On the other hand I had a dog stand on a wasp and although I gave him a Piriton he was still holding his foot off the floor when we were called in - now this was an open show and I was not sure if I wanted to withhold him because it would mean one less dog for the judge to get his hands on. I told the steward and she asked the judge he said bring him in so in we went, stood on 3 legs in the line up, moved round OK, stood with 4 for the assessment and again moved ok - won the class and as the others knew what had happened they were happy and I had to accept that the judge saw enough to be happy what I had said was the truth.

On another day I had a bitch go lame between winning BOB and the group but I knew she had and withdrew although it was caused by a stone in the car park.

I'm afraid this one defo had a problem as we had 2 shows the champ one and a open club show day after lame both days. I don't see why well known judges are afraid to ask a dog to leave it can be done in a nice none finger pointing way and all it did allowing the dog a place was for people to question the judges ability.

No Boody nor do I, can accept that sometimes a judge will miss a small amount of lameness particularly in a small ring but not in a large ring and not at championship level.

Having said that I have only had one dog under me that was badly lame and I did not send him from the ring, it was however an open show and a good while ago, I told the handler the dog was lame and he was withdrawn from another class.

And now a plea to judges please tell the handler the dog is lame and not that it is unsound unless you are sure that is the reason for the dog being lame, particularity in the critique as it can dam the dog for a while when it may just have a cut pad.

Thanks for that. I use one in its proper sense not referring to myself so if a dog goes lame in another ring later that day surely the same applies just with a different judge?
We all know it happens.
Jeff.

I agree about that point too nova, a simple I think your dog has a problem today quietly in their ear should suffice and would save alot of heartache in the long run.

Indeed it does Jeff and we all know it should not. Somehow particularly in some breeds it seems to be 'forgiven' but it should not even if the judge knows it is usually OK. But as you say it happens and I am not sure if it is because the judge does not see or does not want to see or which is worse.

Yes, I did wonder if that had an effect on the KC response, but it was not related to the High Profile Breeds, and I don't see how the fact that the Vet checks are meant to reflect the areas of concern on the KC list related to breed exageration, IT seems very muddled thinking, they seem to be mixing 2 seperate areas together.  Of course every dog at a show should be sound, irrespective of breed, surely this is what the general show vet can pick up on - do they still do the "patrollilng" or was this just a short term measure?  But if a breed is on the list because of say heavy wrinkle, a short nose, or potential clipper rash and then one of that breed fails the vet check on temporary lameness it has to skew the picture - especially as the fail reasons are not generally known.  The supposed exagerated breed features are what the vet check was instituted for, perception will be that is why any dog fails, making any advances necessary in the breed less and less valued.

See the Web site is now on line, well the front page anyway, but it makes it easier to join if you wish and can be found here http://www.caninealliance.org/. Don't think many can be unaware now as to what it is about particularly those who read the dog press or this forum so if you agree with their policy statement below and wish to join go to the above address for details on how to join.

The Canine Alliance was formed to represent everyone involved
with pedigree dogs, and to negotiate when necessary
with any related organisations in the interest of all breeds.
Its aims are to protect and support the well-being of pedigree dogs,
to uphold the ethics of responsible dog breeding,
to encourage health checking of all dogs and
to allow the exhibition of pedigree dogs without bias or discrimination.
It pledges to be fair and totally transparent,
always working for the benefit of pedigree dogs.

Thanks for posting Nova, hope we can keep the numbers of new members climbing.  The more CDers who join the bigger the collective voice.

Canine Alliance have now produced a logo for use as an avatar - I'm modelling it now!

Have just spent a very interesting hour viewing the first meeting of the canine alliance which was held last week.

Just go to youtube and type in canine alliance and you will find the link.

Thought everyone involved spoke from the heart and some very interesting points were raised.

Two weeks since Crufts and I am still feeling very angry about the unthinking way the latest of the KCs reaction to PDE. The latest disastrous decisions leading to the employments of vets who were obviously inadequately briefed as were the judges.

The judges and indeed the KCs own people were told at special meetings that the examination by the vets would be performance in the same way as the judge would assess in the ring. So no worries there, the judge, owner and handler can have had no concern at all when the steward led them to the examination area.

However the KC either lied or did not supervise the process of the vets 'investigation' because despite the KC saying and one assumes asking that no veterinary instruments be used they were and the examination took up to a 10 times longer than the judge is expected to take.

One would expect these vets were well versed in canines as a species but one has said that the certificates issued to the dogs both before and after the Crufts exam were null and void.

Why? The Crufts examining vets were, according to the KC, supposed to look for conformation faults & conditions caused by hereditary problems but according to one of the vets clear certificates and reports from other vets before and after Crufts that show the dog to be healthy and clear of any hereditary defect  count for nothing.

Why? Because according to this vet a dog can be lame today but was not yesterday and will not be tomorrow. What nonsense, since when is a hereditary condition here today and gone tomorrow, never unless surgery is undertaken.

Nova, they all seem to be trotting out this "lame one day sound the next thing" .  So far we have heard it from Kisko, Dean and now the 2 vets, and the more it is repeated does not matter - it still is not relevant to this matter!  If you want to get even more annoyed read Ronnie Irvings column in this week Our Dogs - basically site down and be quiet or our toys will be taken away.  Condescending or what!  I was also fascinated by Jean Lannings letter - she says, "No one is bigger than the KC and Crufts",  lets look at the numbers, shall we? 

LOL Gwen, I went off again because I had recorded the Hound and Terrier group and had not had time to look at them, and the moment they started explaining why the Basset was not there I could feel all that anger building up again.

Well Mr Irving never was my flavour of the month so his thought will have no effect on me at all - the thing is if we are going to continue along these lines do we actually want "our toys" (how patronising can you get) anyway, there is no fun taking part in a sport or hobby when the rules are not fair, so fine if he thinks we are going to be good little boys and girls and do as we are told I reckon he has another think coming.

As for the lady, silly woman, where has she stuck her head, one hopes in the sand but with that sort of attitude you can never be too sure.

Nova, he did not actually use the phrase about taking our toys away, his words were much more pompous and patronising,  I paraphrased.  HE was basically saying that unless we shut up then all of the outside agencies who don't like showing will conspire to have it banned.  Does not seem to have occurred to him that by the KC being pushed into badly planned PR stunts like this one to pander to them is also playing straight inot their hands.  For heavens sake, we all want health testing, we want well bred, healthy, active dogs, we are the ones actually working to achieve and maintain this.    Why would a sensible parent organisation then put a plan into place to humiliate and upset?

Well if the blog is anything to by we now have a array of bulldog experts and all bulldog breeders should be breeding lovely roach backs as Mabel has because her face doesn't have to much skin so she is now touted as a paragon of health and even the breed standard was quoted to say that a roach is normal, funny how breed standards are ok if it fits in with your current opinion.

Think it is typical that those who are steeped in the KC do not even bother to read or ask just what others who have the same interests are saying, no one has said the CA is against the KC or even have different aims they just think  things would move quicker and more satisfactory if the KC listened to those involved at the grass roots including their own rank and file.

There is now and always will be room for improvement but you do need to be sure that any action taken to improve matters is practical and not counter productive.

LOL Gwen, I did take your comments as a report of what was actually said and I could just hear it being said, as you say patronising, an attitude that is I am afraid all to prevalent.

She's even posted a childish anti-gay dig at Andrew Brace

That's disgusting--how low can she go to try to further her own agenda!

She is a font of knOwledge, she is now a bulldog expert and enthusiast :-p

she is now a bulldog expert

She is certainly a bull something expert

She is certainly a bull something expert

Lol wish I'd thought of that :-)

She is certainly a bull something expert
Quote selected text

LOL spat my coffee at the monitor!!!!!

Wondered what everyone's thoughts are on the new Canine Alliance

I joined the FB page very early on, paid my membership today and hope/believe it's a great step forward in encouraging the KC to make more balanced decisions instead of taking hasty and ill thought through decisions that result in ineffective and discriminatory policy.

As you can see I am a member also, I think if we can help in the improvement of the lot of pedigree dogs the more members the better. For too long we have relied on the KC to sort things it is about time we explain how we feel and make well thought out suggestions to improve the breeding practices of pedigree dogs and try to sort the puppy farm situation.

I'm also a member and have been from the start. I do not have one of the 15 HP breeds but support the aims to the hilt. The issue I have is publicising it to others who cannot see that it could affect us all. We should not shut our eyes and think "I'm alright Jack" because you never know!!

Paid my membership today too. :-)

Their website is now up (not much on it yet, but give them time!)
http://www.caninealliance.org/

I do not have one of the 15 HP breeds but support the aims to the hilt.

I think that's the key to the importance of this new organisation. It would be so easy for some to dismiss it as a 'sour grapes' initiative if it were just people involved in the 15 HP breeds. The international support now building from people in all breeds says a great deal, not just about the concern we all feel but about our general entitlement to proper involvement in decision-making. I do realise that principle doesn't fit comfortably with an organisation structured as a private club, but since the Kennel Club doesn't seem to value accountability and openness where its constituents are concerned I will look for it in the Canine Alliance.

No, Jay 15 I do not have one of the 15 breeds either and think the representation of breeds in the CA is probable about the same as those in the breed register but no one is counting, it just a group of people who are and want to be responsible for the care and welfare of dogs. We are not interested in what sort of activity the owner takes part in but it would seem that in the largest part it is show people who are involved although I would be surprised if other activities are not involved as well, they should be the health and conformation of their dogs are their responsibility as well.

Also like to say some people seem to think we are anti KC or are in some way trying to takeover or start a different system, that is not true at all the CA wish to have an input with the suggestions, feelings and concerns being listened to.

I've seen on FB today the CA is asking for feedback to guide the agenda for its meeting with the KC this week--I've been interested in the comments and have added my 'take' on this as well.It's great to be asked and feel that people are listening.

Yes, gave the dog world my opinion about an hour ago and I feel better too :-)

It's great to read all the support here - fingers crossed for a productive meeting tomorrow at the KC for the 3 Canine Alliance people.

The problem as I see it is there is no really effective way in the current KC system for grass roots dog folk to make their views/suggestions known.

There are breed liason reps and some sort of regional reps, but I have never had any idea who they are, and have views asked for.

But of course the KC is not a democratic set up, so they are not looking for input from us plebs, in the past at least.

So they need to put in place some structure that makes communication between the grass roots and the KC possible, and perhaps they woudl be more in touch then, and not make so many unpopular and unworkable rectionary decisons.

For exqmple the ABS has no feeback system for members, puppy buyers yes (though how maqqny fill in the forms?) and their 'inspectors'.

Absolutely agree Brainless, and one of the aims of the Alliance is to get a way for dialogues with the KC - as has happened this afternoon with 3 CA representatives meeting Caroline Kisko and Kathryn Symms at the KC to put our case forwarded.  Joint press release to be issued tomrrow.

About to say the same thing Gwen, at least we know they agreed on one thing - a joint press release!!

It would appear that the joint press release due yesterday has been delayed but Mike Gadsby's presentation to the Kennel Club on behalf of the Canine Alliance is available this morning.

http://www.caninealliance.org/documents/KCpresentation28.3.12.pdf

It would seem the agreement on the Press release was not quite total!  Or at lease the the version prepared by the KC did not agree with the Alliance's reps.  view of the meeting and agreement. 

"Or at lease the the version prepared by the KC did not agree with the Alliance's reps.  view of the meeting and agreement"

From the message on the CA website to their members pretty obvious things did not go as well as hoped for.

"In response to many requests all we can say at this point in time is that the suggested wording from Clarges Street did not coincide with the CA representatives' assessment of the meeting. We have sent an amended version to Clarges Street for their approval. Until we hear from them tomorrow we are unable to comment further."

Have you read the points put forward by the CA to the KC - pretty thorough I thought and when we do get the KC reply it should make interesting reading.

The press release is out - have down loaded and am off to read it.

Very disappointing they seem to have not listened but then what is new - time for stronger action I think.

Have you read the points put forward by the CA to the KC - pretty thorough I thought and when we do get the KC reply it should make interesting reading.

Very thorough and fair I thought. The usual KC arrogant attitude appears to prevail from the contents of the Press Release.

http://www.caninealliance.org/PR032012.pdf

Just hope the KC don't think we will go away - and if it comes to it I hope we don't.

Will be joining up when I get home (away at present with dogs).

Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club Secretary, said: "We agreed to a meeting with the Canine Alliance so that we could hear the views of this group of exhibitors
The implication being that we are an insignificant minority who will soon get bored and fade away ....

Anwen, yes I got that from this comment too.  Let's all recruit as many new members as possible to show them that far form insignificant we are too numerous to brush aside and ignore.  I was surprised at Ringcraft on Tuesday that a lot of peole had not yet heard about the CA - even wiht all the press coverage and online chat, so let's all spread the word and get people visitng the website to join up.  For those not internet friendly there is a form to print off and send by snail mail.

Gwen, there was talk of flyers have you heard anything more, sorry to say I am missing a good deal of information because of my inability to understand FB.

So far they are all in the process of being done.  Will let you know as son as i hear they are available.

Thanks Gwen, if I had a PDF I am able and willing to print some off for my own use but I do not want to go and do my own design because the Canine Alliance needs a corporate image so to speak and not people all doing their own thing.

Perhaps I should say so somewhere but not sure where and don't want to cause a rush of people printing because not all have the equipment or media to do it and it does need to be of a reasonable level.

The peek has passed the vet check at uk toy dog and is through to the group.  The pugs have refused to challenge for BOB.  This is being applauded by many, however I am torn on this choice of action and probably feel that thus avoiding a vet check is tantamount to suggesting there could be a health issue, although I realise it is very unlikely that there is one.

The pugs have refused to challenge for BOB

This would be a breed protest nothing to do with the Canine Alliance that would not ask the exhibitors do do such a thing but can't stop them doing so if they want to make a point.

The CA is not against health testing, the opposite in fact, but they want it to be fair and above board with an appeal process and monitors in place and it not just to be for 15 breeds of showdogs but for all pedigree dogs particularly those used for breeding.