I agree with Teri on the fact that lets get back to what Dog Shows are all about-"The Dogs"

Personally I would like to see-whoever gets the contract-more of the breed judging-dogs in the line up-dogs on the move-judges judging the dogs-Frank Kane explaining to the viewers the system we have here of judging.

I remember the heady days of Earls Court-long time ago I know-yes we have moved on since then-however it was all about the dogs-and our concentration was on the dogs. Nothing flash about the show at all-it was just another Championship Dog Show.

As exhibitors we used to sit round the show rings discussing our dogs,debating,having silly moments-it was what I call sharing-infact one of the crowd missed her class-she was having such a good time-did we all get at one another throats because no-one mentioned to her that her class was on-no we did not-it was her responsibility as she mentioned-we all had a good laugh about it-affectionately known after the event as, "Dilly Dolly Daydream"-and boy did we ever let her forget it !!

Echo that Astarte

I think the BBC have shot themselves in the foot and all that prime time telly lost.  They must be thinking long and hard about their motives.  Give ITV a go

Just a quickie to say that, with his current health probs, I doubt Ben Fogle would have been presenting this year. And I cannot believe that the BBC has the front to set itself up as a moral authority!! Time to rethink the liecence fee, cos crufts was about the last thing left on the beeb I want to watch. Give it to ITV!!

> Just a thought, but could rotts be included because of the baby/kids that have been killed by some?

They would definitely have to ban top gear then with that logic.

>> They would definitely have to ban top gear then with that logic.

NOOOOOO!!!!!!!

> The BBC is contractually tied to Crufts till 2010, so it can't be offered to any other TV company. Neither can the BBC legally refuse to pay the agreed sum for televising it, even if it isn't broadcast ....

oh no, i didn't realise that. gutted.

i have to say i believe the bbc have done the right thing.too many things are swept under the carpet and the pedigree dogs exposed documentary is still fresh in many peoples minds.i have seen my own breed >the staffordshire bull terrier> turned from basically an athletic animal capable of great feats of endurance and stamina into something more akin to a scaled down hippopotamous with shorter muzzles,poppy eyes,too much bone,short legs etc all in the quest for red rosettes that places like crufts offers to those that seek such trinkets, never mind that not a single genuinely athletic dog could place at a kc show these days, for the norm has become the exaggerated behemoths i described above >at least in my own breed, where the breed standard was changed to promote exaggeration>.if this is a step to getting the kc to look at the state of several breeds then it is a worthwhile means to an end imo.well done to the beeb, i feel better for paying my license fee already.some sort of shake up was way overdue, i just do not see this as being enough to change attitudes and kc legislations on good breeding practice.

> if this is a step to getting the kc to look at the state of several breeds then it is a worthwhile means to an end imo.

But they can't claim that.  As have been pointed on in previous discussions on this, the KC have been tackling this for some time particularly with clubs such as the Pekinese.  Not as fast and as driven as some would wish but certainly not just since JHs programme as she would wish us to believe.

'Disputed' breeds
Basset hound
Clumber spaniel
Dogue de Bordeaux
Mastiff
Neopolitan mastiff
Pekingese
Rottweiler
Shar pei
St Bernard
Chow chow
German shepherd
Bulldog
Rhodesian ridgeback
Cavalier spaniel

List taken from BBC website and Mastiffs are on it!! Its Auntie Beeb gone mad!!!

good morning isabel, it all seems too slow though for me, the programme certainly opened many eyes that were shut to it and put some pressure on people in dogdoms higher places . the kc have let things slide in too many breeds for too long and personally i think far more than what is listed should have been mentioned > and my own breed for definate> but that is another debate i suppose.

I agree that dogs that cannot breed naturally or breathe properley, or have skin folds so huge it impairs their life, should have been remedied years ago.....not by the KC but by everyone in those breeds. It is sad that the RSPCA and the BBC have had to make this stand in the first place.

>at least in my own breed, where the breed standard was changed to promote exaggeration

Cooper, I don't know your breed's standard, so could you tell me what wording in it promotes exaggeration?

good afternoon jan, the standard was changed to drop the height by 2 inches at the withers but keep the weight the same.what happened was a stockier less balanced animal.the change has all but  ruined the breed imo.this was a sporting breed and though i would not like to see a return to the dark ages the dog should at least have the physique to do his original vocation,even if no longer bred for that temparement. this is no longer true of the vast majority as exaggeration is THE NORM and some judges promote it stronger than others.if we are honest how many other breeds is this now true of ? i hope the kc act sooner rather than later but it will be a long haul with squabbling breed clubs and the like i am sure.//a concerned dog owner

The Staffordshire Bull Terrier? The standard calls for balance and the height to relate to the weight.

I agree with Spout & Teri - although I do like the shopping, I find Crufts quite a stressful show - and I haven't even shown a dog there yet !!! - there needs to be less public and more emphasis on the reason the whole thing began - the dogs and the show itself.

I would love to see more of the breed judging too (although the BBC interactive did an hour long programme of this after Crufts this year - "press the red button" and all that) and yes, definitely more of Frank Kane. And a presenter that knows at least their breeds of dogs. Hopefully thats not too much to ask!

isabel, you are missing my  point, the height has been dropped from 18 inches to 16 inches. which means shorter dogs.what is seen as balanced now would be seen as a heavy cloddy dog before the standard change.just because something says balanced on paper does not mean it is balanced to the eye, this is true of the modern staffordshire bull terrier i am afraid.a concerned owner

> the height has been dropped from 18 inches to 16 inches. which means shorter dogs

Obviously :-) but the demand for balance is in the standard so if people are not observing that judges should not be endorsing it.

all judging is  an interpretation of standards, if they were all interperated correctly then we should have no problems, the fact that problems are evident in many breeds means something is a bit pete tong with how people are interprating them.either that or many standards are just plain wrong in regard to having the breeds best intetrests at their core.

> if they were all interperated correctly then we should have no problems

Quite and I certainly don't think it is correct to say the standard was changed to promote exaggaration.

well what other reason was it changed i wonder, i have read many opinions of the time and the most convincing opinions to me are that the breeders wanted the breed to be less of a handful so that it would appeal more to joe public (and especially women with families) who maybe would find it a struggle to own a larger athletic pit dog as that is basically what the original sbt (pre standard change) was.if exaggeration was not to occur then i would have to say that with the 2 inch height drop then a weight drop at the top end would need to have been implemented too after all you can not get a pint into a half pint glass.i think i will agree to disagree re: exaggeration...before we take this completely off topic, sorry folks

> the most convincing opinions to me are that the breeders wanted the breed to be less of a handful so that it would appeal more to joe public (and especially women with families) who maybe would find it a struggle to own a larger athletic pit dog as that is basically what the original sbt (pre standard change) was.

That seems rather a sensible attitude in this day and age when there is no call for a "pit dog".

I wonder where the Beeb got their list of breeds from?  Golden Lady, completely agree with you on this one.  There are a couple of breeds that have no place on that list.

> There are a couple of breeds that have no place on that list.

i think a few were left out too that could and should have been on , so it swings both ways

>less of a handful so that it would appeal more to joe public (and especially women with families) who maybe would find it a struggle to own a larger athletic pit dog as that is basically what the original sbt (pre standard change) was.

To be honest, with so many large sbt crosses being suspected of being illegal dogs, it makes sense for the legal breed to be distinguishable from them.

> To be honest, with so many large sbt crosses being suspected of being illegal dogs, it makes sense for the legal breed to be distinguishable from them.

but at the time of the standard change this was not a factor.fact is at one time the sbt and apbt was the same breed, the exaggeration i mention can be easily identified if you stand these 2  breeds next to one another.whether bsl is a factor or not does not change the fact that my breed along with countless others have changed throughout history because of the fads and exaggerations of breeders and judges to succeed at shows like crufts.hopefully the beebs action will have a very positive effect on health in all breeds and the eradication of exaggeration, surely this should be the aim of any true dog lovers out there.

>fact is at one time the sbt and apbt was the same breed

I must admit I thought that the APBT/Amstaff was developed from the sbt, not that they were ever identical.

>> I must admit I thought that the APBT/Amstaff was developed from the sbt, not that they were ever identical.

they were one and the same breed as i said, many dogs went to the states and principal lines of apbt were bred down from them, while their littermates stayed in blighty and forged the british pit bull terriers,later to be brought under the kc banner as the sbt. i think this is going a little off topic again though :-)

Please can we keep this topic on the subject of the BBC & Crufts - debates about the Staffie or any other breed are for another thread ;-)

Thanks

Hi Cooper, have to say I'm somewhat in agreement with your regarding our breeds standard.
Many many colleagues of mine would love to hark back to the 'old' 1935 original standard where the height in the Stafford was different and the dogs generally were more athletic.
My concern with our standard and some breeders interpretation of that standard is as you've already mentioned - muzzle/head ratio as well as the height/weight..
Everything is open to an individuals interpretation though.. so .. for another topic I think!

APBT/Amstaffs as far as I'm aware (from reading myself silly in various formats!) were developed from the UK Staffordshire bull terrier JG.

As for the original topic re bbc not at crufts, I would imagine another tv broadcasting company will pick it up?

no tv company can show it until 2011 i believe, unless of course they buy the rights from the beeb who hae the contracts up until 2010.i doubt they will sel to a competitor, maybe a satellite station but not a terrestrial rival

If the BBC do not show Crufts but their contract states they have still got to pay the KC, maybe all TV licence payers should complain about the BBC wasting our money again!! Hopefully they will sell on the rights to another broadcaster.

I wonder how long it wil take the RSPCA to turn it's attention to horses and gets all equine sports removed from our screens.

personally i hope the rights are not taken over, not until many of the health problems in many breeds are fully addressed by the kc ,breed clubs and judges etc

That's a shame - I thought as that it's the BBC breaking the contract and refusing to televise it, the KC could get it televised elsewhere. :-(

    > The BBC is contractually tied to Crufts till 2010, so it can't be offered to any other TV company. Neither can the BBC legally refuse to pay the agreed sum for televising it, even if it isn't broadcast ....

The listing of the Rottweiller is an error. I believe the correct list is the 12 on the KC's own "watch list" being monitored by the KC's Health and Welfare Strategy Group (details on the KC website), plus the ridgeback and the cavalier.

> 'Disputed' breeds
> Basset hound
> Clumber spaniel
> Dogue de Bordeaux
> Mastiff
> Neopolitan mastiff
> Pekingese
> Rottweiler
> Shar pei
> St Bernard
> Chow chow
> German shepherd
> Bulldog
> Rhodesian ridgeback
> Cavalier spaniel

Given that the BBC are not experts in the field, who has given them this list?

It's  the KC's own list - albeit with the addition of the ridgeback and the cav.

These are the breeds being monitored by the Breed Health and Welfare Strategy Group.

>

> Given that the BBC are not experts in the field, who has given them this list?

<IMG src="/images/mi_quote.gif" alt="Quote selected text" title="Quote selected text" class="qButton"/>

> It's&nbsp; the KC's own list - albeit with the addition of the ridgeback and the cav.
>

So, based on a KC list but not actually a KC list. So, who devised this list?

jemima - may i ask why the Ridgeback is on this list? As a veterinary nurse, I can tell you this breed is one of the most healthy around, have hardly ever seen one at my practice (and i work at one of the largest referral hospitals in the country).

Suz did you not see the programme Re culling of Ridgeless pups?

yes, but thought the list was due to breed standards and health issues.

> jemima - may i ask why the Ridgeback is on this list? As a veterinary nurse, I can tell you this breed is one of the most healthy around, have hardly ever seen one at my practice (and i work at one of the largest referral hospitals in the country).

<IMG src="/images/mi_quote.gif" alt="Quote selected text" title="Quote selected text" class="qButton"/>

You are unlikely to see the main ridgeback health problem at your referral hospital because puppies born with it are usualy PTS. The problem is dermoid sinus, which effects about one in 10 puppies.

I was not involved in the BBC discussions over breed exclusions. But ridgebacks were in the programme because the ridge predisposes the dog to dermoid sinus and because some breeders cull ridgeless puppies - or at the very least neuter them and place in pet homes. This is an issue because ridgeless dogs don't have the risk of dermoid sinus (or at least no more than any other breed - it can occur very occasionally in any breed as a stochastic, ie. one-off congenital, event). In fact, if breeders were willing to incorporating ridgeless into the breeding programme they could virtually eliminate the risk of DS while still having an all-ridged litter (by breeding homozygous ridged to ridgeless).  The ridge is a dominant trait - you only need to inherit one copy to have the ridge. If you inherit two copies (one from each parent) that's when you get the risk of dermoid sinus so it would make sense, to an outsider, to use ridgeless rather than discard them. 

Has anyone see the new proposed RR breed standard? Just wondered if the KC had decided to push the RR Club on this issue. Suspect if they do that the club will break away as there are very strong feelings re the importance of the ridge.

i have also worked in normal practice and a pdsa hospital, and never have seen this condition. i actually have a ridgeback, and looked into the condition before i bought him. did you know that i could not find a single veterinary nurse who had seen a dog with the condition, and these are people working across 5-6 practices of varying sizes including my place of work with approx 15 nurses. also spoke to neurologists at my place of work who have very rarely seen this condition. as for 1 in 10 puppies, where did you recieve this information? it seems to be a vast over estimation.

I'd also like to know where the statistic of 1 in 10 has come from.  Having had RRs since 1984 and bred several litters and having lots of friends involved with RRs, I have not known anywhere near that number of puppies affected by dermoid sinus.  Of course I don't deny it is a problem (which is why it was a topic at the RR World Congress this year and why there is a current study partly funded by the clubs, to which breeders are contributing DNA), but the statistics seem rather odd, and exaggerated to me. 

Very few RRs are homozygous for the ridge so if we bred ridged to ridgeless, far more ridgeless pups would be produced than are currently being produced - on average it would be half of every litter. 

What new standard for RRs?

"did you not see the programme Re culling of Ridgeless pups?"

The majority of RR breeders were totally misrepresented by that programme.  Neither I nor any of my friends have EVER culled ridgeless puppies.

Jemima:

You say You are unlikely to see the main ridgeback health problem at your referral hospital because puppies born with it are usualy PTS. The problem is dermoid sinus, which effects about one in 10 puppies.

You use the word "usually" - what do you mean?    And, as one of my well-respected lecturers would say to me, any time I used that word in a paper/seminar "WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?   STATE IT!!!  GIVE IT PROVENANCE!!!

> "WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?&nbsp;&nbsp; STATE IT!!!&nbsp; GIVE IT PROVENANCE!!!

lol i was going to say.

similarly to a comment she made on another thread along the lines of 'well know in accademic circles'- that means not a jot. never make an argument without a reference to hand (in Harvard style of course)

that was another point, when researching the breed, i spoke to several different breeders across the country, and one of the questions i asked was regarding culling of "mismarked" puppies, and not one breeder pts ridgeless puppies. the breeder where i got my boy had a friend who was taking a puppy and was happy to take on any ridgeless puppies, she also had several people who wanted a "pet only" who she would have sold them a ridgeless for cheaper, and they were happy to agree.
again, not one of the litters i looked at had a case of dermoid, and whilst i agree with ridgielover that it is certainly a problem, it doesnt appear to be anywhere in the region that your programme suggested.

> This is an issue because ridgeless dogs don't have the risk of dermoid sinus (or at least no more than any other breed - it can occur very occasionally in any breed as a stochastic, ie. one-off congenital, event). In fact, if breeders were willing to incorporating ridgeless into the breeding programme they could virtually eliminate the risk of DS while still having an all-ridged litter (by breeding homozygous ridged to ridgeless).&nbsp; The ridge is a dominant trait - you only need to inherit one copy to have the ridge. If you inherit two copies (one from each parent) that's when you get the risk of dermoid sinus so it would make sense, to an outsider, to use ridgeless rather than discard them.&nbsp;
>

now its a very long time since i've studied genetics so bear with me but i *think* that wouldn't work.

and this is easier with little grids.

so ridgeless have the alliels (sp?) for recessive ridgeless and recessive ridgeless? we'll call them r and r

ridged dogs either have 2 ridged alliels or a ridged and unridged we will call ridged R, so RR or Rr.

a ridged dog with a ridgeless dog cross would be as follows

RR
rr

or

Rr
rr

therefore in the first mating you accheive pups of Rr phenotype and in the second either Rr or rr. recessive ridgeless in potentially the majority of pups.

when you use this as a grand parent mating it means that you then accheive a cross of either

Rr to rr= again mostly ridgeless

or

Rr to Rr= combination of ridgeless or RR homozygous puppies with as much risk of dermoid.

if moonmaidens around she might be able to confirm if i'm being dozy of not as i know shes done proper genetics study.

anyway, so intorducing ridgeless wouldn't help to much.

>The majority of RR breeders were totally misrepresented by that programme.

The majority of dog breeders were misrepresented by that program ;)

> Rr to Rr= combination of ridgeless or RR homozygous puppies with as much risk of dermoid.
>

or ridged hetrogenous i ment to add