Originally was going to post  this on one of the other threads about vetting but decided to start a new thread as they are getting a bit long

Whilst it maybe unfair to the owners of the high profile breeds to be removed from BOB aren't we forgetting the dogs here?

In the case of the eye problems they are the ones forced to live their whole lives with eyes that water and are uncomfortable maybe even sore. Why is having droopy skin and showing haw round the eyes so wanted in these breeds? Personally I can't think of one good reason for breeding dogs with this characteristic. It doesn't look nice and must impact the function of the eye. I am sure the breeds didn't originally have eyes like this as sore eyes must impact their ability to do their job.

The dogs probably seem happy enough as they have never known anything else and cannot comprehend why their eyes are uncomfortable. But  as humans we know better and so should be trying to protect these animals and working to make their lives better, not complaining because their owner has missed out on a little glory.

It may be harsh on the owners but but maybe we need something like this to happen to make sure people do actually breed away from these conditions. And yes I do think we should include at least all the breeds that show any form of exaggeration in these vet checks.

But the problem is that although of course we haven't seen the dogs up close, the videos posted of the bulldog for example, and reports of the mastiff judging from eye witnesses, seem to be saying that the dogs in question were not as exaggerated and moved better than many in their breed. It doesn't mean that there isn't still work to be done, but it's a shame if the breeders have produced an improved version and the judge has put it up, to have a vet say it's not good enough yet, after only 3 years of the new standards.

But if the dogs still have the conditions then the vet has to report that. Obviously I don't know what the vet found but the mastiff may well have been less exagerated but if it still say had an eye problem that is a disqualifying fault then the vet has to report it.

>it's a shame if the breeders have produced an improved version and the judge has put it up, to have a vet say it's not good enough yet, after only 3 years of the new standards.

Exactly - where's the reward for doing the improvements? (And we all know that reward speeds results; lack of reward and there's no incentive to try.)

No place in yhe ring for dogs with eyelid confirmation issues. Entropian is a painful condition and no dog should be ledt yo suffer, there are some good surgeons out here yo correct it!! Both conditions are easy to spot I'd you look carefully and some are very obvious, no dog should be placed wih these conditions ever!! I done care how nice yhe rest of yhe dog is, correct conformation and movement should come first and foremost!!

>> it's a shame if the breeders have produced an improved version and the judge has put it up, to have a vet say it's not good enough yet, after only 3 years of the new standards.
> Exactly - where's the reward for doing the improvements? (And we all know that reward speeds results; lack of reward and there's no incentive to try.)

But if these people think it is acceptable to show a dog that still has conditions that are painful and uncomfortable for the dog then maybe the breed is better off without them.

If you think it's going to be an instant change then you have no idea about genetics! Change can only be gradual - even the vet interviewed said that it'd be about 10 years before any improvements were substantial - you have to applaud any improvement to ensure its continuation. Penalising progress is counter-productive.

>It doesn't mean that there isn't still work to be done, but it's a shame if the breeders have produced an improved version and the judge has put it up, to have a vet say it's not good enough yet, after only 3 years of the new standards.

I agree 100% here.  Given how much work is needed - and how long these things take, I think we should applaud the folk that have at least started the long journey.  When folk know it will take years to get there, we should be congratulating every improvement.

Bloodhounds  Ben Reynolds-Frost
Bassets   Zena Thorn-Andrews

This will be interesting.

"But if these people think it is acceptable to show a dog that still has conditions that are painful and uncomfortable for the dog then maybe the breed is better off without them."

But surely this approach will just see certain breeds become extinct ?  If conscientious breeders are doing their damned hardest to improve on the health issues of concern but are still going to be condemned, there is a real danger they may just give up on the breed altogether. As others have said, where is the motivation to carry on ?  Maybe there is an argument for certain breeds to simply disappear....

>If conscientious breeders are doing their damned hardest to improve on the health issues of concern but are still going to be condemned, there is a real danger they may just give up on the breed altogether.

Or give up with the KC and go their own way, and so being outwith the pressure to change.

ut surely this approach will just see certain breeds become extinct

Why would it, we are a small cog in a big wheel, of dog breeds/breeding around the world.

We cant dictate how  the rest of the world breed dogs.

The basset bob has failed, the bloodhound has passed

"Why would it, we are a small cog in a big wheel, of dog breeds/breeding around the world.

We cant dictate how  the rest of the world breed dogs"

Indeed, you are quite right. But it could see a massive decline in certain breeds in this country. Or as Jeangenie says, some breeders may just turn their back on the KC altogether, believing that it is in their breeds best interests.