If you want to read this new statement in full then it is available to view on the Dog World  website.

Would post link but don't know how too!

Looks like a descision has been made to not use pen torches for any future checks and personally this is the only thing about these checks that worried me as this was a major discrepincy between what the judge could see and the vet doing the exam

You are not worried that the exhibitor is unable to have anyone with them as support or witness?  You are not worried that the KC lied over the reasons for using pen torches in the first place, sighting low light levels?  You are not worried that the powers that be at the KC are not even sure of the purpose of the tests - Steve Dean said it was aimed principally at the judges, Caroline Kisko  thinks it is aimed at the Breeders.  Even the silly little things worry me, such as the KC appear to have forgotten to ask for volunteer judges until the last minute, and were then "disappointed" at how few came forward with only  a months notice.  I could go on and on for almost as long as the published  statement, but won't.  Lets jsut say the whole situation worries me as once again the KC are putting the interests of those involved in showing behind those of their own PR stunt (which went wrong).  I am whole heartedly in favour of healthy dogs and  of expert, properly conducted health tests.  The fact that the majority (if not all) of the dogs who were failed were presented at other vets he next day and given clean bills of health leaves the whole situation a worrying mess.

Perhaps you might be worried when you remember that the KC have reserved the right to add other breeds to the list as they see fit, apparently without consultation with any interested parties?

What interests me is that he didnt address the fact that NONE of the entry would have passed those vets in one or two of the breeds...with the consequent knock on effects.

Are they going to stop taking the exhibitors money because theyre honest enough to tell them they have no chance?

I cant believe the KC think that hobby breeder/exhibitors have a whole new set of dogs, more to the vets approval, at home.

I agree totally with every word you've written Gwen. Surely the Judge of the breed concerned should have been allowed to be present at the Vet checking of his/her Best of Breed.

On this point you made "The fact that the majority (if not all) of the dogs who were failed were presented at other vets he next day and given clean bills of health leaves the whole situation a worrying mess."
Prof Dean has this to say "Follow-up veterinary checks have been suggested to refute the findings of the Crufts examinations. This is understandable, as in many cases the clinical aspect may change over tim. However, no certificates of examination have been presented to the KC and when they are we will investigate their findings further"

So it would seems the exhibitors concerned are expected to provide the KC with these additional Health Check certificates! Does Prof Dean really think they believe they will get a fair hearing if they do so! He seems to be adding an excuse already that the delay in these checks may prove them not to be valid. However the Bassett Hound was checked immediately after the KC Vet who disqualified the dog released it.
http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/67446

Link to Prof Dean's Statement -
http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/67383

DW's coverage of vet check drama watched across the world http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/67456

> KC appear to have forgotten to ask for volunteer judges until the last minute

Just realised I made a typo here, it should say "Forgotten ot ask for volunteer VETS until the last minute"

sorry if anyone was confused.

Gosh that was a massive statement to read and not made any easier by the fact there were no paragraphs.
Agree with what has been said  on this board and think the KC is deluding itself if it thinks that exhibitors are going to put up with their behaviour over the HP breeds. Glad that I have joined the Canine Alliance and look forward to hearing from them after tonights meeting

The bassett hound vet was, of course, impartial. It was, of course, just the vets at Crufts who were not!
I think not.

> The bassett hound vet was, of course, impartial. It was, of course, just the vets at Crufts who were not!
> I think not.

Why?  I don't think we know anything at all about the vet who re-checked the Bassett Hound.  The vet at Crufts had volunteered to be put into a public arena, so had to have an agenda in some direction to want this position.  It is hardly  as if they had dozens who wanted to do this - I beliveve only 3 applied, of which 2 were "employed"

However, my objection to the term impartial in relation to these vets has been to the KC's apparent definition of the word.  They seem to assume that because  no fee was paid this ensured an impartial vetting procedure.  However, the KC rectruited them, invited/employed them, gave what they described as "extensive training/briefing" and of course fed them too (not that I think this was wrong, it was the only acceptable and polite course of action).  The KC also set the rules by which the check took place, excluded any supporter of the dog's owner from the vet area, and allowed a KC rep to be present.  The owner/exhibitor had no say in any of this process at all.  How is this impartial if 100% of the input into the process is from 1 side only?

Read the statement, it says their vet---the one the basset people employed. That isn't impartial.

> Read the statement, it says their vet---the one the basset people employed. That isn't impartial.

It was as impartial as the KC one.  How do you get an impartial vet opinion? The fact someone asks a vet to examine a dog an agenda is set.  My point has always been that the KC made a big fuss about the impartiality of the Crufts Vet Checks, when in fact they were KC instigated Vet checks, similarly the owners Vet checks are on their behalf.  The KC have laid themselves open to criticism by allowing the opinion of general practice vets to mean more than that of specialists vets in relevant fields.  Why they felt that calling the vets "impartial" was a) a good idea and b)even remotely acceptable is beyond comprehension.  However, this is only 1 tiny part of the complete and utter shambles they made of the whole concept.

The idea of valid, fair vet checks is great, the idea of breed specific witch hunts is not.

I love dog showing for breed, and always defend it against criticism when I feel it isn't justified. However, this Crufts vet check business has given me a slightly different perspective. My own breed has a pretty typical dog shape so the kind of things which might show up at a superficial examination by a vet are not really a problem. I suppose usually I have tunnel vision - there is my breed and then other dogs which are just dogs.
I felt really sorry for the folks whose dogs failed the examination - how humiliating and disappointing for them!
Then reading the reply by Steve Dean, it made me think - do dogs with haw really feel uncomfortable most of the time?Are these eye injuries just accidents or is it because the eye really shouldn't be that shape?
Are these zealots right - are we breeding dogs to look a certain way at the expense of their welfare? If so, it may have gone on for hundreds of years but does that make it right?
While I agree that the way these checks have been introduced has been poorly thought out, and the KC are sorely in need of proper PR, I really don't like the way most of the outcry seems to be saying that there is some kind of hidden agenda aimed purely to spoil our fun.
What about the dogs? Don't they matter? Somebody said "Wouldn't your eyes be sore at the end of a long day?" Well, mine might be but my dog's certainly wouldn't. For goodness' sake, if they are, there is something wrong with the dog, and that is what we ought to be thinking about.

Thing is some dogs with a tiny amount of haw showing had their BOB removed where as other who were far worse were in the group ring and at least one was in the BIS ring and won rather well. To my way of thinking that is not fair neither is the fact that the vetting at Crufts was not carried out as as agreed and explained by the KC before Crufts.

> I really don't like the way most of the outcry seems to be saying that there is some kind of hidden agenda aimed purely to spoil our fun.

I haven't picked that up as a theme at all - the general consensus is that it is and ill conceived initiative badly planned and implemented at the wrong show.  The hidden agenda is not so much hidden as unspoken - my reading is that the KC were so excited at the thoughts of the plaudits from JH etc they did not look further than that, and were taken aback at the avalanche of criticism - even jsut before BIS judging on Crufts Sudnay Steve DEan was still insisting it had been a success.

Certain breeds have been targeted, a set of guidelines produced  for certain features - in my own breed the vets have been asked to look for skin problems caused by a screw tail.  My breed do not have screw tails, they do have twists, but can and do unfurl them frequently, I have never met a pug with  skin probelms caused by the tail, and have been unable to find anyone who has.  There may be similar errors in the rest of the guidelines.  So the whole thing needs to be  looked at very carefully so that we can ensure appropraite tests carried out at a suitable time by expert vets.

I absolutely agree about the way the scheme was introduced - I think it should have been started after Crufts so that a year of trial could have taken place before the 'big one'. There were bound to be problems. As it is, it has come over really badly as I think the general dog owning public think that a team of vets has descended on Crufts unbidden, chucking out dogs right left and centre. As I said before, the KC's PR approach is sadly lacking.
BUT anyone who says that some breeds of pedigree dogs don't have some problems caused by the way people prefer them to look is living in cloud cuckoo land.
I love pure bred dogs. I want to know what my puppy is going to look and behave like. This has snags- inherited conditions which can't be seen on the outside for instance. Everyone seems to agree that we should try to breed to avoid these. So why can't we agree that problems caused by conformation should also be avoided instead of denying they exist?
The KC are like the government - whatever they do doesn't suit a section of the populace.These problems are deep-seated and are not going to go away overnight,but they have made a start. Judging by all the grumbling that is going on, most people in the high profile breeds are not going to try to breed for less extremes if left to their own devices.
Criticise the KC by all means, but I think criticism should be constructive rather than silly.    

Can't talk for anyone else but I do not think that all breeds are perfect in truth all breeds have room for improvement. I do not criticize the KC for what they are trying to do but the way they set about it and seem to lack an ear for those who are actual dealing with the dogs at the grass roots. And that is why I joined the CA, they are wanting to work with the KC to help in achieving the improvement in our breeds and until their aims are changed to something else I will stick with them and hope their suggestions and offers to help do not fall on deaf ears.

I agree Nova.

Cobus, we are obviously reading very different articles/forums, as the ones I have read don't say anything like your view, I have seen post after post of people wanting to have visible health tests/provable health status.  I could not agree more with your comment that professional PR help is needed by the KC, and yes, lots of people are critical of the KC, mostly rightly so, and have made may very helpful and insightful suggestions for how it should move forward.

that professional PR help is needed by the KC

PR help yes, spin no. Agree that the KC seems to blot its own copy book time and time again because in the most part they just will not listen to advice from outside the club or, if the rumour is to be believed, their own members either they just go along with some sort of elite group and ignore everyone else's opinion.

Think what we really need today is some sort of acceptance that they got it wrong and an apology, that would go a long way to healing matters and help more than anything to move forward to find a better way of achieving the end we all want - healthy dogs with good conformation and an end to puppy farming when that involves untested or uncared for animals.

It's odd, isn't it, how many of us have such similar aims and goals for the KC, and how they have excuses for going in opposite directions.  Here's hoping that our collective voices via Canine Allinace will at least make them listen.

Here's hoping that our collective voices via Canine Allinace will at least make them listen.
Quote selected text

Lets hope so Gwen, I am afraid that there will be such hopes for today's meeting and that it is inevitable that we will all be disappointed how little will be achieved but we must remind ourselves that there are years of KC management of dogs and to amend the way matters are managed may well take longer than the improvement in the health of our breeds. However if the Canine Alliance stick with their remit I will back them however long it takes.

I agree Nova, and meanwhile can we all get recruiting more members?  Membership form is now available to download, or joining via the  website now possible.  The more members  the stronger the voice.

Indeed Gwen, there has over the last few years been many a complaints about the way the KC does things on this very forum so I do hope all those who have voiced complaints have joined because moaning gets you no where organised lobbing does. So come on folks lets take a leaf out of the anti dog brigade and let our communal voice be heard.

Edit to add the URL here it is http://www.caninealliance.org/

I know that with several of the non awarded BOBs, subsequent vet checks - by specialists - has shown that there is not exactly a consensus of opinion over the conditions in question.

To my way of thinking, if there is to be vet checks that lead to dogs having not just their BOBs withheld, but the wider implications that the dog is 'unhealthy', judges are not capable of identifying problems etc then there should be NO QUESTION over the 'diagnosis'. Otherwise it remains a subjective judgement that is no better than the proceedure in the ring. A dog is lame, or it is not. It has ectropian/entropian or it does not.

From what I've read, the conditions identified by the vet checks would generally be only obvious to a vet and possibly only to one who was specifically looking for problems. Judges by and large are not vets and while they should be able to spot a lame dog, how many are realistically going to be able to identify some of the more detailed eye issues. That is no reflection on their abilities as a judge, just that they are laypeople not highly trained professionals.

I can't understand how breeders are suddenly meant (in a couple of years) to be able to produce not just better eyes, but perfect eyes, in breeds that have historically had a problem and that is one of the biggest issues I have with those vet checks, they were looking not for an improvement but for perfection. The KC MUST have realised before Crufts that the chance of some breeds passing would have nigh on impossible. If that is the case, then they set them up to fail and fail in the most publically humiliating way possible.

I haven't yet joined the Canine Alliance, but I can certainly understand why so many have. The KC have lost the trust of a huge number of grass roots folk and not just those in the HP Breeds either...    :-(

> I can't understand how breeders are suddenly meant (in a couple of years) to be able to produce not just better eyes, but perfect eyes, in breeds that have historically had a problem and that is one of the biggest issues I have with those vet checks, they were looking not for an improvement but for perfection. The KC MUST have realised before Crufts that the chance of some breeds passing would have nigh on impossible. If that is the case, then they set them up to fail and fail in the most publically humiliating way possible. >

Much has been written on the subject ....but this paragraph just about sums it up for me. Setting its customers up to fail with subsequent public humiliation. No way to run a business....customers will rebel.

I would think that given the same tools and time as the vets the judges would be able to find what the vets found and if the many reports are to be believed what the vet found was an old scar caused by an accident not an inherited condition, although it was inherited conditions that the vets were asked to look for.

The Clumber and I believe the Basset were failed because they were showing haw, well it was a very small amount and there were may far worse examples of lose eyes and excessive haw around, so very unfair. Add to this that the standard calls for a small amount of haw for the Clumber and a lozenge shape eye for the Basset so just what are the judges supposed to do judge to the standard or ask the vet what they would like.

I would urge anyone one who thinks the Canine Alliance has even the smallest chance of making a difference join because in situations like this numbers do make a huge difference, the KC will be more inclined to listen if they realise there are a large number behind the requests and discussions - they will take no notice of a few hundred.

Agree totally with Nova. Am looking forward to seeing the press release following the meeting today between representatives of the CA & the KC.

Am looking forward to seeing the press release following the meeting today between representatives of the CA & the KC.

I am sure that what ever it is will disappointed some but I feel the fact that a joint press release has been agreed is already a vast step forwards and we must keep on a gentle pressure.