unhealthy or overexaggerated - a judge has roughly 2 minutes per dog and goes into the ring with nothing except a pair of eyes and hands and the vet checks were supposed to replicate this exactly,, the reasoning being, that the faults should be obvious enough to be picked out by the judge- if vets are using 20 minutes of close detailed examination including pulling back both eye lids to make the eye ball protrude and using a torch then how can this possibly educate judges who cannot do this in the ring ? - and if it cannot, then how can these vet checks have ANY impact on the way a breed is judged in the future ?......it's all incredibly confusing ......most exhibitors will have already had all the health tests required and most of the 'at risk' breeds are already working towards more moderate types - certainly this could be seen in the ring and in the breed type of the Bulldog, Bassett, Peke and Clumber BOB's but for goodness sake it will take time - and how confusing for those breeders to now be told that their more moderate versions of the breed are wrong - just where do they go to breed the next generation

By breaking their own code of conduct in how the vet checks would be carred out the KC have simply used it to try and 'catch out ' judges who could not have possibly seen what the vet did and humilate and dishearten the very group of people who are working so hard to make changes

It was an own goal of epic proprtions and quite frankly I'm not sure where we go from here - personally I think the vet checks must be stopped in their present form and that all dogs should be issued with a vet check certificate annually before they enter a show - this would help with hidden health problems too ( not all of the wost problems are visible ! ) and stop the discriminatory factor of these tests ( what a nonsense that the Clumber was disqualified for showing haw and the Newfie got Res BIS showing the same 'fault ' ! )- and if breed standards need to be changed to ban any haw showing ( for example ) then make the changes - but be realistic and give breeders 10 years to breed for tight eyes etc

In their present form the health checks are less about using the show ring to improve health and much more of a knee jerk reaction by the KC who wanted to have a high profile way of being seen to be 'doing something' and used these 15 breeds to throw to the lions as a form of appeasement

Like you Gwen I am a paid up member and hope that the small number of people who seem more interested in themselves soon settle down or leave but a number of 6100 joining in a week is good going and even if only 50% stay and pay that will be fantastic after all the KC only has 1400 member so if the CA is equal or more perhaps the KC will listen to the opinion of the breeders and exhibitors who are represented by the CA. Really think this seems to be the time to try and head for more inclusive government of dog activities and tackle those who would like to see the back of pedigree dogs altogether. Never know given time we may be able to do something about the puppy farms.

I would LOVE to know the reason why ALL dogs aren't vet checked at all dog shows before being accepted into the show?

It has been used to good effect in CAT shows so it can't be that difficult ;) 

This would put all dogs on a level playing field before the show starts and prevent speculation as to the reasons for a dog being disqualified after being given BOB.

I can't imagine it would be the cost, considering that pens (cages) are supplied at a cat show, the prices for Ch shows (which include more than one class) are not that different to the prices we are now paying for dog shows, and there's no reduction in price for a second or third dog!

Dill, think time is the problem but it is just unfair to allow intensive examination of just 15 breed and the most vulnerable 15 at that it would seem those who are doing there best to improve their breeds are those who are being penalised. Judges get under 3 minutes to examine a dog in the ring one of the vets took 20 and then we are told the whole exercise was to send a message to the judges - BS - more like to appease the anti dog gang.

I am a member of the FB group and have sent a donation to be a member. I do NOT own one of the 15 HP breeds but I believe in fairness and what happened at Crufts appears to me to be a publicity stunt that has badly backfired. I do not agree with rushed poorly thought out legislation which we see happen so many times in the Dog World.

Yes there are petty squabbles on the FB site, but in a group where there are so many passionate people (!? not sure that is worded right!) there are bound to be disagreements as long as in th end people can compromise and focus on what is really important.

I have never read JH's blog but in the interest of fairness I visited the other night and saw roughly what I had expected!! I was interested to see a copy of a post from the FB page so someone is batting on both sides!

I welcome people standing together to try and right wrongs, I am not anti KC but when they start looking at registrations more carefully and other "high profile doogooders" start targetting puppy farms for their appalling actions then I will feel we are making progress.

> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">In their present form the health checks are less about using the show ring to improve health and much more of a knee jerk reaction by the KC who wanted to have a high profile way of being seen to be 'doing something' and used these 15 breeds to throw to the lions as a form of appeasement

I think this says it in a nutshell.  I cannot begin to imagine how the owners of these BOB dogs feel.  Gutted I guess.  Too much like a public hanging for me.

>By breaking their own code of conduct in how the vet checks would be carred out the KC have simply used it to try and 'catch out ' judges who could not have possibly seen what the vet did and humilate and dishearten the very group of people who are working so hard to make changes<br /><br />

This is exactly how I feel, and I have not even been on facebook.  Because I don't use it, as a lot of you know.

>I would LOVE to know the reason why ALL dogs aren't vet checked at all dog shows before being accepted into the show?

Time and cost. If you allow 5 minutes per dog (for a vet to check it and wash his hands) it would take 83 man-hours for a small show of 1000 entries. For each day at Crufts it would be 416 man-hours. How many vets would be needed, at what cost, to allow judging to be done the same day?

Many years ago, when entries were smaller, there used to be vet-checks at the beginning of each show, but the increase in popularity of showing made it unworkable.

And yet this wasn't a problem at the Supreme cat show - last year 1300 cats were vetted!    

We pay almost the same amount in show entries now as for a cat show so there must be some money in it ;) 

> This is exactly how I feel, and I have not even been on facebook.&nbsp; Because I don't use it, as a lot of you know.

JeanSW it should not be too long before everything is accessible in other ways too, FB was simply the easiest way to get the idea out to many, many dog people quickly and get reactions back at once.  It certainly won't be an ongoing requirement to have FB access.

Glad to read a lot of positive comments hear - I find this forum can be a very effective sounding board!

And yet this wasn't a problem at the Supreme cat show - last year 1300 cats were vetted!   


Someone worked out to give each dog just from Crufts show rings a check before entry would take 17 days and that is for a 5 minute check nothing like the time that was taken over the BOB 15.

Don't forget even a small open show would have far more than 1300 dogs even our one group show has had in the region of 400 to 700

Gwen I am not happy with FB either and I know there are others but I gritted my teeth and joined because I was horrified at the stupidity of what happened and feel the KC does need advice even if it does not at the present time realise it.

Yes I joined the Canine Alliance, but as others have mentioned on here the bickering on FB is getting on my nerves. So though I don't own a high profile breed I am hoping that the steering committee can put forward a proposal to the KC that will be well thought out regarding suspending the vet checks for the moment. We shall have to wait and see.....

I would LOVE to know the reason why ALL dogs aren't vet checked at all dog shows before being accepted into the show?

It has been used to good effect in CAT shows so it can't be that difficult ;-) 

Well first off the vetting in at cat show is only to prevent the spread of disease (i.e. how exaggerated an animal is doesn't count as long as it doesn't have fleas or sores or a runny nose etc), secondly cat clubs are finding it very hard to get enough vets to do it as most won't work at weekends now, thirdly it takes ages for just a few hundred cats to be checked by usually 4 or 5 vets, and fourthly the cats don't need to be moved! :) So I'd say it was impossible to do with dogs to the extent it would be necessary. Even at shows abroad the vet check is just to prevent the spread of obvious disease, nothing else. I'd estimate your average general championship show would need around 20 vets minimum, per day of the show.

the prices for Ch shows (which include more than one class) are not that different to the prices we are now paying for dog shows,

Most all breed championship cat shows start at £32! Just checking a few recent ones here: Coventry & Leicester CC £36,  Shropshire CC £34, Lancashire CC £33, East Sussex CC £32, Notts & Derby CC £32, Maidstone & Medway CC £32, Cambria CC £32, not to mention the Supreme which last year was (for ONE class) £40 I believe. Add to this the catalogue and if you have a large breed like a Maine Coon you really need a double pen for the cat's sake and that's between £12.50 and £15 extra...

Added to comparison with cat show entries. I just calculated today what it would cost me to enter the National online for 2 dogs (CC breed) and pay for catalogue. Total cost £58. If my husband had entered his Maine Coon for Coventry & Leicester  it would have cost £36 + £15 for double pen + £5.50 for catalogue total £56.50 for ONE cat.

I'm not on fb so haven't joined and I would like to see how it pans out a bit more first, especially before committing money. I think it is important that this group is not seen from the outside as people who want to bury their heads in the sand and refuse to acccept that some degree of change is going to be inevitable. That will do the 'show world' no favours at all. We may not like it but we are going to have to face the fact that dog showing and show dogs are under intense scrutiny and likely to remain so. Whatever personal feelings are involved, it will do no good in the long run to appear to be flying in the face of public opinion.

I have a non high profile breed myself but do know one of the dogs that was not awarded the BOB, so can see both sides. I have long held that the question of 'exaggeration' is a very slippery slope. It may begin with too much wrinkle, haw etc but how long before it is extended to dogs with pendulous ears, long coats etc. I suggest anyone who thinks this won't happen reads the RSPCA 'independant' report published after PDE. 'A Healthier Future'. Listed amongst possible concerns are dogs with short and long coats, curly tails, static tails, short legs, small dogs, giant dogs...basically the message is that if it differs from the prototype dog/wolf shape it will have health or welfare problems of some sort.

There is in addition a published paper which is reguarly cited and states that all of the 50 most popular breeds have problems associated with their physical appearence. My breed will be in this number and so will many working breeds. I've not read the paper because it's not freely available. I object to studies of this type being used to critisise pedigree dogs when the findings are not 'open' to all.

I do think there are breeds where some breeders and judges have lost sight of the fundamental basics and refuse to accept even the possibility of problems, but they are very much a MINORITY than everyone breeding dogs. The selection of the 15 HP breeds appears to be based on those which Jemima has drawn attention to rather than any other more sound reason based on prevalance and extent of problems. The Chinese Crested for example was added only after attention was drawn to the possible shaving of some exhibits on Jemima's blog.

Talking of Jemima, she does not seem to subscribe to the RSPCA's view and it is heartning to see she has given credit to several dogs in high profile breeds shown at Crufts for being more moderate in type, while still conforming to the breed standard.

The vet checks were I think, intended largely as a misguided attempt by the KC to be seen to be doing 'something', unfortunatly it was poorly thought out and seems to have backfired in the same way as PDE - by implying 'failings' and therefore antagonising the very people in the best position to help. What hope for the KC if it loses the trust of the people on whom its existance depends?

As I understand it, the checks at crufts were not supposed to be anything other than checks for good health, not the in-depth breed related checks that people think - according to this vet here

http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/67384/1/one_of_crufts_high_profile_check_vets_speaks_out/6e7922cd73007f84ef8b38f5e6cfeed5

So to take 20 minutes or so is IMHO unreasonable.

If it's going to be more costly to check all dogs then perhaps that's what we are going to have to do, pay more!  

Otherwise this unfair system of only checking the BOB dogs is going to continue.  

I'm afraid I won't be showing in future if this is going to happen, I see it as grossly unfair that only those dogs who are considered the best of their breed are to be vet checked.   And I'm quite sure that this is going to be rolled out to all breeds in the future and not just restricted to high profile breeds.

>If my husband had entered his Maine Coon for Coventry & Leicester  it would have cost £36 + £15 for double pen + £5.50 for catalogue total £56.50 for ONE cat.

That is a cost directly related to the breed of cat though, not applicable to all breeds ;)   Surely the increase in cost would not be that great?  The last show I entered I paid £26 + the cost of the catalogue so not that much less really and I had to provide my own crate as well.  

My point is that penalising the people whose dogs do well is NOT the way to go and if vet checking is to be used, then it should apply to ALL dogs, not just a few, if the kennel club want to be taken seriously on health and welfare.

Of course, many exhibitors are not going to be happy if they get to the show only to be turned away, and I think that is the prime reason behind restricting health checks to BOB.  But then I'm a cynic

good post tricolourlover.

That is a cost directly related to the breed of cat though, not applicable to all breeds ;-)   Surely the increase in cost would not be that great?

Well say I had instead entered one Persian, the cost would still have been £36 for entry alone -which is considerably more than for dog shows -a tenner more than what you quoted for your last dog show.

But don't forget we don't have the cages for dogs, we supply those ourselves, so I doubt there would be such a difference.    The point is though, that it is not thought unreasonable by cat showers, so why such resistance to the idea?   Is it preferable to get the BOB and then have the humiliation of being disqualified, simply because your dog got a speck of dust in his eye going to the vet and his eye was irritated or he knocked his foot or it was trodden on?   This is not an unlikely scenario, but the vet can only go on what they see at the time.  The problem then is that some people infer from that, that there was some more serious reason for disqualification and speculation results in rumours as we have seen.

There should at least be a level playing field ;)

But don't forget we don't have the cages for dogs, we supply those ourselves, so I doubt there would be such a difference.    The point is though, that it is not thought unreasonable by cat showers, so why such resistance to the idea?

We have benches instead though -there really isn't that much difference between them and pens. And EVERY cat exhibitor I know absolutely HATE the vetting in part. It leads to so much lost money, absentees, and if you ever take a risk, could lead to great expense. Say your cat has played rough the night before the show and you didn't notice it had a small scratch from another cat's claw. It will then be vetted out as possible ringworm and before you are allowed to show ANY cat again you must get every cat you own tested negative for ringworm by a vet, and the certificates forwarded to the GCCF. That could mean a cost of hundreds -just for something totally innocent. It happens so often that you notice a tiny scratch the night before a show and therefore cannot take the cat -even if the scratch is hidden by fur. By contrast, a dog of mine was bitten by her mother a few days before she was due at a show. I couldn't take her, but she is entered to another show in 2 weeks time. By then her wounds will have healed but the fur will not have grown back (the vet shaved around a couple of wounds to clean them) but I will still take her to the show, as it is a breed club show, small entry, good experience for the dog and a nice day out for us etc. Had she been a cat she would have been vetted out because of the fur loss.

And where do you draw the line? If dog shows start to take the line of cat shows, then we would also only be allowed to enter one show every 13 days! No two day shows, no Crufts in fact.

Cat show entries are declining dramatically at the moment. Some say it is because of the entry fees, others that it is because of the vetting in, others that it is because of the 13 day rule. The less people who enter, the more entry fees go up and so it is a vicious circle.

The thought of having to que every show for a healthy dog to be checked over really does not appeal, can you really see yourself having to que in a que of hundreds of people? Dog shows are supposed to fun for all including dogs and once they have all their health checks I find it silly to think we have to be checked every week in the high show season.

The thought of having to que every show for a healthy dog to be checked over really does not appeal, can you really see yourself having to que in a que of hundreds of people?

Often in a queue stretching outside the building -in the rain........

The thought of having to que every show for a healthy dog to be checked over really does not appeal, can you really see yourself having to que in a que of hundreds of people?

Oh dear I know I wouldnt do that many shows if that was the case, it's one of the reasons I never showed my ragdolls to time consuming and I know a friend who showed Maine coones and was always being stung for extras.

I think it is important that this group is not seen from the outside as people who want to bury their heads in the sand and refuse to acccept that some degree of change is going to be inevitable.

That is not the feel of things at all, they want to work with the KC but act as a balance to the groups that are pushing them into knee jerk reactions as the recent fiasco at Crufts. As I see it they want to balance the reactions of JH, RSPCA and AR and help improve our breeds and breeding practice by keeping the KC informed of what is happening at the grass roots of dogdem. There has also been voiced a hope that in the end we may, by lobbing, do something about the practice of puppy farming, the registering of dogs whose parents have not  taken the breed specific health tests and had at least acceptable results and any other items that may help with the progress of the breeds we love..

It is not possible to say exactly what is envisaged only one letter has been sent to the KC it is early days and the society is not yet fully up and running but don't delay if you really care about the breeds and their health, join and have a voice.

If I can manage this a video of a Bully who can move, this can be achieved and is being achieved - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=724bBPyqS7Q&feature=youtu.be

I have shown cats in the past, at CC level, only missing the Supreme because I had no transport.  I do know what it entails including queueing in the rain at silly o'clock in the morning and the risk of picking up a flea from another exhibitor's cat whist waiting in the queue ;) 

What I am saying though is that unless every dog is vetted equally, then targeting the BOB winners is completely unfair even if, as I believe, it will be rolled out to ALL BREEDS.  It is penalising those who are doing well.  What will then happen is that those who are doing well and often doing MORE for their breed will be reluctant to put themselves in the firing line - and who can blame them?

Say your cat has played rough the night before the show and you didn't notice it had a small scratch from another cat's claw. It will then be vetted out as possible ringworm and before you are allowed to show ANY cat again you must get every cat you own tested negative for ringworm by a vet, and the certificates forwarded to the GCCF. That could mean a cost of hundreds -just for something totally innocent. It happens so often that you notice a tiny scratch the night before a show and therefore cannot take the cat -even if the scratch is hidden by fur. By contrast, a dog of mine was bitten by her mother a few days before she was due at a show. I couldn't take her, but she is entered to another show in 2 weeks time. By then her wounds will have healed but the fur will not have grown back (the vet shaved around a couple of wounds to clean them) but I will still take her to the show, as it is a breed club show, small entry, good experience for the dog and a nice day out for us etc. Had she been a cat she would have been vetted out because of the fur loss.

This could easily happen with dogs and the way things are now you're right, you can still show the dog - for now.  What do you do?  go and pray you don't get BOB ?    Refuse BOB when it's offered?

But the BOB winner better pray their dog hasn't got an injury they haven't spotted, a poke in the eye from an inquisitive child at the show or something equally as transient as they will then have the humiliation of being disqualified and the rumour mill will then go into action as well  ;)

Thanks Nova, excellent points.

Yes, the Alliance is not about doing away with tests or insisting that change is automatically wrong, it is about getting the KC to appreciate that exhibitors, breeders and other interested parties have valid points, that not all KC ideas are good ideas, and some are downright stupid, that the customers (as we are) deserve to understand what is expected, what is demanded, and to have those guidlelines adhered to.  Also, if the KC make an error then admit it, apologise and work it out - not the lies and spin we currently get time after time!

The Alliance is so very new, a lot of the FB members are just delighted to think that there is a chance of having a voice which may be heard and  valued, so some lively discussions are taking place, I don't think this  is incipient dissent, just excitement at having somewhere to express opinions and indulge in lively discussion.

As someone pointed out it is not just the 15 high profile breeds who are concerned the KC have reserved the right to add more and more breeds as they see fit, or as they are driven to by adverse media pressure, wherever it comes from.

If we all get behind it I think the Canine Allinace will be a force for much needed change and great improvements in the world of dogs.

If we all get behind it I think the Canine Allinace will be a force for much needed change and great improvements in the world of dogs.

I hope you're right Gwen, it's much needed and has been for a very long time.   

What I am saying though is that unless every dog is vetted equally, then targeting the BOB winners is completely unfair even if, as I believe, it will be rolled out to ALL BREEDS.

Yes I agree -but my point is that this is totally impossible unless dog shows were limited to a maximum entry of something like 500 dogs a day at the very most. You can't compare with vetting in at cat shows because the cats are not moved, and that is such a huge part of the problem here, when the vets are asked to check the dogs are not lame and can move well. I am sure a health check just like at cat shows COULD be done with enough vets, but that would not address the issues at all. It's two entirely different things -one is checking for signs of infectious disease (PLUS checking each cat is up to date with its vaccination), the other is checking the animal is sound in its conformation. Poor bites, too extreme type etc in cats are down to the judges to penalise, not the vets.

KC runs a monopoly, and doesn't tend to listen.  why will it be any different this time?

KC runs a monopoly, and doesn't tend to listen.  why will it be any different this time?

Well hopefully because this time there is a group of people from all breeds who are prepared to put forward the exhibitors and breeders point of view and the KC will know that it needs us, the grass roots, on side.

It may take a while but I can't believe providing the CA get behind its committee and behave with dignity that the KC will be so out of touch not to listen. And lets face it if they do not do something they will have little left to control except fun shows, agility, obedience and fly ball because the pure bred dog will be no more, any animals registered with them will be working or cross-breed probably many with no pedigree, so 5 generation pedigree registration will be a thing of the past and the breeds as we know them will be no more.

> KC runs a monopoly, and doesn't tend to listen.&nbsp; why will it be any different this time?

I don't think they have ever been approached by in excess of 6000 interested parties at any one time all in agreement, and that number includes KC Members, high profile judges, as well as the "rank and file".  The more of us who join and add our voice, the more likely they are too listen.

Poor bites, too extreme type etc in cats are down to the judges to penalise, not the vets.

Surely this is part of Dog breed judging too otherwise what is the point?  I know poor bites, poor conformation etc. are penalised in our breed.

If it isn't then it needs to be, in addition judges need to be given enough time to properly evaluate each of the dogs they are judging.  Perhaps the answer is to have more judges where there is a large entry?

Whilst you both make excellent points, I just cannot see the KC 'mindset' changing, we are certainly about o live through 'interesting times'

Surely this is part of Dog breed judging too otherwise what is the point?

The thing is this was not what the vets were penalising the dogs for, yes the judges should not allow poor bites, extreme type and lame dogs through to BOB and they did not but the vets were using veterinary equipment to find old scars and tiny faults that would have no effect on the dogs health or well being - as you say 'what is the point'

Whilst you both make excellent points, I just cannot see the KC 'mindset' changing, we are certainly about o live through 'interesting times'

Fortunately over 6000 people do not feel as you do are are prepared to stand up and try to rescue the situation we are slowly but surely sliding towards and inaction most certainly will not help, action just may.

Do you have a link to the FB page please?  I've been confused by finding several canine allliances

PM is ok  if it's not allowed here ;)

I strongly believe that personal action in the form of alliances is going to be the way of the future, both in this situation and others that are arising outside the Dog world.

Not very good at this and there seems to be two - one that is intended as a formal area for the steering committee to give information and notification and a Lounge area for chat and the kicking around of ideas, now I can't find the Lounge (think they have hidden it from me) but here is the link for the main group https://www.facebook.com/groups/346236658750734/ you will find that they is a certain amount of banter and bickering on there but slowly it is being reduced to ideas and information. Take a look at the documents that will give you more idea of what is going on.

The Lounge isn't hidden from anyone, but there was a hiccup with the original page (a FB glitch) so a 2nd one was set up:  http://www.facebook.com/groups/343271492385815/

Everyone is welcome to join both pages, the Canien Alliance page should become more and more just for announcements etc,  as more and more people join the Lounge page to chat and discuss.

Nova

Thank you for posting the youtube link for the Bully.  

I couldn't stop smiling!  :-)

I kind of lost the plot, its all moved to fast for me to follow. I do hope we dont loose sight of the need to change back breeds to healthy dogs. as I thought the KC was doing a good job till the crufts mess up. I was pleased 9 dogs passed there vet check, just not happy for the resons the other six didn't. though i dont like to see the haw in any breed, but a old scar on the eye was not a good reason. what was the others disqualified for? As long as we dont move away from the good work the KC have done with the ,fit for function, as i think we still need this. Do we know the way forward yet as to how vet checks can be made fair or is there going to be another way to make sure only healthy dogs get a BOB ?

The breeders along with the breed clubs were doing a good job the results were to be seen in the dogs that were rejected at Crufts. Now how much the KC has helped in this I do not know not being in one of the breeds so far picked for special attention, our turn will come when it is decided that a curled tail is a sign of spinal deformity that should be tackled under the scheme.

Now I can't say but it certainly seems that the KC is listening more to outside agents who are making anti pure bred dog noise than to those who are really involved in the  breeding and care of the dog breeds.

It is true to say the KC has given a large amount of their/our money to the research of canine health problems and that is very good and I am sure they do not expect results from them within a couple of years and they should not expect the breeders to manage that either.

> I kind of lost the plot, its all moved to fast for me to follow. I do hope we dont loose sight of the need to change back breeds to healthy dogs. as I thought the KC was doing a good job till the crufts mess up. I was pleased 9 dogs passed there vet check, just not happy for the resons the other six didn't.

I think the depth of  feeling about the unfairness and lies, plus the urgency to make the KC listen quickly motivated the unprecedented speed for forming the Canine Alliance.  It's not something that could be allowed ot sit around and have people ruminating and muttering over, waiting for another fiasco at the next show, then the next.  The KC were claiming this as an overwhelming success, the exhibitors etc as an unmitigated disaster.  6000 people complaining amongst themselves and a few sending in letters could be brushed aside by the KC, an organisation of 6000 with duly elected officers has a much bigger collective voice. 

The Alliance has the need for health initiatives firmly in it's sights, but it is important that the tests are fair, meaningful, and stand up to scrutiny.  It is also vital that the terms on which tests are to be carried out are made clear and are adhered to by the KC and the Vets involved.

I dont think, or I hope that the Elkhound tail will not be a issue as Elkhounds can drop there tail if they want too, its not so tightly curled as to have no use like some breeds. but i can see what your saying as every breed could be picked on for one thing or another.

I dont think, or I hope that the Elkhound tail will not be a issue as Elkhounds can drop there tail if they want too, its not so tightly curled as to have no use like some breeds. but i can see what your saying as every breed could be picked on for one thing or another.

Hopefully you are right but there is no logic to the pronouncements the anti brigade will put about and be believed, the fact that most wild dogs carry their tails over their backs will not come into it once they put the seed of doubt into the public domain then it will grow and with the support of the KC grow quickly.

I've seen it mentioned many times about how dogs with tails over the back are hard to read their behaviour lol.
People believe what they're told too.

And its a shame that all this Peddigre dog /show dog scandle has taken the eyes off puppy farmers and back yard breeders who out number the good breeders yet dont do any health teating or care about lines . there is far more harm going on when breeds are put in the wrong hands. And even BYB can have KC puppys yet not a clue what problems they are breeding in to there dogs . The show dogs are the better ones even if they dont come up to standerd so think what the worst ones are like that are hidden from the public and never go on show .

So why not join the Canine Alliance, by all means wait till it is up and running, then you can join your vioce to the 100s of others who think exactly the same thing, Vinya, and perhaps get the KC to change it's mind on it's registration requirements?

Referring to the tail discussion, my pugs have curled tails, some more so than others, but all of them can certainly indicate feelings with them, from wagging to droopy tails when sad or worried.