why do people go on bout crufts champion? there is no such thing corect so why do they think there is?
fiona

Probably because it is a myth which is given support every year by the media, around Crufts time. Also some people think it is a title which exists as less responsible breeders than us champdoggers, might use the fact that a dog in the pedigree is a "Crufts Champion", when in reality it just won it's class at Crufts.
The show to really boast about is surely the breed club championship show since you are up against all comers, not just those who qualify, plus it is very likely to be judged by a breed specialist, who really knows the breed.

put it that way about bre club shows and im must say i agree with you most years we get judges come from abroad to judge ours i think this is better as they dont no you and will do what they feel is corect and thanks for helping i get it now its all another myth
fiona

As you say it is total nonsense, you can make a dog up at Crufts as you can at any championship show, it is like the supreme champion title the BBC used to give to the BIS winner, again total nonsense as the BIS may not even be a Champion. Crufts is just another championship show and to my mind one of the most uncomfortable and inconsiderate shows there is from the exhibitors' point of view, although the visitors and stallholders seem to be better cared for. And some breeds seem to get a rough deal when it comes to judges as well.

Couple of years ago at crufts we were sitting on the benches with my two girls and as always the passing public stop to chat and pet them. Anyway this man who had a couple of pets of my breed was asking about the dogs, i told him they were both champion bitches and he surprised me by saying 'oh they're Crufts Champions then?' i told him no they had never won at Crufts but were Champions and he replied 'i thought all of the dogs here were champions'  I tried to explain otherwise but i doubt he fully understood...
The GP just believe that Crufts is the only dog show and everything entered is a champion??? Crazy!!  Really stupid thing is that winning at Crufts is only as good as the judge you win under - i'm not sure how they select judges for crufts but - usually i find they only have a decent judge (in my breed) about 1 in every 3 or 4 years.
I've even seen puppies advertised with 'father 4th in class at Crufts' well lets face it in some breeds there may have only been four in the class!  Yet the GP buys this as a sign of quality.
GP already knows everything - so how will they ever learn???

Sharon

People always ask me if im going to show my dog at crufts, like its the only dog show in the country :rolleyes:  I always explain that you have to qualify but I dont think they ever really understand.

The term "crufts champion" is used...in obediance!  Like breed obediance is 3 CCs = Champion BUT if you win a Ob CC at crufts, no matter how many Ob CCs you have you will become a champion if not one already.  therefore meaning a Ob CC at crufts gives you the title "champion" making it a "crufts champion"

Anyway thats how I have understood the term, it exsists in obediance but not breed.  in show its used by pet owners more who have a dog whos parents have been to crufts, therefore they say a "cxrufts champion" because it sounds good to the general public. 

I think there are many threads on this topic!

No idea.  But then I don't believe there should be ANY champion described, structured and detailed by man.  Dogs are dogs.  Each one is an individual.  Each one is what it is - perfect!  Who can say what is acceptable and what is not?  If you look at some breed standards (KC) they promote the most awful body conformation for dogs including those who can't breathe and those whose ears and tails have been cut off.  I'll probably get disbarred by admin for being contraversial but heck dogs are born to be what they are.

Actually ear cropping, as it is called is banned in the UK and has been for so long I can honestly say I have never seen one with cropped ears. As to tails being docked, well that is the breeder/owners decision not the KC's who register pups with and without docked tails. Many people who work their dogs will tell you tail damage is common, and sometimes the only answer is to dock the tail. Also some pet dogs may damage their tails, I knew of one whose tail got shut in a car door by accident, It had to have it's tail docked and as the wound would not heal properly. Everyone here will agree with you that the dog they have at home is the best friend they have and they wouldn't be without them. For one or more of them to be a champion is just a small bonus, another happy memory for us to look back on in years to come.
If you care to look at Bullboy's posting asking about breeds owned, you'll probably be surprised to find how many of us have rescue dogs, many being crossbred dogs or jack russels which are not KC registered. I myself have a english springer spaniel which is a rescue dog which goes every where with me and my two flatcoats, he even goes shooting every season and thoroughly enjoys himself. Even if the other two were champions it would not mean he was treated any less well than they would be.
I understand what you are saying and you are right they are dogs first and foremost, they don't desire to win titles, they just want to be our best friends.

Ear cropping was actually made illegal in the UK in the early years of the 20th century - over 100 years ago!

Thanks couldn't remember when it was made illegal.

But people still 'glue' them to make them perform to meet some man made standard.

Accidental damage is one thing - deliberate mutilation another.  Wolves have hunted for food and survival for thousands of years but they still have tails!  So to say that working dogs damage their tails if not docked is ludicrous - how do people think their dogs ancestors have survived!

suzieque,
What dog/s have you got???????????????
Lea :)

but a wolf hunting for food is different to a springer working in the feilds and a boxer/rottie etc being a gaurd dog, there fore tails being docked for saftey reasons!

I wolf wouldn't work, only hunt, and is totally different from any breed of dog today! :)

Ice Queen

The origin of the Rottie is not as a guarding breed - it dates back to Roman times and was a dog used for droving - it had a tail and it was not detrimental to doing its job.  It's tail has been removed by man over the years because man has changed the Rottie's role and now finds it an encumberance.  But I fail to see how a Rottie (whose main purpose as a 'working' dog is to Guard) does its job better without a tail.  It has its voice to alert of danger and teeth to use if under threat - so why must it sacrifice its tail? 

But now that the KC Breed Standards (drawn up by the lovers of each breed, remember) of 'traditionally docked' breeds allow for natural tails, I'm not sure what your problem is with the standards? One of the terrier BoBs at Crufts either this year or last had a natural tail - many of the judges are open-minded enough to put them up. The best changes happen slowly.
:)

Ice Queen

  You say a wolf wouldn't work, only hunt!!  What do you think hunting means to a wolf?  It is it's means of surviving.  It not only hunts out it's prey by scent but pursues and chases it over whatever terrain is in it's way.  It then catches the prey, brings it down, kills and eats it.  Don't you think this compares with a 'working' dog?  Don't you think in these circumstances the wolf may damage it's tail?  It isn't running through undergrowth for fun here - it is running to survive but, despite thousands of years of evolution, the wolf still retains its tail!!

>Don't you think this compares with a 'working' dog?  Don't you think in these circumstances the wolf may damage it's tail?

No, because the tail carriage is different to a spaniels.

Helen who has an undocked springer who has damaged her tail :-s

Helen

There are protective tail sheaths available to help your dog and although tail carriage may be different when static and relaxed it will be very similar when pursuing prey.

I'm afraid that's wrong, Suzique. Spaniels have a very active tail action when they are working/hunting/whatever term you want to use, especially in the undergrowth which is their particular forte. Most other breeds, and wild canids too, make as little movement as possible. They certainly don't wag frantically when they are actively running after prey.

But this again is detracting the thread from its original topic of meaningless terminology, and trying to turn it into the rights and wrongs of dog breeding.

JG

Then if the spaniel has such an active tail in working that it damages it, and by your earlier posting you state that quote " all breeds are man-made, none natural, designed for a purpose and judged on suitability for particular task", isn't the spaniel a failure on the part of the standard setter/breeder?  What happened here?  Can't breeders breed a tail-less dog?  Or does the problem lie with humans who insist on working a dog in conditions that are unsuitable for the dog?

And now I've heard everything!  Again I quote you " the domestic dog is a man-made creature".

Really?  All research I've done on evolution of the dog indicates that he started out sharing the same ancestor as the European Wolf.  Over time, some found food by hanging around settlements and scavaging.  From that came some sort of state of  mutual benefit between man and wolf emerged  - the wolf warned of approaching danger to the camp and in return got a share of the food.  Man and wolf began to losely co-exist.  Some variation in these wolves ocurred naturally through 'natural' selection and man identified that these animals could assist man in different ways.  Over time man has interferred with articial selection to encourage traits he wanted and discontinue those he didn't.  It has taken 12000+ years, evolution, natural selection, adaptation and artifical selection to produce the breeds we have today.

It is true to say that the domestic dog has been influenced by mans' intervention but this does not mean the domestic dog is a man made creature.

I have never seen a tail sheath. Where do you get them from? I have asked my vet who also has not seen any. At the moment we use old syringe cases and sticky bandage. Neither are ideal. Also once a dog has damaged it's tail, I have found that the tail will open more easily a second time. My bitch injured her tail, and just wagging it and hitting it againt the wall caused it to re-open.
How is a tail sheath attached in place? Does the dog have to wear a collar so it cannot bite it off?
The type of cover hunted by dogs varies greatly, in the UK it tends to be thick tangles of brambles, large log piles which spaniels will scramble under, and old mans beard, amongst other things so working dogs don't even wear collars while working as we don't want them to get caught up by the collar. Is there anything like that on the tail sheath which would be a problem for a working dog?
I would be interested to see a tail sheath and how it works.

Suzieque
So is a dog supposed to wear a tail sheath 24 hrs a day?? I have known 2 dogs(breeds that are customarily docked) who have badly damaged their tails whilst at home.Incidentally they are the only boxer and visla I have known with natural tails...so not a good result for the arguement againt docking.
Archer

Archer

Any dog with a tail can damage it in the home from wagging it vigorously - its a risk.  What are you suggesting?   That if breeders can't breed a tail-less dog then dock all tails?  Any of us could have an accident during our lifetime, we could break a leg but we don't cut it off in advance just incase!

The ONLY dogs I have known who have had this problem are these two...no others.I had a staff who could wag his tail for england...but he never danmaged it!
Archer

Hard to know then if it is coincidence or a link.  I guess much research would have to be done to know if in breeds that traditional have their tail docked, but individuals twithin that breed don't, are more prone to damage.  maybe in docking a genetic weakness results.  Just a thought.

>maybe in docking a genetic weakness results.

Can docking alter genes? I'm sure I read that Mendel proved that was impossible (he experimented on mice, by cutting off their tails), but could be wrong.

Than would be like saying that to amputate a man's leg would result in a genetic weakness in men's legs! Completely impossible! No amount of surgery could possibly affect the DNA!

Regards, John

I read about them in a book where they were used to protect the tails of Great Danes from damage within the kennel. (From wagging the tail so vigorously).  They were described as being made of leather and canvas with perforation for ventilation.  They were made by saddlers.  There were also pictures of these things, so although I have had no need to obtain one I have no reason to disbelief their existance.

I've not seen any that you can buy but have heard of people making them out of plastic piping with very little success :-(  I bought a boot for one of mine who had cut her pad - that didn't stay on very long either.

Anyway, as Jeangenie says, we are moving away from the topic.

Helen

suzieque. What caused that outburst, at a total lost to understand your aggression. Would have thought that you would have approved of the general show people trying to improve the overall health of the various breeds but perhaps you are right in thinking that dogs should be left to breed as they like and we should accept them deformities, ill health and all, but I would rather we continued to try to improve the overall health and conformation of our dogs.

No outburst Jackie just saying I can't see the reason for for dogs to be judged against a man made standard.

All breeds are man-made, suzique. None of them are 'natural'. They have all been designed for a purpose, and they are judged on their suitability for that particular task.

suzique, still very surprised at your attitude, would guess that because of how you feel you do not own dogs as it is clear you do not agree with keeping domesticated canines, so why are you posting on a forum that is dedicated to dogs?

Jackie

Not only do you make incorrect assumptions about my reason for the statement I made and imply that they were 'aggressive' you are now also making incorrect assumptions about my love for dogs.

I own several, foster more, work in rehabilitating dogs in rescue/rehoming, and work as a trainer.  Breed standards and conformation do not interest me in the slightest.  Healthy, happy dogs do.  I cannot agree with any standards that maintain/promote deformity.  To name a few off the top of my head - the Boxer, pug, peke, bull-dog with deformed jaw, nose and eyes, the Dandie Dinmont, Daxie, Bassett with backs so long and legs so short they are prone to suffer with prolapsed discs and other back pain, in addition the Bassett has misaligned ankles which can cause weakness in the joints.  i could go on, the list is endless.

As for working dogs damaging their tails there are such things as protective tail sheaths but that would entail their owners having to ensure the dog is wearing it when it goes out in the field - far easier maybe to just lop the tail off in the first place - though not if you are the dog.  Tails are an important method of communicating to their own species and others but in some cases inconvenient to man so off it comes.  how would you feel if someone didn't like how you laughed so cut out your vocal chords - your means of communicating with your own species?  Sorry but I cannot find reason to justify any standard that ensures these conformations and practices continue.  Why, simply because I DO love dogs and feel they give the greatest of service to man ever in return we breed them with weaknesses that cause them to suffer.  Then we  play them off one against the other to see who can get nearest to some 'standard' and the only ones who get the glory out of it is man.  I think, in that respect, dogs get a raw deal.  Nuff said.  The poster asked what the purpose of crufts champion was and I said 'no idea' - I couldn't see the purpose then and I still can't.

Think you miss the point there is no such thing as a Crufts Champion. Also think you misunderstand the way the show system works. Over many years the breed clubs have and are doing their best to breed out exaggerations and health problems and they need support and help in their efforts to continue to do so. If something about a breed of dog is the cause of concern it can't be changed by changing the breed standard it have to be done with care and over a number of years. You can decide to only breed a dog with the feature you like to another of like feature but after a few litters you may find that with the perceived improvement you have also produced a conformation fault that is far worse as far as the health of the dog is concerned. 

Have read the standards of some of the breeds you are talking of, for instance you talk of the Boxer head the standard asks for - Muzzle broad, deep and powerful, never narrow, pointed, short or shallow..........lower edge of upper lip rests on the edge of lower lip...........lower jaw never to obscure front of upper lip, neither should teeth or tongue be visible when mouth closed........bridge of nose never forced back into forehead nor should it be down-faced. length of muzzle measured from tip of nose to inside corner of eye is one-third length of head measured from tip of nose to occiput. Sounds normal to me.

And then again from the Basset standard.....Knuckling over highly undesirable......... no mention off  'misaligned ankles' in fact the exact opposite. 

They maybe trying to breed out deficiencies that the old breed standards bred in but they've left it rather late!!  Over countless years dogs with even, scissor bite mouths and jaws have been laid aside as 'faulty' because they did not meet the breed standard which required them to be either overshot or undershot.  Others have been discarded from breeding programmes because their eyes were not 'globular' enough or did not protrude enough  etc etc.  This has ensured that this is now a vastly reduced gene pool of dogs with 'normal' mouths, jaws, noses, eyes, leg:back length ratios within certain breeds.  It will takes years and years to modify these breeds back to anything like what may be beneficial to the dogs because there are not sufficient numbers to breed from and, in addition,  it will take generations of breeding to achieve.

Someone asked me (it may be you Jackie) if I did not wish to see the continuation of true breed types, or something like that.  The answer is 'Not If It Is At The Expense of the Well Being of the Dog'.   For me the absolute number one priority is the welfare of the dog, any thing else pales into insignificance.

As a footnote, I apologise to Fiona.  I answered you and got blasted - it detracted from your query.

No I asked you if you wanted dogs to do there own thing and breed as they wished no doubt producing dogs with bad conformation and even poorer health or neuter the lot and make all domestic dogs extinct and it would seem you do or else you have not thought it through properly. As to your comment of breeders leaving it to late are we now to be responsible for what our ancestors did and how many years would you like to go back with this blame, may be to the time we domesticated the wild dog and deprive humanity of the company of dogs altogether, well I suppose you are entitled to that opinion but in that case why are you a dog owner.

I'm sorry suzieque, if you want to have dogs and you want to do away with controlled breeding you have to put something in its place. It is no good pulling down the wall unless you are prepared to build it up again and you only seem interested in the demolition. If you had ideas of your own about how we can better the lot of dogs I may be interested in your comments but all you are doing is snipping at those who are trying to improve things.

jackie

Nowhere have I said I want to do away with controlled breeding - that's an assumption made against me, I only have an issue with breeding that perpetuates weakness and suffering for the dog.  The bit that I don't agree with universally is judging a breed (as in Crufts or any other similar organisation) against a man made standard. Dogs are not vain creatures, the dog doesn't care what colour it is, whether it 'recognised' by some official body, it doesn't care if its legs are 1cm either side of some pre-set standard, the dog doesn't care if it's tail or ear carriage is 'correct' these are issues imposed on it by humans.  It matters to the dog that it can walk and run without pain and stiffness, it matters that it has a nose to scent it's way throught life, it cares that it can breathe without wheezing, gasping, snuffling and snorting.  In view of what it gives us surely it's not asking too much for us to ensure that the dog gets that much in return.

You can insult me and criticise all you like but that's what I would like to see for all dogs and frankly I don't think that's asking too much.

Suzieque, Crufts is not an organisation, it is merely a dog show, like any other. Which is what this thread is about! As I keep repeating (obviously to people who either don't read my posts or who don't understand what they do read), Fiona asked why people go on about a 'Crufts Champion'. They don't talk about a 'WELKS Champion', or an 'LKA Champion'. Why pick on Crufts? I guess because they don't realise that Crufts is only one of very many shows held throughout the year, because it is the only one that ever gets any mention in the media.

If only it was the same with football, with the only match shown each year being the FA Cup!

And strangely, Suzieque, it is we breeders who breed with care and knowledge who are trying our hardest to produce dogs who can do just this, but also conform to the breed standards!  If there were no breed standard and no showing, then apart from working/hunting dogs, there would be little call for breeding pedigrees.  And that is not a good thing, as it is the pedigree dog breeder who are rigourous about health tests, research inot genetic problems, etc, etc.   A breed standard is the pattern for that breed, without the guidelines for any given breed people could just say that any crossbred or monglel who was vaguely within the public concept was a "whatever hound".  conforming to a standard is one of the best ways we have of making sure we breed dogs who are fit and healthy!  Whilst you are quite at liberty to dislike showing, the show fraternity are, by and large, not to blame for the vast majority of misformed or un-helathy dogs, the puppy farmers are!  And most of them would not have a clue about a breed standards, let alone try to breed to meet it.  Are you equally anti exhibiting horses, cats, fish, vegetable, flowers and the myriad other things people breed/grow and then take pleasure in showing?
bye
Gwen

suzieque, it is not I who is making assumptions, I just do not have a clue what your are talking about, you seem to have no idea what the breeding, judging or showing of dogs is about. But if you really want to change things as I said before stop criticizing something you obviously know nothing about and put forward some constructive ideas as to how those who love and care about dogs should proceed. So far all we have had from you is criticism and not a word about how you would arrange things. If you can't suggest a better way of insuring that the dogs we breed are well constructed and healthy then perhaps you would be better keeping quiet.

Suzique:
<<The poster asked what the purpose of crufts champion was >>

No, she didn't ask that. She asked why people use the term when, as far as the showing side is concerned, it means nothing.

Her question was - why do people go on bout crufts champion? there is no such thing corect so why do they think there is?
fiona

My answer was - I've no idea but then I don't know why any dog gets judged against a man made standard. 

I think breed standards do more harm than good and limit the gene pool which in turn breeds weaknesses and perpetuates deformities.  Obviously people who like to 'show' their dogs disagree.  That's the perogative of us all.

And I've explained why dogs get judged against a man-made standard. Because the domestic dog is a man-made creature.

However, diverting the thread into debating breed standards doesn't help Fiona, who wanted to know why people continue to use a meaningless term. I think the answer is "Because no one has told them any different". Not everyone is as fond of or interested in dogs as we on this Forum.

I'd just like to add one final point to this discussion
Suzieque you state
<<I think breed standards do more harm than good and limit the gene pool which in turn breeds weaknesses and perpetuates deformities.>>

Well did you know that for every hereditary genetic disorder in dogs there are another 40 in humans?
From this you can deduce that genetic disorders are not created by small gene pools but genetic variation in disimilar genetic lines.  Small gene pools can and do help to contain healthy genetic traits (one of the major benefits of line breeding)

Also i have two healthy children (thankfully) but my youngest required an operation at 3 years to correct a muscular problem in his eye (there is no history in my or his fathers family) I often wonder if i had say 10 children (in some breed this is the average litter size) how many would have problems or some kind or another - i would guess about 10% - this is nature!  Dogs produce many offspring in the wild the weaker puppies (with deformaties however minor) die - even your perfect wolf produces i would guess 10% of young which are killed or left to die becuase they are genetically imperfect.  That is natural selection, sadly when humans are involved it becomes very hard to take life from a 2 day puppy because of a minor problem, and even harder at 4, 8, 12, or 50 weeks when real problems show (as we know in the wild these animals would die or be killed)  In the domestic environment we love our pets we treat our pets for their problems and those of us who are responsible do not breed from these pets.

Think about it...
Sharon

>> I can't see the reason for for dogs to be judged against a man made standard <<

Can you enlarge on what you mean, not I hope that dogs should be allowed to do just what ever they please, the larger killing the smaller, ganging up on other animals and may be people and killing them, interbreeding until they either became extinct or so out of hand we would have to go around shooting them. Agree that we as humans may not have the answer to the perfectly formed and healthy dog but that is what we aim for, so what, may I ask would you do. Either we breed to a standard or we allow the survival of the fittest or the most aggressive, let us know just what your thoughts are as they sound outrageous.

I think Suziques may be USA based, so will be referring to the AKC standards,  not ours.  Sorry if this is a wrong assution Suzique, but it seems probable from your refs. to ear cropping and the term  "Doxie"  (we normally abbreviate them to "Dachsies" in the UK).  However, none of that is relevant ot the original thought of the thread, which is why people insist on using the valuless term"Crufts Champion", which, apart from obedience, is a nonsense.  Poor Fiona has had her thread hi-jacked into a rights and wrongs of showing, pedigree breeding and docking!
bye
Gwen

Gwen, you may well be right, it did not dawn on me that Suziques lack of knowledge about Crufts stemmed from the fact that she? may well be from a different continent with know knowledge of our show system, have to admit I still find it hard to remember that this forum is now world wide. Suziques profile tells you nothing at all so I think you have hit the nail on the head and I am sorry Suziques I thought you understood the show system in the UK and the fact that Crufts is just another champ show.