Individuals are just as important.  If a condition is serious enough in one animal to warrant disqualification, then the condition is equally serious in any other.

> Individuals are just as important.

Indeed but if we accept the aim is to encourage judges to recognise and reject conformations that tend to lead to these conditions then each individual will benefit from that too.

These judges that are approved by the KC themselves, you mean? The ones who choose the least exaggerated of the exhibits, thus doing what the KC has told them to do?

And why reject a particular conformation in one breed and not another? Rules need to apply across the board if they're to be respected, not one law for one and another for someone else.

> And why reject a particular conformation in one breed and not another?

I don't know all the ins and outs as to why it is not one or the other.  Perhaps the same conformation has not proved so problematic in some due to the rest of their conformation or their behavioural trends.
I dare say some choices have been political but probably no less necessary a consideration when you attempt to prioritise.
What we do know is the Kennel Club has said these priorities are flexible and breeds consistantly being found to have no issues can expect to drop out of the list which would be very good publicity for that particular breed would it not?

> I suppose it all hinges on whether you accept some breeds have issues due to exageration and fair enough if you don't. 

No it hinges on whether you accept that democracy is better than dictatorship.  Bear in mind that many, many of those who initiated the CA don't have any of the HP breeds themselves but were appalled to see others be treated in an unreasonable and unfair fashion.

I don't know anyone who is opposed to fair and meaningful health tests, or to making sure only sound dogs are show.  But these issues are different - how is it only relevant that only the HP breeds are checked for soundness before BoB is confirmed - surely all dogs should be sound in the group ring.  Likewise, How is a trnansient eye inflamation or temporary lameness going to affect the the future health of the breed?  2 different health matters have been confused and intermingled.

> How is a trnansient eye inflamation or temporary lameness going to affect the the future health of the breed?

It would depend on whether this was likely to be caused by their conformation.

If it's transient or temporary it's extremely unlikely to be caused by a conformational fault.
Do you think it's OK or good for breeds as a whole for (say) an Akita with slightly enflamed eyes to be awarded BOB but not OK if the dog is a Clumber or a Bloodhound?
And how is razor burn an inherited fault?
It's early days yet, but so far no GSD has failed the vet check. How long will they remain a HPB? Suppose, in 11 months time one GSD fails - will that mean the breed will  be regarded as High Profile for another 12 months? If no GSD fails, does that mean things have improved magically in 12 months or that they sholdn't have been on list in the first place? The same applies to all the other HPBs of course.

> Do you think it's OK or good for breeds as a whole for (say) an Akita with slightly enflamed eyes to be awarded BOB but not OK if the dog is a Clumber or a Bloodhound?

I don't know if you've missed the point, but breeds with droopy eyes and exposed haws [= ectropion] is essentially a structural fault and is why the Clumber and Bloodhound were selected. Personally it is a big turn off for me to see any breed with a droopy eye where the haw is showing - breed standard or not.

An Akita with good eye conformation [i.e. no entropion or ectropion] that had an eye infection should also be excluded, as it isn't in perfect health, and arguably shouldn't be at a show. A cat with any form of eye infection wouldn't get past the vetting-in at a show, never mind be up for BOB.

What we do know is the Kennel Club has said these priorities are flexible and breeds consistantly being found to have no issues can expect to drop out of the list which would be very good publicity for that particular breed would it not?

...and this would be yet more window dressing , just as the original decision to vet check a handful of dogs was  - .....honestly -if all Pugs passed the Vet Checks and the breed was subsequently taken off the HP list would this truly mean that the overwhelming majority  of Pugs owned by the general public would no longer be a cause of concern ? - remember that only a TINY fraction of pugs are bred by show folk - most that you see are bred by BYB's etc who currently use Kc registration as an endorsement of what they are producing -  the Kc are quite prepared to discriminate, bully and humiliate their most loyal supporters in the most public manner  in an effort to prove to a hostile media that they care about health ....but ask them to refuse to register the sad fall out of puppy farmers and they throw their hands up in horror ......such hypocrisy is surely not tenable or credible for very much longer !

Yvonne

> honestly -if all Pugs passed the Vet Checks and the breed was subsequently taken off the HP list would this truly mean that the overwhelming majority  of Pugs owned by the general public would no longer be a cause of concern ? - remember that only a TINY fraction of pugs are bred by show folk - most that you see are bred by BYB's etc who currently use Kc registration as an endorsement of what they are producing

It strikes me that if pugs at shows were found to be consistantly healthy and taken off the list what better way to demonstrate that show pugs are not the ones with a problem?  
Even if the KC raised the bar on health testing for all registrations they cannot do anything about conformation exagerations outside the show ring but if they could show that show bred animals were appraised in this way, together with the awareness of health screening that is provided by the ABS, at least the public will know who is breeding the healthy dogs and where they should be going to find their puppy.

>Back to overseas influences again :-)  I would rather we concerned ourselves with ensuring the applied welfare standards etc were entirely our own.

I imaging the Asian dog-meat traders feel the same way. ;-)

Seriously, I'm still not sure what you're getting at here. :-o Surely you're not saying that people in one country shouldn't lobby another country's officials if they perceive poor welfare standards? If so, where does that leave IFAW, or those who campaign specifically aginst the dog-meat trade in certain countries overseas? If we can campaign, so can anyone else! Or do you seriously think that the overseas members will form a clique and lobby to introduce lower standards here? I don't think you believe either of those things, so you'll need to spell out more clearly your fears regarding overseas membership.

It strikes me that if pugs at shows were found to be consistantly healthy and taken off the list what better way to demonstrate that show pugs are not the ones with a problem? 

but surely all the current system  is demonstrating  is that one particular Pug from an entry of goodness knows how many is healthy - this will have a negligible  impact on the overall health of the breed if an exaggerated bitch who wins 5th in Graduate remains unchecked and is subsequently bred from - what a farce !!

> Surely you're not saying that people in one country shouldn't lobby another country's officials if they perceive poor welfare standards?

No, the exact opposite.  I would not like other countries who may have lower welfare standards and differing attitudes having any influence in poo pooing something we might be doing to improve our own.

> the current system  is demonstrating  is that one particular Pug from an entry of goodness knows how many is healthy - this will have a negligible  impact on the overall health of the breed if an exaggerated bitch who wins 5th in Graduate remains unchecked and is subsequently bred from

It would look that way if you took one show in isolation but this scheme is clearly intended to run for some time in which case we should be considering the overall effect I believe.

It would look that way if you took one show in isolation but this scheme is clearly intended to run for some time in which case we should be considering the overall effect I believe

OK ,,, given that there are 38 general championship shows here in the uk that would mean 38 Pugs at most being vet checked - and don't forget that many top winning dogs will win BOB at several champ shows thus reducing the vet checked total as the same dogs will be checked several times - now if the average number of Pugs entered was 100 ( and I'm being conservative here - the  Bath Ch show entries in this weeks dog press show 136 Pugs  ) then that would be 38 dogs at MOST out of the 3,800 being shown   -  take into account that Pug registrations have gone up by over 6,000 over the last few years alone and you'll get an idea of the futility of the current health checks if their purpose is to improve the breed !!

Yvonne

Perhaps a start would be that to KC register a litter both parents have at a minimum to have a GP veterinary certificate of general good health, at above 12 months of age.

After a period of time the KC could insist on hip and eyes as a minimum for all breeds.

Trevor "Like" !!
I don't know if you've missed the point No, I don't think so, Akitas also suffer from eye problems, which was one reason I used them as an example but they are not a HP breed. Why not? My Akita had a dust allergy and would suffer from mildly enflamed eyes (so do I!) When does mildly enflamed become conjunctivitis?
BTW - droopy eyes are a big turn off for me too but there are many other breeds who suffer from ectropion and are not targetted. The fact that a BOB winner has perfect eyes doesn't mean that the whole entry is clear.

>I would not like other countries who may have lower welfare standards and differing attitudes having any influence in poo pooing something we might be doing to improve our own.

So would you allow overseas membership without voting rights, or no overseas membership at all?

Yvonne, it does not matter that it would only be 38 dogs, hopefully not even that, the intention, whether you believe it is appropriate or not, is to moderate judging with the outcome then being that breeders would reevaluate the thousands of others for themselves before considering their future breeding and so progress will move in the right direction.

I haven't given it much thought JG as I'm not looking for a change to the membership! :)