My stunning pug boy is now 11 weeks old and has an umbilical hernia caused by his cesarean birth. My vet wont operate until he is 6 months old when he will also be tested for HV. I was hoping to get him out to a couple of open show puppy classes when he turns 6 months. Will the judge not place me due to his hernia? and when it has been sorted will i be marked down for it when he is shown then?  do i have to declare his hernia op to the show steward?? just to mention his hernia is about the size of a 10 pence coin and vet sees it as not a bad one.its just a bit of fat pushing through.   thanks x

You will have to apply to the KC for Permission to Show following his hernia operation, but I'm afraid it's unlikely to be granted.

Strange you just said that, i know 4 dogs that have are being successfully shown after the same op. His mother has 3 cc,s after having a hernia op. Why is it such an issue with the k.c, he does not have hereditary problems?  i was asking for second opinion as lots of people have disagreed with these others being shown.

If his mother was operated on for a hernia and he has one, doesn't that tell you that it is hereditary!!!

If the KC found out that the bitch has won 3 cc's after having the operation and was being shown without permission she would have those tickets taken away.

We all sign when we enter a show to abide by KC rules and regulations.

Steve Dean wrote about umbilical hernias in Dog World recently, he says they're definitely hereditary...

Geoff

Any operation which 'alters the natural conformation of the dog' (KC's words) has to be reported to them, and Permission to Show applied for. If this is refused (as it generally is for hernias) or not applied for, and word gets back to the KC that the dog is being shown, it can be stripped of its winnings.

A hernia is considered a hereditary condition.

"umbilical hernia caused by his cesarean birth."

How can this cause a hernia?

[deleted]

They should have copy of the letter & it will have been in the KC Gazette, it is very very very unusually for the KC to give permission to show, they do give temporary permission on occasion, but this usually withdrawn evetually. I can say I haven't seen a full permission to show been granted since the KC started to print them in the Gazette & that is a good few years ago

I too wonderd the Blue :)

I have a bitch with a hernia which hasn't been operated on, if it is not serrious then why operate?  Just because vet says so? or is it common in pugs to get hernia's which need to be operated on?

Hernia's, to my knowledge are heridtry. 

Thanks for the comments. Couple of points;-
a)  her breeder has said the k.c gave permission with no fuss and the bitch won 3 cc,s after the op with the show stewards etc knowing.
b) have spoken to a vet today who says that these can be caused by quick fast births and fat can be pulled through. she says they are not necessarily hereditary.

c) my puppy is only one out of 9 puppies from this bitch who had one.

thanks again but i will take advice from the k.c as soon as possible

regards to all

The KC are certainly the best people to give advice re showing regulations.
:)

Just a quick thought about the hernia.  If it is just small, you may find it will just disappear as he grows.  My pug Mabel had a small hernia which vanished completely by the time she was 5 months old.  So fingers crossed your boy's may just go away too.
bye
Gwen

There has been a change about thei issue with the KC over the last year or so.

A couple of years ago they said that permisson to show would not be given where Hernia's had been operated on.  Recently they changed their minds and are allowing dogs with repaired Hernia's to be shown without prejudice to a final decision on the matter at a future date.  In other words they want to be sure that it is hereditary I suppose before makeing the rule hard and fast.

It was annou8nced in the dog papers at the time.

Basically it means the KC has gone back to "Fence Sitting" over this issue just as it does on so many issues! I really believe it is time for the KC to get off the fence in so many ways. It seems almost impossible to get any straight answer to anything these days.

Regards, John

I wonder if someone tried to make a legal case that it can't be proved to be hereditary and that they were unfairly fstopping people from shoiwng with in their rules???

They did that with a cavalier bitch that now lives near me eventually she was prohibited from  showing & breeding from her ! Both the temp permission & the ban were in the KC Gazette

Quite likely. In the present day and age common sense and good animal husbandry are fast going out of the window.

Regards, John

<<<<<<<<<my puppy is only one out of 9 puppies from this bitch who had one.>>>>>>>>

I have a bitch who in her litter is the only one with a high hipscore (and I mean high)

Another is the one of the 3/8 dogs from a litter with vwD (born before DNA for our breed was avaliable) and this is gentic :)

Just because your dog is the only one doesn't mean its not heidtry

Another example is we own the only black tri (I think he is the only one still) in this country from his sire (and colour is gentic!)

So you fact 'c' means nothing :)

Could you let us know what the KC say about this issue as I am intrested to know where it does stand now :)

Danny,

my first bitch had an umbilical hernia which was small and never operated on.  She was shown, with reasonable success for a total novice handler and dog, and never penalised for having it.  The hernia didn't cause her any problems throughout her entire 14+ years.  We didn't breed from her as we had no desire to breed from her when we bought her so to be honest although we received conflicting advice at the time about whether it was an inherited condition or not that didn't make any difference to us as long as she wasn't in any danger from the actual hernia itself.

The point I'm trying to make (rather poorly at this strange hour LOL) is he may not need to have it either repaired or removed ;)

Teri

thanks very much for all your kind advice, i will let you know some time in the next few days what the k,c say.

best wishes  Danny xx

You may find this article may explain the difference between true Hernia's and the small late closures where a slitther of fat is trapped in early puppyhood.

http://www.showdogsupersite.com/kenlclub/breedvet/umbilical.html

Does he need it operated on ?   I have a hound who lives with one quite happily....and hes a champion!! :)

I am totally uneducated when it comes to the show world,can someone please answer my questions :)

Why cant a dog be shown if it's got a hernia? If the hernia was operated on and removed then what is the issue!

Is it because hernia's may be heredatary which means the sire or dam has a fault and should not be bred from,is this correct?
I dont see how a little bump on the belly makes a difference in the show ring,it's not as iff hernia's grow out from between the eyes ;)

Rose :)

It's because hernias are believed to be hereditary, and dogs with hereditary faults should not be bred from. If a dog with such a fault does well in shows it's more likely to be bred from, which is why the no-show rule applies.

Hi Rose,

A dog can be shown with a hernia ;)

There are no "physically" disqualifying faults in the UK - you could show a three-legged, one eyed dog!  (Might not place well though ;0)  The KC in it's infinite wisdom decided to include the removal of hernias as being a surgery which altered the natural conformation of the dog - now, previously I'm sure some vets talked clients into removing perfectly benign umbilical hernias just for the cash hard to imagine I know <LOL> whereas now if removed it's supposed to be notified to the KC with an application for permission to show - which as far as I know is rejected on the grounds that it's "cosmetic" :(

All very silly really - from the show stance in any event.  As to whether such dogs should be bred on from depends on which side of the fence you are on re the hereditary factor.  Some obviously are (when same line is bred on and produces it again) but I'm not convinced that "some" bitches cannot cause these too by over zealous removal of the cord.

Cannot edit b***** posts!  Drives me loopy

To add to above, I think if the hernia is not causing any problems (becoming larger etc) then leave well alone and enjoy showing the dog.  Most judges would never notice it unless particularly large (which possibly may merit removal) and even those that did would be hard pushed to fault it worse than an imperfection of something which was visibly more undesirable against the Standard - I certainly hope so anyway :D

Regards, Teri

Rose
the issue with any hernia is that they CAN BE a health issue.The hernia is a hole in the muscle which allows gut to push through.It is the gut that is causing the lump.In some cases the gut can push through and become strangulated and cause very serious problem requiring immediate medical attention.
This is why it is frowned upon in the show ring....since it is hereditary these dogs should not be bred from.
Archer

Thank-you for explaining :)

Hi Archer,

totally agree with the med side of your reply as obviously hernias could be a health problem for any dog and so should be checked out.  Certainly have never been aware though that they are "frowned upon in the show ring" :o

How on earth would the average exhibitor know if someone else's dog had a hernia?  And why would they even care? 

Regards, Teri ;)

That depends on the coat and the size of the hernia as to wether another exhibitor notices the hernia...however it is more than possible for a thorough judge to feel the hernia and to penilise accordingly.
Even though I don't breed I would not exhibit a dog with an inherited 'major' fault....whether thats a mouth fault or a hernia etc.Thats just my feeling about the way I want to do things.....
Archer

Hi again,

Genuinely not trying to be argumentative here ;) but I wasn't aware that *umbilical* hernias were as yet proven to be inherited nor that they were considered a "major fault"   Which, if any, breed standards mention them?

Several dogs have been made up who have them - breeding issues aside, what's the big deal?  And as I asked before, does anyone know why an exhibitor of another dog would care if one or more dogs in it's class were so afflicted?

I know undesirable traits and faults are generally listed obviously covering bites, etc but surely in something like an umbilical hernia - that's not breed specific such as type of bite, pigment, eye colour, etc etc - it would be mentioned at the end of every breed standard along with the end line on testes (although I know with the neutering scenario that clause is now needing to be readressed) if the KC regarded it as a "major" fault?

Regards, Teri  :)  

Hi Teri
Not all faults are listed in breed standards.... for an extreme example an eye missing etc would be described as I fault I would have thought and yet is not mentioned.
There seem to be 2 sides to the arguement as to whether they're inherited or not ....I tend to think that they are.
I think that although your dogs hernia felt just like a fatty lump I think you will find that even though the gut may not have been actually al the way through the lump would have been caused buy pressure from the gut.
As to whether another exhibitor would be bothered ...I suppose its down to whether you think its inherited or not.
I think we all obviously have our own stand on this 'condition' and I respect your views 100%....I don't think either of us are gonna budge though :d
Regards Archer

How would you know? It depends on the breed! In smooth-coated breeds you can spot a hernia from several yards away!

Have just read this thread from the beginning (probably should have done before now :D) and noticed it's a pug puppy with a hernia the size of a 10p piece   Well, I think it's fair to say that would be quite noticeable <LOL>

My first Terv bitch had a hernia about the size of a 5p piece - it remained that size throughout her entire life and never caused her any problems - nor was there any "gut" pushed through - just a small fatty lump ;)  She was never bred from but as far as I'm aware none of her littermates had them nor did those that were bred on from produce them.

As you say JG, in smooth coated breeds it would be more obvious - although still depending on the size of the lump - and who looks?  Must say whether exhibiting or judging I've never given hernias a thought :o (and now that it's come to my attention I still wouldn't penalise them).

Regards, Teri

In mixed dog and bitch classes, you always glance underneath to make sure you've got the right sex - and believe me, a hernia can be more obvious than a willy!

I really ought to stay out of showing questions, but surely whatever the hereditory issues involved, a hernia would represent an additional physical risk to a dog taking part in a working activity. Given that (i assume) breeds are judged against being conformationally suitable for their original purpose, I would think that a hernia would be a significant fault in a working breed? (not so much of an issue for a toy breed obviously)

Have been having an e mail discussion with an aquaintance on this subject...the person is a show judge and posed this interesting question....any thoughts?(I have permission to reproduce the mail)

<<Have to say I do feel for them when judging and I do take them into consideration when placing. On the other hand even if I know a dog or bitch have produced a pup with this or any other fault I would not take that into consideration and am now wondering if I am right.

Know I should only judge on what I find on the day, but wonder what is the difference between a dog in front of me who has a hernia and the next dog who is sound but I know that she has produced pups with, lets say, entropion or PRA should I treat these bitches differently? Penalise the one with the hernia because I believe it to be hereditary but not the bitch carrying eye faults because it is not a visible fault.

I am beginning to wonder if I should be taking the presence of a hernia into consideration, by the way they are more common than you may think in xxxxxx's(breed) and in my experience they do occur in some lines and not in others. Hereditary? in my mind without doubt, if they were not the occurrence would be across the board and not just in some lines.

  I do wonder if I have been doing some dogs a disservice, when it comes to choosing between two nice animals, up to now the one with the hernia goes behind the one withoutsed this interesting question....

Archer
ps...(that better Teri!!)

Archer, did you ever check out the link I posted, and would you differentiate between a Tue Hernia or a late cloure whenr the umbilical cord was and closed late.  I have had a bitch chew the cord right down casing a wound,a nd this did take a time to heal and did leave a small belly button.  Would you differentiate (as I do) or would you still call this a Hernia.

Hi Barbara
No I think the later is just an 'accident' and should not affect whether the dog is used for stud/bitch bred from etc. Its the other type I think should not be bred from as I think it is inherited and any inherited defect should be avoided
Nikki

Much better Archer!!! :D

I have to say that although I accept it must go on, I find it quite alarming that a judge would have a "breeding on" fault debate in their head as they were weighing up a dog against its Standard - apart from anything else, they should be judging virtues - fault judging is easy peasy ;) Rarely are two exhibits genuinely impossible to split and so I have never considered that an umbilical hernia could be a deciding factor - but then I've never considered that a judge would penalise an exhibit that they knew to be "carrying" a defective gene even if not displaying the problem (such as entropion).

Will try not to go too off topic here so, personally I'd have no conscience about showing or if judging putting up a dog with an umbilical hernia - the dog that is better than it's peers on points specifically mentioned in the Standard is the dog that should be highest placed with the only considerations I would have in addition to the standard being general physical condition, coat presentation, cleanliness of teeth etc, etc - "beauty" (for want of a better word) assessments if you like - but definitely not ambiguous "health" issues.

Regards, Teri ;)

  

The trouble with that is that teeth can be cleaned, coats can be groomed differently, fitness can be improved - but defective genes are unchangeable. :(

Hi JG, I totally agree with you BUT if judges were to (or currently do) bring their knowledge of defective genes into the equation when judging, many judges would be extremely disadvantaged.  All rounders for eg couldn't possibly know which dogs carried defective genes and lots of specialist judges wouldn't know either.

Take for example this scenario (which is actually completely true) a beautiful bitch, quality through and through on virtually every standard point, wonderful temperament and showing all the promise to be able to carry out the type of work for which the breed was created.  Won her title easily as a youngster against established Champions and took several CCs as she matured.  Aged 4, having not (thankfully) been bred from developed epilepsy.  Continued to be shown and went on to surpass what at that time was the breed record.  Should a specimen of that quality be denied top honours by a judge knowing she fitted? (no-one ever witnessed a fit of any kind at a show).

I think if judging ambiguous and/or invisible health issues were to become widespread, there would be even less honesty among some breeders about what was in their lines :(

Teri 

You mean more than there already is in some breeds  ? for example should my boy with asymptomic Syrigohydramyelia be placed lower than his brother who may or may not have it because I have made it public ?(he hasn't beaten him yet) My boy has a little hernnia as well ! but it's not visible of course

It's bad enough that visibly unsound dogs are put up without genetic judging as well

There is no mention of Hernias etc in the breed standards

Again, I should have made myself clearer. A judge must only judge what they see before them on the day. So if defective genes cause an invisible condition, they should in theory be ignored. But if they cause an easily detectable problem (cryptochidism, hernia, cataract (also no mention of that in any standard) etc) then IMO that should be taken into account when judging.

HI JG,

To my knowledge the umbilical hernia is currently disputed as being inherited - ergo, even if easily detectable, I believe it is not something which should be regarded as a "fault" as it is not mentioned in any breed standard as being an undesirable feature. 

Cryptorchids are covered by the testes clause and an easily visible cataract would be covered by incorrect eye colour.

In an earlier comment you stated that one was easily detectable in mixed sex classes if running a hand along the underline to determine sex.  Personally, IMO if a dog or bitch is so indistinguishable in it's sex characteristics and proportions (or a judge so lacking in *breed-specific* knowledge ) that is more of a concern than any hernia.

Regards, Teri :)

Cataract does not affect eye colour as referred to in the breed standards, Teri. That refers to the colour of the iris (the pigmented part of the eye) not the lens. Cataract does not affect eye pigmentation.

Hi JG,

You're totally right that cataract affects only the lens however an easily visible cataract would neverthless affect the overall impression of eye colour ie. in an area that should appear black (although I appreciate is actually clear ;)) it would be misty or have an area affected by light "hazing" - hence change the overall appearance of eye colour and expression.  Despite my sometimes wafffling and long winded ways of putting things I do actually have slightly more than a very basic or limited knowledge of anatomy and general standard points - although I can understand if that's sometimes hard to believe :D  Thank you for your patience!

I really ought to try and get in more than 5 hours sleep a night and perhaps I would come across a little more coherent :)  Doesn't mean my opinions would be any more acceptable but at least they might be understandable - if you get my drift (definitely waffling again!!!!) <LOL>

Best wishes, Teri ;)

I can see your point, Teri, but as the standards make no mention of cataract and only mention pigmentation of the iris (and eyerims and third eyelid in certain breeds) in theory a dog shouldn't be faulted for having them. Yet it's a visible (often) hereditary problem. Of course, if they're so bad the dog is blind it can be disqualified, but that is an extreme case, and easily detected in the ring. However, is it wise to campaign a dog with a hereditary condition? That's a whole different question. :)

Hi JG,

In my own breed, where juvenile cataracts are a rare but nonetheless potential problem dogs so affected are not necessarily obvious - particular not in the short period of time a judge would be studying the dog as often it requires close inspection of the eye with the head at the correct angle and in a certain light.  Quite a few things to come together ;)  

There seems to be a popular misconception that dogs can be disqualified for physical abnormalities or undesirable deviations from the standard -  while many ovserseas KC standards carry a clause with disqualifying particulars fully detailed, for here this is completely incorrect.  The only grounds for disqualifyng a KC registered dog in the UK breed show ring are on the grounds of temperament - specifically aggression.  A long haired, three legged white GSD, crippled with HD could be legitimately entered in a champ show - the judge of course would be fully entitled to withhold on the grounds of lack of merit, but not permitted to disqualify the dog or even refuse to judge it.

Teri ;)