After all the kerfuffle about "High Profile Breeds at Crufts" a couple of years back, were there any incidents this year or have all those 'faults' (deemed by the vets at the time) now been eliminated and every breed is (now) perfect in the eye's of those vets? I may have missed it but I did not hear a single reference to 'High Profile Breeds' did anyone else? 

Not a such but they did over emphasise when talking about the  Clumber that the dog demonstrated being fit for purpose etc I think to show that they have made improvements I assume but not sure if improvements can be made in just a couple of years ?

There was a tiny bit on the first days coverage, showing a NM, DDB and another breed that I can't remember, blink and you would have missed it.

Far as I know all 13 high profile breeds passed the vet checks, don't think any of them got to TV interview stage so they were a bit of a non story from the TV angle

I have a Clumber and new to the breed but when I got mine I can honestly say that my breeder was definitely pro getting the breed improved and had done all the correct health testing, its also about non use of dogs that obviously have problems and trying to breed out the previous issues. Things don't change overnight you are correct but still within a couple of years you could see differences in the health of the breed if breeders are taking notice of what needs to be done??
I also think that judges are more aware and are very conscious of not putting dogs through that then would fail the vet test, wouldn't look good on their part.
It would have beed good if it had been mentioned that the Clumber past the vet check but I guess those of us that know it had to be checked would know if it had failed it wouldn't have been in the group.

It did not hear it mentioned. Not in the list of HPB's but thought the Shar pei in Utility Group was nice and looked very fit. The NM could move but still a lot of skin in my view. The Bloodhound looked nice.

Clearly the Basset this year went through although for me, she didn't fit the revised Breed Standard re no exaggeration (with respect to her Italian breeder/exhibitors, who must be thrilled)!!

I'll try to make time to check the results of the others on the 'at risk' list.   For me the Bloodhound didn't have a typical head.   More like a Coonhound, again with respect to her connections.

If one had failed the vet test and was missing from Group judging, I'd imagine mention would have been made?

Well the PDE blog is full of why are the COI's high, why do we want uniformity, surely how a dog looks shouldn't determine anything, only the job it does.

Sorry but aesthetics play a part in almost anything we choose to own, make, grow etc. etc.

You only have to look at fruit and vegetables in the supermarket, where everyone prefers uniform form and colour.

Why do some see it as wrong to have dogs look a certain typical way for their 'breed' and still be able to follow function?  but those people don't believe in breeds at all.

Bet though when they choose a dog they choose which one they like partly on how it appeals aesthetically.

Isn't it true that the hardest dogs to home in rescue are short coated black ones????

MB,

Yes, even though I liked the BH have to agree it did not look typical....dare I say perhaps that why I liked it.

B,

Yes you cannot separate look from function in terms of having a very clear idea of the kind of dog you'll get. That is to say, one's ability to predict how well a dog will perform a certain function is linked to the way it looks- that is the essence of selective breeding, so don't see the point they are trying to make.

>Sorry but aesthetics play a part in almost anything we choose to own, make, grow etc. etc.

Totally.  I know that I am drawn to a certain type of dog.  Over the 45 years that I've owned dogs it is easy to see the pattern.  I find grooming very therapeutic.  And some of the dogs I've owned do prove that.  Poodles, Bearded Collies, Yorkshire Terriers.  So true Barbara.


Yes, even though I liked the BH have to agree it did not look typical....dare I say perhaps that why I liked it.

For me, with my breed, of course I have a type I prefer, but it all has to be based on the Breed Standard - and being able to do the job it was originally bred to do, even if hunting is now banned in the UK.   The breed has been targetted for exaggeration in recent years (and the Breed Standard revised to put more emphasis on 'no exaggeration'), probably quite rightly because although the breed should have substance, this is a word that is often mis-interpreted and you see fat rather than 'substance'.  Getting too low to the ground (true - that one may not have even made a field, let alone run a plough!), too long in the back (that one for me didn't have enough length), ears too long causing injury (not so - none of mine, who did have good ear length, ever had an injury because of the length) .... and then those eyes.