I just got my weekly newsletter from Dog World and it reports that puppy registrations are down by 6%, it then went on to list the breeds with the most pups and how their position had changed from the previous 12 months, most in the top 12 didn't surprise me but to read that Pugs had gone from 9th place to 5th place shocked me, reading on here how difficult they are to whelp, the poor mothers they can be and they don't produce huge litters all I could think was there must be many 1,000 of litters being produced to achieve that climb up the ladder but how many by responsible breeders who breed only from the best examples without major exagerations in structure.

Are folk finding a decline in the number of pups being produced in their breed, I know in my type of my breed the numbers are way down on what they were 12yrs ago when I saw my first ever BRS passed onto me by a friend, the numbers dropped when the PRA cord1 DNA test results were announced back in 2005 but soon picked up again when folk figured out how to get unaffected pups, the number of enquiries via my website looking for pups over the past 12 months has increased and I haven't had a litter available since 2010 which makes me think they are thin on the ground.

Are there less breed specific breeding kennels[don't mean puppy farmers who multi breeds], more breeders having one or two litters a year to get their next show/breed hopeful?

What we never find out is how many litters are being born that don't appear in the KC statistics, I occassionally [when I can't sleep] will check out the online puppy adverts, other than the weird X's of my breed there are few advertised as not KC registered which is a relief.

Look forward to hearing what others have to say.

With the pugs you seem to see large litters from bitches who do not carry an affix, bred by breeders who also do not have an affix but who seem to crop up consistantly in the BRS with several litters a year.
I know of a few 'breeders' who advertise online and who's bitches, when you see the pictures, leave a lot to be desired.
These bitches are not the nice compact type you would want to breed from, if you were breeding to the standard. Rather they are the longer bodied, leggier pug 'type' which wouldn't do well in the ring but make fantastic baby making machines! *wink wink*
So these bitches are used by Jo Bloggs to chuck two and two together and make £££. Owing to the growing popularity of the breed, this feeds the next generation of BYB's who buy an expensive breed, that has come from a large litter, with their own plans to breed in the future. And so the cycle goes on and the pug numbers rise.
Those who 'play by the rules', health test, research bloodlines, use only the best bitches with the best studs, spend out time, effort and money on travel, fees, entries etc seem to have the smaller litters...
Our average litter size is 3-4, couldn't ever imagine having a litter of 8-9 as you see frequently in the BRS these days.

Thanks for explaining how the increase in numbers has come about.

In my breed registrations are currently down by 2/3ds of what they were 20 years ago, 30- 50 a year compared to 120 - 150.  In the late 1970's - 80's we had nearly 300.

If the amount of puppy enquiries I get there are never enough pups to go around unless someone has all one sex or cancellations.

Sadly this means more people are resorting to buying from BYB, who neither health test or breed ethically, or we loose them to other breeds, and the downward spiral continues.

Our registrations with the KC are almost entirely made up of litters bred by those following the breed club code of ethics, with the odd litter from IKC registered parents bred by BYB.  Most BYB/Puppy farmers stick with DLRC as breed club members primarily endorse puppies registrations, 'progeny not eligible for registration' and these stay in place unless the required health testing etc steps are taken.

Very true Pugnut we have noticed the very same thing and these bitches have a slightly odd shape to them compared to show bitches.
Their is a breeder like this near to us and their stud throws a fault being that most of his pups come out with one white foot so you can spot them a mile off.

My breed is growing in popularity and registrations are up. Many good breeders are doing all the essential tests and more, and bringing in new bloodlines etc.

Unfortunately there are a couple of big breeders breeding many litters a year, one in particular is selling them as from 'working stock', but the reality of this is, they wouldn't be good enough to show. Many people are buying bitches from this breeder, then going back and using his stud dogs to breed on. Some are not testing the bitches at all and some doing minimal testing.

This is not good for the breed and I can see how a breed split will easily happen in the future. Many of the 'show' dogs work, but these breeders are just not producing as many and will soon be outnumbered.

The breed is currently still in demand and this is also encouraging the wrong people.

Rhodach, my breed is pretty much the same as yours, albeit coat type. I registered my litter a couple of days after they were born. Due to the New Year and bank holidays/weekends etc, they went on there 'find a puppy' register on the 9th Jan. Everyday since then at have had at least 5 phone calls/emails asking if pups were still available. A few people inviting themselves over to see them on specific days and times of their choice, and one woman from Australia who asked me if I could tell her how to go about importing a male and a female from UK to over there, not to use as breeding machines but because she thought it would be good to bring new bloodlines into the country, but she only wanted them as family pets!!!

Anyway, my point is that I think you are right, it seems that this breed is low on the ground. People have been hunting for ages to no avail, but they are mainly are all searching for one specific colour, so this colour must be rarer too!

There has been for some time one must have colour in mini longs which appearred as a fluke in the 80's here in the UK and is in great demand in other countries but those countries have ruined it by mixing it with other colours/patterns and worst of all coats, I used to get emails galore wanting pups/whole litters which I  dismissed no matter how friendly the folk got with me, there are unfortunately those who will ship out whole litters and sometimes 2 [11 pups]at a time of this colour which is rarer in other countries but no longer here, conformation not good but the colour genes were there.

Because we don't cross coats here this colour has remained in the mini long KC reg pups but there are those producing mixed coat unregistered pups giving them the "rare" label and the price tag to go with it.

I am sure this must go on in other breeds too.

My breed has gone from 11th to 10th place, with very high registrations. Unfortunately as a groomer I see the examples that are being bred and they leave a lot to be desired.

people with high profile breeds are very disillusioned with the whole thing at the moment. Look at the numbers of dogs being shown in these breeds. Cartainly in my breed there are as many in the whole of an all breed champ shows as used to be in a class! As people do not want to show they are not breeding a litter. The majority of pups now born in our breed are from people we have never heard of with no affix  not show people.
These people rarely health test and often use the nearest stud dog of convenience or even putting their own two together so one wonders whether the quality of the pups on offer for people wanting a pet is suffering. The KC did not think of this aspect when they brought in vet checks. So many people I know, good breeders, knowledgeable breeders of many years experience have now called it a day. Is that what the KC wanted?

> The KC did not think of this aspect when they brought in vet checks.

Eh?

sorry it does make a difference to people with high profile breeds, I'm not being stupid here. A lot of people have a litter in order to have something to breed. Other people in order to add to their breeding programme where they are trying to improve the breed they love. Not everyone breeds a litter just to sell them If the show aspect is taken away i.e the pleasure is removed then one has to take stock and wonder if this is what one wants to do any more. Until vet checks are in place for all breeds some people do not want to show. Many people I know have let their bitches go over as they can see no point in breeding a litter, they certainly wouldn't dream of having a litter and selling them all. These reasons have brought registration figures down certainly in my own breed and is very evident in puppy classes which are often totally empty.

If you are so proud of your breeding why be bothered about a vet running their hands over them, presumably they or their parents have had all the necessary health tests etc.

I still have to dump my dogs on the scales at each show bar Crufts but as I have nothing to hide I go along with it, doesn't stop folk attending because every breed doesn't have to beat the scales.

> If you are so proud of your breeding why be bothered about a vet running their hands over them,

Exactly. 
Far from putting the public off KC registered puppies I believe the vet checks will be perceived by the general puppy buying public as the KC being intolerant of unhealthy exagerations and generally a good thing.  Goodness knows what they think of societies set up by show breeders to challenge this initiative.
What better way to show the public that show dogs are the healthiest dogs than to see the HPBs consistantly passing these checks and getting off the list.

it's the unfairness of it. If everyone had to then fine. How can a dog in one breed be excluded for haw showing yet another be res.best in show for the same thing? Conjunctivitis can strike any dog. It is not hereditory  and can be brought on by show conditions. If it WAS a simple running over of the hands by the vet and the same amount of time given as to the judge it would be something but believe me it is far from that and I would not willingly put a young dog through that. This is by the by anyway and a matter seen differently if it affects you. If I was alone in this thought there would be no CA!!  My point was simply that many people have been very unhappy this year and it has impacted on the number of litters bred by such people. We can only speak for our own breeds can't we and very many of the people I would have expected to have had a litter last year did not, from choice.

> If everyone had to then fine.

Well, that would not be very practical.  Makes sense to me to begin with the breeds with the worst exagerations and, once they are improved, take a look at any others that appear to be excessive.

> Conjunctivitis can strike any dog. It is not hereditory  and can be brought on by show conditions.

Conjunctivitis may not be hereditory but having excessive haw exposed is and this may well create an increased disposition.

>My point was simply that many people have been very unhappy this year and it has impacted on the number of litters bred by such people.

Like I said, I doubt the general public see this as a bad thing and if you are breeding dogs that consistantly pass these check there would be happiness all round.

this is a totally different thread now and people with HP breeds may well not agree with people who do not who perceive we are breeding some sort of monsters. All we want is an equal playing field. No haw should apply to ALL breeds for instance. A wet eye for ALL breeds and so on.
I do not want to change the thread to such a discussion.
The original poster was talking about the drop in registrations.
This is for a variety of reasons. The ressession could stop people affording expensive puppies or ones which cost a lot to keep so breeders may well have bred less.
Life styles have changed as often both partners work so lack of demand and some breeders may have cut back as they can't sell.
Some of this is a good thing as some breeds bred ever so many pups.
There was a lady on the Tv this morning talking about the lack of corgies and she did not know why.
I only cme on here to say in my breed, and maybe in other breeds that are HP, the decision not to breed was taken for other reasons. Showing was a hobby to many people. Rightly or wrongly they feel it is no longer for them If they don't want to show they see no point in breeding, hence a fall in registrations.
It was just another slant on it I do not want or need an arguement over vet checks or whether HP breeds are fit for purpose. We may all have different ideas as to what is excessive. to me a dog spending its life in curlers or not being allowed to run outside because it's coat touches the floor is excessive, yet all this is fine whereas a bulldog who scratches its eye leading a normal dog's life running and playing is not allowed to be shown. I could go on but it really is all off point and it was not my intention to take it off at a tangent.

> This is for a variety of reasons. The ressession could stop people affording expensive puppies or ones which cost a lot to keep so breeders may well have bred less.
>

Could not agree more.  This seems far more likely.

>to me a dog spending its life in curlers or not being allowed to run outside because it's coat touches the floor is excessive

Could not agree more :)

>it was not my intention to take it off at a tangent.

I don't think it is.  The subject is the drop in registrations.  You are pefectly entitled to give your view and others are surely entitled to discuss.

>If you are so proud of your breeding why be bothered about a vet running their hands over them, presumably they or their parents have had all the necessary health tests etc.

I can't understand why anyone would still think that's all there is to it! The examining vets this year have included the use of stethoscopes, pen torches and rotation of the limbs ... and that's not just at last year's Crufts. There is very little consistency between examining vets, and what happens to BOB winners in the HP breeds is not what the KC led us all to think it would be. I think most people winning best of breed are proud of their breeding, but feel that they are at the mercy of the capriciousness of the examining vets, and whatever they happen to have on their agenda!

And as for the health tests you mention, you show me where there is a DNA test for conformation of the lower eyelid. The opthamologists don't even agree amongst themselves what they mean by entropion any more. Plus we all know of dogs with very good hip scores moving badly, and also the reverse. Health tests are very desirable. But don't let us think that the results will help any dog pass a vet check on the day.

I don't know what every health test is for every breed , nor do I know every fault/exageration that the vets are looking for in these breeds but I still can't understand why the reluctance to let the vet confirm the dog to be the healthiest example of the breed on the day.

I started this thread and don't mind it going off at a tangent of healthy discussion provided that those of us not in those affected breeds are allowed to comment without being told we don't understand, I keep up with the 6 breeds in my breed so can't keep abreast of more but do like to hear things like this  provided my aging brain doesn't have to retain the info long term to repeat at a later date.

I can't see that using a stethoscope, pen torch and some limb manipulation being torturous to the dogs, do they have lots of bloods taken or other invasive procedures, if so then I could understand the upset but these exams are no more than what goes on at the vets normally, if the vets are overly rough or rude then they should be reported as you would your normal vet.

Following this drop in registrations have breed clubs got together with the KC to air their views and explain why they no longer wish to show or breed, that they feel singled out? I am sure in time other breeds will be added to the list which have problems but the bigger problems in the breeds produced in higher numbers have started the ball rolling, someone had to be first.

Unless I am mistaken is it only the one breed that has been mentioned here?

The real problem is that some people do not like change !!! And changes had to be made as some breeds were unable to carry out normal day to day functions that any dog should be able to undetake. To run, walk, be able to see, be free from pain and able to give birth naturaly are pretty basic funtions.

If a dog had conjuntivitis why was it being shown ? Was it showing these signs when it was in the ring ? If so a caring owner would have withdrawn the dog and taken it home and sought vet treatment

If you look at older photos of a lot of breeds they bear little resemblance to dogs that you see in the ring today.
If people with dogs that will not pass a vet check have decided to no longer breed, I see that as a positive thing, let those who want to breed and show healthy dogs fill their places and improve their breeds.

Sometimes when you hear all the whinging and whining one thinks that all these people are concerned about is their loss of prizes and status, and little about the health and welfare of the dogs.
I am glad the health checks have been brought in, and I hope in time they will go further, that health testing will be compulsory for all and those that have failed health tests will not be able to atain high titles. I fail to see the point of a dog having the CH title who can not be bred from.

I put many hours of research and thought into my choice of a second breed.
I was hampered because with some breeds that I liked I found that I only liked bad specimens not the ones classed as 'good' that would do well in the ring. I eventually settled on a toy breed,but one without any exaggeration who behaves like a dog and mixes quite happily with my bigger dogs. Not my first choice, but a happy compromise :)

I have the same problem with cats. I have just lost the love of my life. A seal point Siamese, but an old fashioned one without the exaggerated head and huge ears. Eventually I will find a replacement but there is no rush, I will wait until I find a suitably unfashionable one lol

> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Sometimes when you hear all the whinging and whining one thinks that all these people are concerned about is their loss of prizes and status, and little about the health and welfare of the dogs.

that is a bit unfair, though i am sure to some that is the issue... I think to most a lack of fairness is the issue. dogs from the HP list were thrown out last year at crufts for issues like haw showing and yet the newfie showed substantial haw when if it had been checked it surely would not have passed. that is not fair.

i don't have any issue with vet checks, think they are great in theory, but i think that they should be for each of the winners of each breed- it would take time but a little investment would see it done- but i really think the focus needs to be on judging, why are we seeing dogs with conformational extremes or potentially damaging problems being put forward at all? the judges have all read the new standards and in their essence the changes are not complicated, preserve your breeds look in a way that supports health and function. from a judging pov that shouldn't be complicated in my view. For example, yes I want a fair wrinkle on my mastiff but i want a tight eye as well.

> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">I am glad the health checks have been brought in, and I hope in time they will go further, that health testing will be compulsory for all

for breeding? couldn't agree more. i think that this is the only way for the KC to win back their reputation, make KC registration a real mark of quality in form and health. a guarantee that everything possible has been done to make sure the animal you buy is healthy.

>but i really think the focus needs to be on judging

I think it does put a spotlight on judging.  How can it not?

I'm confused with the Vet checks.

It does seem that some of the dogs are being penalised for a transient thing (excess tearing on a windy day), past injury etc.  Surely the things the vets should e looking to DQ on are hereditary aspects that could be passed on in a breeding program.

My won breed has a tendency for sebaceous/follicular cysts (as do many thick double coated breeds), mostly these are just a nuisance, but can take forever to clear up i they burst, or sit for years under the skin needing no treatment.

If we were a high profile breed, would we be DQ'd for skin problems for literally a zit?  What about Dobes and other short coated breeds with Juvenile acne?

Permanent visible conformational faults that can be passed on is what the Vets should be DQ'ing on

> excess tearing on a windy day), past injury etc.

I think it should depend on whether the vets considers their conformation has predisposed them to these conditions or injuries.  After all that is WHY excessive haw, for example, is undesirable.  It increases their exposure to injury and discomfort and is, therefore, a welfare issue.

> I can't see that using a stethoscope, pen torch and some limb manipulation being torturous to the dogs, do they have lots of bloods taken or other invasive procedures, if so then I could understand the upset but these exams are no more than what goes on at the vets normally

Surely you can see that these instruments and manipulations are not possible for a judge to carry out. The vet checks were meant to confirm (or not) the judges' decisions. If they are being made with techniques unavailable to judges, that's not what the KC have billed them as. And why is there no consistency amongst the examining vets? The KC needs to get a grip here. These are KC run shows after all.

And we find that the 'failures' of these checks are all about eyelid conformation - not concerning  "every fault/exageration that the vets are looking for in these breeds" What's that all about then? Either these exaggerations are harmful or they aren't.

I find the vet checks out of context; if they're only looking at health issues that could appear on the day, they could apply to any dogs; for example teary eye, etc., in that case why aren't they checking all the breeds? The HP breeds aren't having hip scores or eye tests on the day, they're not having breed-related tests performed, they're just having a vet check that ANY dog on the day could have failed, Peke or Pug alike. It makes for unfair judgement if you're the BOB Bulldog at Crufts last year, who was a huge improvement on the breed, she had a longer tail, her movement was totally unrestricted, her head was smaller, her body in moderation; her breeders clearly worked hard to bring the standard to a better place as requested, and what happened? Stripped of it because of a vet check that had no relation to the breed or its new motivations. Hardly fair, and hardly encouraging. As for vets considering their conformation being predisposed, unless the vet is also a breed specialist, I don't see the reasoning. I don't see the point in them at all, apart from PR.

> for example teary eye, etc.,

I would imagine it would be considered in the context of the dog's eye conformation.
Do you really need to be an eye expert to see the increased exposure to the eye and the inability to blink effectively when severe haw is noted?

>As for vets considering their conformation being predisposed

I didn't say the conformation is predisposed, I said the conformation can predispose towards such things as excessive watering, injury etc.  There is a difference in that although, of course, conformation is predisposed by breeding so if animals that show these exagerations are not rewarded and are therefore less used in breeding programmes it does follow that exagerations can be reduced.

Actually in my breed the sad fact is we cannot even meet demand for the breed, which has never seen KC registrations above the vulnerable figure of 300.  Registrations have fallen by 2/3rds in 20 years, currently averaging 50 puppies or less a year, around 7 - 10 litters.

As a numerically small breed supply and demand for puppies are often very sporadic, often feast or famine.  There will be occasions when there will be the odd puppy waiting for the right home to 12 weeks or so, (due to inequity in sexes or litters born close together) and at other times no pups to be had for love nor money

So breeders need to have a waiting list, which if they are not breeding regularly (as in every year or so) can take time, (our breed club has a planned litter list) not expect to have all pups homed at 8 weeks or so, and potential owners need to be prepared to wait.

The recession has hit breeders/would be breeders making breeding a litter properly/ethically impractical and expensive (the breed although with very low registration numbers is not high priced).

Many do not have someone home 24/7, but juggle work between partners, so a litter means using up all holidays (if they have a family that impacts of them), and possibly still needing cover by others (has to be paid for somehow, even if it's friends with reciprocal arrangements for favours).

Gone are the days now where at least half the breeders had some form of kennelling and space, so running on pups, having dogs back for re-homing etc was no big deal.  Now it could mean expensive kennelling fees for a returned dog if it can't be easily fitted into the home pack.  The sheer responsibility for the next 12 years or more for those puppies bred, can be quite onerous.

Most of us now have companions that we show and breed from purely residential homes, to keep the breed going (so some litters where a pup is not kept are necessary, and hopefully some of the new owners encouraged to join us as a new breed custodians).  Trying to keep a reasonable gene pool necessitates expensive imports or travel abroad, the cost of which will never be recouped, as a  dog used more than a couple of times will soon have too big an impact on the gene pool.

Yet sadly we still have Puppy farmed and BYB bred litters, (usually unregistered or DLRC, occasionally IKC) sold for not much less than responsibly bred ones from typical health tested parents.  Guess where most of the rescues come from, due to poor new owner vetting.  Who actually supports/finances rescue in a numerically small breeds like ours, and others, it is exhibitors, breeders and involved pet owners.

> If a dog had conjunctivitis why was it being shown ?

As a bit of irritation/inflammation could easily have occurred during a stuffy car ride or the terrible air in venues like Crufts.  Al the reports have said 'Mild conjunctivits', something that was not enough for the judge or exhibitor (laymen) to notice.

My eyes get very dry and itchy in some of these venues, ditto when travelling in a car with heater/blowers on, so I am quite sure I'd be showing a bit of red eye if examined by the vet. 

I have also poked my won dog in the eye more than once while showing when I or the dog have mistimed over a treat.  I even had one of mien react badly to the drops used before eye testing, and the vet administered anaesthetic drops and antihistamine.  Fortunately she had already been shown.

Having paid a large entry fee up to two months earlier, and the issue being transient, why would I withdraw, unless the dog was rolling around in pain, rather than just a bit of tearing from a poke in the eye.

"I can't see that using a stethoscope, pen torch and some limb manipulation being torturous to the dogs do they have lots of bloods taken or other invasive procedures, if so then I could understand the upset but these exams are no more than what goes on at the vets normally,"

Taking the use of a stethoscope alone. A Vet using it during his/her check on the Best of Breed HP Breed is obviously looking for a reason to eliminate the dog from further competition. It stands to reason many thousands of show dogs have been shown who have heart murmurs. It would not be unusual for many Veterans to be found with one. So is that examining Vet experienced in specific breeds to know if a murmur is found what grade is a fail or pass on that day? Apart from the fact there is no mention of heart testing as being part of the checks.  Obviously it was thought doing such an examination was "fair game". No wonder owners are upset being subjected to such unfair treatment. I am not the owner of a HP Breed either. There is no "pass or fail" in a normal Veterinary Surgeon's health check.

> So is that examining Vet experienced in specific breeds to know if a murmur is found what grade is a fail or pass on that day?

Do you know it is a murmer they are specifically looking for?  Could it not be simply part of a general physical examination to assertain if the heart has been unduly stressed due to the exertion of taking to the ring with conformation that is likely to compromise breathing, for example.
But then again, if it is a murmer they are checking then maybe that is not inappropriate in breeds where hearts have consistantly been an issue. 

>There is no "pass or fail" in a normal Veterinary Surgeon's health check.

What is being asked is a professional opinion.  All the better then if they are able to demonstrate something such as a very high heart rate to support an opinion that the animal is unduly stressed, for example.

>I can't see that using a stethoscope, pen torch and some limb manipulation being torturous to the dogs,

Just prior to their introduction at Crufts last year, the vet checks at shows were supposed to be the same procedure as judging; the vet wasn't to use any instruments that the judge didn't use (ie only hands and eyes) and take no more time than the judge had - about 2 minutes per dog. They were supposed to be checking that the judge wasn't putting through any dog with an obvious health problem.

The issue is that the checks have gone far further and turned into a very comprehensive vet examination, which is unfair if it doesn't apply to all breeds.

I think you can argue whether it is fair to single out breeds as having greater welfare issues but I can't really see that the level at which you examine them makes things more or less fair.

> The issue is that the checks have gone far further and turned into a very comprehensive vet examination

It certainly is, and in those breeds where BOB is very often the same couple of dogs week in and week out, the current vet checks are telling us very little about the overall health of those breeds.

I agree and thinks its nothing like what the judge looks for, if that is the case surely it would be better for all discounts dogs to be certificated once a year. After all if I was judging my breed I'm not confident I'd be ableito examine for patellar luxation.

Seems to me some people make a lot of excuses, a car journey causing a teary eye !!
Obviously some people have a lot to hide. If the dog was healthy, did not have predispotion to eye problems, some that have been corrected by surgery, which is cheating !!! Why would you be concerned by a vet check that is considerably less invasive than most dogs have when they have their annual health checks ?
If your dog is healthy you have nothing to fear by a vet check, the judge is not a vet and is not qualified to recognise health conditions, and those that are able very often turn a blind eye. Breed type very often overides health and confirmation issues when it comes to giving out awards.
I agree it is not fair that certain breeds have been singled out, but the KC had to start somewhere, and they have picked out the breeds that have significant issues. They have also said that as problems are eradicated they will remove the breeds, from the HPR list and other breeds could be added if health issues are identified.
The KC registration has to mean something, that is the only way the GP will have confidence in pedigree dogs and breeders.
We lost the screening of Crufts on main TV Channels, I feel that this has been a backward step, as it allowed the GP to see some of the less well know breed, and to find out more about them.
The same sort of thing happened in the horse world when the Horse of the year show stopped being screened there were less children taking up riding.
Breeders need to get behind the KC instead of complaining, they need to put their own breeds in order so that they are as healthy as possible, and then we can shout from the rooftops how good UK KC registered dogs are. For far too long things have been swept under the carpet, if breeders pushed for more testing and legislation and control, it would do more to put BYB out of buissness than anything else, as they would not comply and could then be legaly reported.
Dogs and dog related activities need to be given a much higher profile if we are to get future generations interested in dogs, the only way that is going to happen is if we put our house in order, promote core values like honesty and integrity, and make it plain that shady dealings, and dodgy breeding will not be tolerated.

seems to me some people make a lot of excuses, a car journey causing a teary eye !!

Well I don't have any of the high profile breeds, but I have shown Persian cats for more than 20 years and before we had AC in any car it was always murder travelling to shows as we knew we HAD to keep all windows shut all the way to the show as otherwise we'd arrive with a cat with runny eyes which might well be rejected at vetting in. On the way home no problem as then there was no vet check. So yes, car journeys most definitely CAN cause teary eyes. It can in people too!!

We lost the screening of Crufts on main TV Channels, I feel that this has been a backward step, as it allowed the GP to see some of the less well know breed, and to find out more about them.

BIS will be on channel 4 this year.

For people with dogs for whom a runny eye means illness or injury, it is hard to understand why people insist that runny eyes can be aquired in 'normal' activities. I can only assume that some owners become desensitised to it. And that is why the vet checks are needed, because these vets don't give a hoot about the competition, the honour, the reputation, the breed history etc relating to the dog before them, only the health and condition of that dog in that moment. So I do agree with the vet checks, and I wouldn't have a problem with them being rolled out to all breeds, although there would be massive logistical implications as has been pointed out by experienced exhibitors before.
Tbh if my dog got runny eyes from a car journey or from being at a show I'd assume there was something wrong with the eyes. In spring time I get runny eyes from car journeys and it is because there is something wrong with my eyes due to an allergy.

Persian cats have large prominent eyes, and are prone to having eye conditions, I used to have one.
A lot have also been closey bred to get flatter & flatter faces. I don't think they are really an example of a healthy animal !!! There is a lot of bad breeding in cats and well as dogs.
A normal dog should be able to cope with a car journey. You see so many dogs at shows, with tear stained weepy eyes, and exhibitors wiping and covering up the stains.
For years in some breeds people have just ignored these things and carried on breeding, type has always been more important than health in a lot of breeds.
I can appreciate that some people have spent years breeding certain dogs, but they need to take a step back and look at them, and ask themselves what is more important, the health of a breed or having the next Champion ?
Judges are often afraid to put down big winners for the backlash they will get, therefore we need the vets as they are more independant.
Hope Channel 4 do put some decent coverage on this year and highlight the many good things about dogs and the good progress that has been made regarding health issues.
  Last years Britains Got Talent Winner has done a lot to show the GP what can be achieved with training. Shame she is not show more and less of the American - Ceasar Milan. BGT has a huge following and she I feel is the right age to get the younger ones interested. We need new blood coming in as that is the only way things will move forward.

I disagree shivj, a vet  used for the health checks was very vocally anti pedigree dogs so you can not say for sure she had no other agenda.

Also didnt the girl from bgt get into hot water over her and her mom supplying a 6 week old puppy for a TV competition??

You hit the nail on the head Shivi. In some breeds it is the norm so they just accept it !!

I didn't know about the puppy issue. But I still think she showed the GP what could be acheived with training and a good bond between dog and handler.
Some vets may have issues with pedigree dogs, but who can blame them when they see dogs everday of the week with eye ulcers and other health conditions.
In my own vet recently, there was a breeder came in with several dogs, who were all booked in to have their cherry eyes fixed. She informed me that it was the norm in this breed and they just get them fixed !! KC registered, but I doubt the operations would be reported.

There are BYB we know who are not doing testing, but there are a lot of show people as well who are breeding from unhealthy stock. These people have to be brought into line and if the vet checks helps to do that then that is a positive step.

My silly aunt bought a shar pei x rottie with a hint of lab in too and it had cherry eye its not just a ailment reserved for pedigree dogs, I see plenty of sick mutts at the vets with plenty of hereditary diseases else why else would they too be at the vets and trust me I've spent A lot of time there recently-

> cherry eye its not just a ailment reserved for pedigree dogs

It's not but there is no denying some breeds have a prevalence for it.