Back in April 2009 a well known and then respected Mastiff breeder and judge, David Blaxter, along with his wife, was convicted of causing unneccesary suffering to the Mastiff, Henry. The poor boy was an elderly gentleman and he had been allowed to starve because of a tumour in his mouth which although noticed had been left unseen or treated by a vet. At the time of his death Henry weighed just 38 kilo's. David & his wife received a fine of just £4,130. The treating vet at the time of death has been quoted as saying it was the worst case of neglect and suffering he had seen in 25 years.

Details containing all the info can be found here

https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.northamptonchron.co.uk%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fdog_suffering_the_worst_ever_seen_by_vet_1_888179&h=lAQDTokTY

Anyway, fast forward to today and not only is David Blaxter judging the OEMC Championship show on the 7th August 2011 but we have found out today that he is also to judge Mastiffs at Crufts in 2013 !!

It would seem therefore despite the statement on the front page of The Kennel Clubs website " The Kennel Club is the UK's largest organisation dedicated to the health and welfare of dogs." This does not apply if you have been convicted of causing unnecessary suffering to dogs as they are still happy to award you one of the highest accolade with regards dog showing.

I am personally appalled at this and it would seem that The Kennel Club and the OEMC are happy to sweep this fact under the carpet in the hope that no one will remember what has happened and in the meantime reward Mr Blaxter for his fine judgement and character. No matter what has been said in the past there can be no excuse for the condition Henry was allowed to get in - ignornace or the fact that Henry was old are no defence.

Anyway, I for one have expressed my opinions to The Kennel Club and they have removed both mine and anothers comments from their facebook page. I know others have made their opinions known elsewhere. One thing is for certain I shall not be supporting Crufts 2013 if David Blaxter is to remain as judge.

That's shocking!  I've had a look on FB page and don't seem to be able to start a new thread :-(

No I can't either but I've started a new discussion via the KC facebook page - bet that gets removed too.

What disciplinary action was taken by the KC against these people, it is unusual for it to be less than 5 years.

I remember this case occuring. From what I read in the Kennel Gazette and the dog papers at the time, it seemed as if this couple were aware that the dog was deteriorating somewhat and put it down to his age. I think they also said they were treating him for an mouth ulcer/abcess. At the time, the Kennel Club's stance was that these people should not face any further sanctions or condemation as it was simply a misjudgement, rather than out and out deliberate neglect. I thought this seemed a sensible line to take, given what I had read.
I know many, many people who find it very difficult to accept the time has come to say goodbye to a beloved pet and the animal is permitted to suffer far longer than is really humane. I'm sure that vets are frequently presented with animals to be euthanased when they are significantly underweight and desperatly ill, by owners who have put off making the inevitable desicion. Do vets report all these owners to the RSPCA for neglect? Was it because this couple were high profile breeders and judges that they were 'targetted'? Should they be treated differently to other 'pet' owners because they 'ought to have known better?'

I don't know all the facts of the case of course but it is very easy to be critical of someone from the sidelines, especially if only one side of the story is presented.
I would also not like to think that someone who has simply made one error of judgement under these circumstances, should be penalised for ever. I remember I was concerned this could acatually dissuade people from taking pets to be euthanised or alternativly pressurise them into acting too soon out of a fear of being prosecuted. As I recall, it was reported this couple had demonstrated examplary care of their dogs until this point and their other dogs were healthy and well cared for.

On this occasion personally I would respect the KCs desicion to make the appointment.

A good post tricolourlover.  I must say I was leaning towards your general thoughts even before you supplied us with that little bit more information regarding the KCs comments at the time.

A friend of mine had a bitch with total immune collapse following a random virus, and she ended up less than half the weight, no muscle, simply a laking skeleton as her body was attacking and consuming her own muscles. 

She had virtually no fur and had to have clothes/coats to protect her very fragile skin due to the steroids she was on, as well as anti mange treatment, soloxine for immune thyroiditis, pancreatic etc.

I would not have kept her like that, but she was bright and happy in her way, you could say she starved to death as her body was not able to digest her food properly, though obviously she didn't seem to feel hunger.

Food for thought - must say I'd been wondering just how bad it had been for someone's own vet to report them like this.

For those of you who are not aware - at the time of the conviction and prior of course Mr Blaxter was a member of the Mastiff Association committee and also their breed health co-ordinator. He has had a book, which he co wrote, published on Mastiffs. He really is someone who should have known better and in my opinion could not be described as an owner refusing to accept the inevitable with regards their beloved pet.  There are a couple of pics in circulation which speak for themselves - sadly I am not a techie & would not know how to add them

> I remember this case occuring. From what I read in the Kennel Gazette and the dog papers at the time, it seemed as if this couple were aware that the dog was deteriorating somewhat and put it down to his age

"Staff at a veterinary centre in Northamptonshire tipped off the RSPCA about the treatment of a dog brought in for euthanasia, described by the senior partner as the worst he had seen in more than 25 years....... Henry was taken in he weighed 38kgs, half of the healthy weight range for a dog of his breed........The couple, of Barton Hartshorn, near Brackley, were ordered to pay 4,130 in costs and fines by magistrates after being found jointly responsible of failing to provide veterinary treatment for Henry..........It was the worst case of neglect and suffering I have seen in more than 25 years"  Taken from here

I do not know all the facts but there are a couple points here that say enough:
The vets were horrified enough by the state of the dog to report it to the RSPCA (surely vets know the difference between an owner trying to put off the inevitable and blatent neglect?)
They were found guilty of failure to provide veterinary treatment.

That dog weighed only 38kg. My Mastiff is kept LEAN (due to ED) and he is 90kg, if he dropped to 80KG he would start to look like he was underfed, if he dropped to 70kg people would be reporting me for starving him, but to let him get to 38KG!!!!!!!!! that in itself is disgusting, let alone the problems the poor thing had with his jaw.
I do NOT think the owners deserve pity or compassion, things like this are not a mistake, they are deliberate and if the person resposnsible is not in a fit enough state of mind to tell the difference between a dog that needs to see a vet and a dog that doesn't - what on earth are the KC doing letting them JUDGE dogs?????

Poor owners?? NO WAY - poor henry :( :( The poor thing must have been in agony with his jaw hanging down, unable to eat and bedsores "caused becasuse he WAS UNABLE TO STAND", the people responsible for him NOT doing the one thing they should have - took him for treatment at the vets.

Come on KC, set an examaple.

ok thanks for this - putting it in context :-(

Come on KC, set an examaple.

Agree - it will be even more interesting to see if the exhibitors are so disgusted they enter under him or not.

That said I am still at a loss to know what the disciplinary committee made of the original conviction - it usually means a ban from all dog related activities for at least 5 years so I am puzzled why this case did not not - anyone know what the KC said following the conviction and what the KC punishment was?

> anyone know what the KC said following the conviction and what the KC punishment was?

This is what tricolourlover recalls:

>At the time, the Kennel Club's stance was that these people should not face any further sanctions or condemation as it was simply a misjudgement, rather than out and out deliberate neglect.

>> Anyway, fast forward to today and not only is David Blaxter judging the OEMC Championship show on the 7th August 2011

Makes a complete farce of the OEMCs code of ethics doesn't it :(

1) Will properly house, feed, water, and excercise all dogs under thier care and arrange for appropriate veterinary attention if and when required.
4) Will abide by all aspects of the Animal Welfare Act.

The statement about inviting a chiripractor to the show in the drive to promote better health & welfare of the breed seems like a bit of a joke when it is written under the announcement of the judge!

At the time, the Kennel Club's stance was that these people should not face any further sanctions or condemation as it was simply a misjudgement, rather than out and out deliberate neglect.

If the above is the stance of the KC then that would answer the fact that the gentleman in question is still judging.

Difficult to condemn without the facts - remember sitting on a jury once and acquitting a case of GBH, letters to the local paper were up in arms about it but they were not aware of the full facts. Condemnation or Defence is always a combination of personal knowledge and received or perceived information and can depend a good deal on what buttons are pushed.

All I can say is that 'facts' given in a local newspaper need not necessarily be taken as Gospel truth and surely as we all  know (following PDE) it is easy for the media to put a certain spin on the story.

The fact that the offence was neither serious enough to result in a ban on keeping animals (only a fine) or for the KC to issue further sanctions suggests there is a great deal more to this than has been reported. I would also imagine that the KC are sensitive enough to public opinion these days not to make an appointment of this status to someone under these circumstances without having very good grounds for supporting this desicion.

This man was convicted in court of causing unnecessary suffering to his dog? If so, regardless of what the kc thought about this man or his actions, there should have/be some legislation in place that means if anyone is convicted of an animal cruelty charge, they should automatically have a 5 years ban from KC activities, reardless of circumstance.

This man was convicted in court of causing unnecessary suffering to his dog? If so, regardless of what the kc thought about this man or his actions, there should have/be some legislation in place that means if anyone is convicted of an animal cruelty charge, they should automatically have a 5 years ban from KC activities, reardless of circumstance.

Sorry disagree with any suggestion that one size fits all.

I also meant to say I've had a look for the information regarding the case but the only info I have is that the KC "did not consider penalties to be either appropriate or sensible in this case...it is a very difficult desicion when to end the life of an elderly or seriously ill dog."

I'm not suggesting the couple were innocent or saying this appointment is a wise desicion, only that without knowing the full story it's impossible to condemn it outright.

If anyone has a copy of the (September??) KG 2009, the discplinary case was recorded with the findings

Very difficult to know the full truth on this one. If it were my judge I would mail the KC and then not enter, simple as that. You save yourself an entry fee and a low entry might show disappproval of their colleagues.
I expect the papers will pick up on the story and then we will all be tarred with the same brush- again!

> the KC "did not consider penalties to be either appropriate or sensible in this case...it is a very difficult desicion when to end the life of an elderly or seriously ill dog."

Hmm, having had to make the awfull decision to have an elderly dog PTS, I can understand how it can be difficlut to choose the right time and mayee drag things past the optimum time for a few days, but when you see the state of the dog there was NO room for a 'misjudgement' atall it appears to be a blatent neglect of responsibility.

As I said earlier, if a person can not tell the dog in the follwing pic (WARNING FOLLOWING PHOTO IS OF DEAD DOG) pic here , is a dog that needed to see a vet long before the owners actaully took it to a vet, then how on earth are they of any USE as a dog-judge?
Or in other words, when you see a dog, wasting away to less than half what it should be, and do not see a reason to take it to a vet, how on earth can you possibly be good enough to JUDGE how somebody elses dog fits the breed standard?

The dog I mentioned who at death was only half her normal weight was under the vet and they could do nothing to prevent this, so simply being that under weight does not in itself equal neglect, especially if the dog was not showing signs of pain (physical appearance is not a good way to judge if this might have been the case).

Yes I think the main issue here is that they didn't seek vet help for this poor dog - anyone should have seen that it wasn't well and that the poor dog wasn't eating - not necessarily that the dog could have been 'cured' but palliative treatment should have been given.  This dog was allowed to suffer! 

The last two posts seem to contradict one another was the vets opinion sort or was it not, if it was the I can't see the case bought was valid no matter what the courts decision.

> The dog I mentioned who at death was only half her normal weight was under the vet and they could do nothing to prevent this

Brainless the dog you mentioned was having treatment from a vet, the dead mastiff was not seen by a vet untill the owners took it in to be PTS.

The reports say the tumor in the dogs mouth could have been opperated on or the dog given pain relief IF the owners had taken th dog to the vets beforehand - "Henry had never had a veterinary examination in his life and Blaxter and his wife Sylvia, aged 75, admitted they had noticed problems with his mouth six months earlier."

To keep a pet going that LOOKS awfull, whilst under the care of a vet, is one thing, but to keep a dog going that LOOKS awfull and NOT seek the advice of a vet is another thing entirely :(

> The last two posts seem to contradict one another was the vets opinion sort or was it not

Help for the dogs problems were not sought for treatment, only for PTS when the dog had allready been suffering for half a year.

I think the point is he did do wrong but he has had his punishment, a substantial fine.  The KC having considered all the facts available to them (probably rather more than we have) have decided no further punishment is appropriate.
 
You may not agree with their decision but it is what it is and there is no restriction on him judging. 

It is then just a personal decision whether to show under him.

I find it totally unbelievable that this man is still allowed to judge and especially at Crufts. I have looked at the link to the photo and if you close the actual pic there is a photo of the mastiff's jaw in the thread underneath. How could they have known about this for 6 months and allowed it to get so bad? Anyone who cared would have taken their dog to a vet long before they finally did.

Given the amount of feeling this issue has stirred up here I hope that the KC have thought through this judging appointment. If not, as someone else has pointed out, they could be letting themselves in for a storm of bad press nearer the time.

Regardless whether you believe this man has been punished enough, I think the damage has yet to come.  Once the tabloids get hold of this story and certain journalists, and it appears on a certain blog then the pedigree world, crufts, and the KC will be in the limelight again for all the wrong reasons.  This is just the story these people have been waiting for, and there is documented proof of the dog on the internet so just wait and see.  I reckon about 2 weeks before Crufts will be the optimum time, the papers, internet and that blog will be full of it!  Best thing that can be done now is for the man to withdraw, or the KC to take action before it is too late.

I note that the incident actually happened in 2007.

> Once the tabloids get hold of this story and certain journalists, and it appears on a certain blog then the pedigree world, crufts, and the KC will be in the limelight again for all the wrong reasons. 

Possibly but I think they may struggle to make something of it when the man has already been tried, convicted and punished. 
Generally these things are jumped upon if a further crime is committed. 
He appears to have behaved correctly since his punishment and it has therefore served its purpose so what is the story?
Would it be right to hand out more punishment to him because of the bad behaviour of some of the press?

>He appears to have behaved correctly since his punishment and it has therefore served its purpose so what is the story?<br />

The press will always find a story and turn it into a big scandle.  Whether he has been suitably punished or not, when it gets into the national press (and it will) it will be the world of dogs and showing that will suffer for it.  It is a very poor choice by the kennel club when Crufts is only just recovering from the last attack.

I can't imagine anyone even wanting to show their dogs to him, if he can't tell the difference between a healthy dog and a sick dog how is he going to spot the minute differences between a group of supreme examples of the breed?  He really should just step down.

> It is a very poor choice by the kennel club when Crufts is only just recovering from the last attack.
>

But that doesn't really answer my other question namely should he continue to be punished for the occasional misbehaviour of the press?  How many courts are there in this land?

I think that the KC have made a questionable decission in ths case. It may well backfire on them and ultimatly the show world as a whole because as we know if the press have a mind they will jump on it and paint a very black picture.
My thoughts after reading what I can find on the net are that the owners of this dog did it a great disservice. I once had a GSD with an illness which was uncurable and resulted in a huge loss of weight. He was monetered and seen by the vet every couple of weeks and lived a happy life untill the day when both vet and myself agreed his life had gone as far as possible for his comfort. He was PTS  and I was happy in the knowledge that he had the best he could and we gave him rest before it became unfair on him. It would apear this dog had not been recieving care from the vet and his life was not good. The pictures showing his jaw look to me like it would have been causing much distress to him.
The court came to thier decission based on the facts placed before them and we cannot change that. However if those in his breed feel that he should not be judging they need to vote with thier feet and walk away from this appointment. Far better the KC learn that most dog lovers would rather miss the "Greatest dog show on earth" than give thier support to a man they feel has not been fair on his dogs. As long as everyone in the breed is aware of the facts them it must be thier choice to enter or not. Nothing will change the result of the case or the KC's ruling on his judging abillity but as those whose money matters to the KC it is in your hands to show your disgust in the best way possible. Maybe a completed entry form showin the amount of entry fee's you would have paid and a letter to the KC outlining why you are not entering from every one who walks away will make them sit up and think.
Aileen

Oh my goodness. No dog lover (by my standards) could let a dog get into such a condition. The man/couple that let the dog get into this state or despicable people, this is not just cruelty but torture, this dog obviously suffered a great deal before death. I for one would not show under this judge, and IMO anyone that cares an ounce should not show under him. But heyho, i'm sure that wont happen and he will have a decent entry.

>> But that doesn't really answer my other question namely should he continue to be punished for the occasional misbehaviour of the press?

Misbehaviour of the press? It was him that left his dog suffering for months on end without taking it to a vet - how can that be the fault of the press?

However, 'punishment' is not the issue here. If a Judge can not 'judge' when a dog in his care, starving with an erroding jaw,  needs to see a vet - how SUITABLE is he as a DOG JUDGE???
When policemen have left thier dogs in cars to roast to death, we have questioned thier suitability to remain in that position, how is this any different?

> It was him that left his dog suffering for months on end without taking it to a vet

For which he has already been punished. 
I don't see it can be right to retry him by press or by facebook or any other unsanctioned court.

> If a Judge can not 'judge' when a dog in his care, starving with an erroding jaw,&nbsp; needs to see a vet - how SUITABLE is he as a DOG JUDGE???

I can't really see that arguement.  He failed to seek veterinary care which was very wrong.  That does not mean he thought the dog was looking good.

> He failed to seek veterinary care which was very wrong.&nbsp; That does not mean he thought the dog was looking good.

Either he made a bad JUDGEMENT call and the fact his dog looked on deathes door didn't register in his head that it needed to see a vet OR he didn't CARE that his dog was suffering.
Personally, giving him the benefit of doubt, I think he made a very bad JUDGEMENT call and 'overlooked' waht was really happening to his dog (allthough I still think it was very wrong, disgusting behaviour).
If he can make a such a poor judgement call over such a huge issue - welfare - how on earth is he suitable to judge dogs on lesser issues, such as conformaity, especially when he is set to judge on the KCs 'top 15' breeds that are allready under a close eye, with work needing to be done to improve the health & welfare of these breeds through the breed standard.
The huge blows the 'pedigree dog world' has sufferered since 'that programme' are on-going, show dogs now are under scrutiny like never before, but here we are with a person that allowed thier dog to suffer to deaths door for 6 months, set to judge the Mastiffs. It's another huge blow for pedigree dogs just waiting to happen.
What on earth will the public perception of the show world be now?????
If a person abuses a child, they do not get to work with children, but with our beloved dogs, it appears that you can bake them in cars, watch them starve to death in agony and not only expect to carry on working with them, but also get sympathy from fellow dog lovers.

Strange world we live in............

For which he has already been punished.
I don't see it can be right to retry him by press or by facebook or any other unsanctioned court.


When you show at Crufts, you expect the best possible judge. You expect the very top. I very much doubt many exhibitors would see this person as a top choice. It's an insult to the exhibitors and I hope they vote with their feet.

I can't really see that arguement.  He failed to seek veterinary care which was very wrong.  That does not mean he thought the dog was looking good.

On the front of every schedule the wording states " All judges at this show agree to abide by the following statement :- " In assessing dogs, judges must pemalise any features or exaggerations which they consider would be detrimental to the soundness health or well being of the dog".
I think by his actions in dealing with his own dog he has shown his judgement to be seriously flawed. We do not want judges who cannot make a well informed and carefull judgement on our dogs. he has shown himself to be unable to make that judgement. Why then should he be allowed to try to do so at Crifts (or any other show)
I think he has shown that he was not able to work out for himself that the dog in question was in need of veterinary help. I my opinion that would make him unable to make a judgement on weather or not a dog in the ring was affected with any "features or exaggerations" detrimental to its health soundness and well being either.

I feel that our judges need to be squeeky clean these days and I for one would boyoctt someone who did this to his own dog.
Aileen

The Kennel Club have now issued a reply on their facebook page. They say that Mr Blaxter was given his appointment in 2008, before his conviction.

I also find it strange that they appointed a 74 year old man for a judging appointment 5 years ahead. 5 years can make a lot of difference at that age. It could also be an easy reason to change it.

> The huge blows the 'pedigree dog world' has sufferered since 'that programme' are on-going

I don't see why he should be punished for that as well.

> and not only expect to carry on working with them, but also get sympathy from fellow dog lovers.

What sympathy?  He deserved his punishment.

> I think he has shown that he was not able to work out for himself that the dog in question was in need of veterinary help.

Clearly but that is very different to judging a dog in the show ring on their features or exaggerations.

> The Kennel Club have now issued a reply on their facebook page. They say that Mr Blaxter was given his appointment in 2008, before his conviction.

For those without a facebook link they also said

>Mr D Blaxter was subject to consideration by the Disciplinary Sub-Committee under Rule A43 in 2009 and was not disqualified from canine activities - the decision was published at the time. The Court ...also did not disqualify Mr Blaxter from keeping dogs.

>The Kennel Club will not comment on the detail of the case adjudicated by the Court and by the Disciplinary Sub-Committee.

>It is important to consider a case in its entirety and not always helpful or instructive to extract one specific comment made by interested parties.

>The disciplinary case did give rise to the general question of when is the right time to euthanise a dog - a difficult question which has many layers and very different if not polarised views on timing even within the veterinary profession and is one which regularly troubles owners.

>The Old English Mastiff Club gave their support to Mr Blaxter at the time of the Kennel Club Disciplinary hearing and have since invited Mr Blaxter to judge in August 2011 and no representations have been made to the Kennel Club about that appointment.

How is it different? His judgement is flawed. If he could not see this dog was dying of starvation and needed help how would he see that a dog in the ring was also too fat/too thin/ lame/ had eye problems/ skin problems. Are things like this different to a starving dog ?
Aileen

>> I think he has shown that he was not able to work out for himself that the dog in question was in need of veterinary help.
> Clearly but that is very different to judging a dog in the show ring on their features or exaggerations.

Exactly! If a glaring obvious health & welfare problem, such as a starving dog with its jaw erroding is not acted upon (for the IMIDEATE health & welfare of the dog in question), how on earth would less obvious problems such as minor gait weakness or loose eyelids be marked aginst, to hopefully improve future generations?

>> The Old English Mastiff Club gave their support to Mr Blaxter at the time of the Kennel Club Disciplinary hearing and have since invited Mr Blaxter to judge in August 2011 and no representations have been made to the Kennel Club about that appointment.

However, he did resign from the Mastiff Association, he was the MA breed health co-ordinator (following the conviction of being charged with causing unnecessay suffering to a Mastiff, I think he did the right thing in resigning from his position).

The Kennel club may well see this as a 'general question of when is the right time to euthanise a dog', but frankly they are sweeping things under the carpet. If the dog had been recieving veterinary care, he would not have been charged with causing the suffering, he oculd have kept his dog going, (unable to move, unable to eat), whilst dosed up on pain killers, so the poor mite didn't have to physically feel his plight. The question of when to have a dog PTS was not the issue, it was failiure to get the dog seen by a vet and thus leave it physically suffering things it did not need to be feeling.

Shame on the KC and shame on the OEMC, by supporting the man they are condoning his actions.

> How is it different? His judgement is flawed. If he could not see this dog was dying of starvation and needed help how would he see that a dog in the ring was also too fat/too thin/ lame/ had eye problems/ skin problems. Are things like this different to a starving dog ?
>

I think we will have to agree to differ on that as I cannot see that not acknowledging a poor condition is sufficient to require immediate attention and knowing that the animal is not in a desirable condition for showing.  I think it is just stretching a idea too far.
Nor can I see anyone condoning what he did.  As I keep saying, he was punished.