New Developments at Crufts

Cherry Blossom

On day one two dogs who were BOB in their respective breeds were disqualified from entering their respective groups for having over-exaggerated features. The two breeds were not represented in the groups as a result. The reasoning was to encourage judges to take health into account and it's a wake-up call that this needs to be taken seriously and everyone involved in the breeds needs to sit up and take notice.

Personally I think this is a brilliant development and hopefully the beginning of things starting to take a real change for the better.

The dogs were a pekingese and a bulldog.

http://www.crufts.org.uk/news/bulldog-and-pekingese-fail-crufts-vet-checks

Thoughts?

Bullseye1

Good news indeed.

Cherry Blossom

It will interesting to see how the breeds still to come fare.

DBB

Definitely a step in the right direction, and I can only assume they've set out to make some examples?
It'll be a slow enough process though... the fact that these dogs got as far as BoB indicates where the judges are in this process at this time! For instance, the breed standard for the Bulldog, if I remember correctly, was changed a couple of years ago from "massive" head, to "large" head... yet even though they knew these veterinary inspections were going to happen, judges still saw fit to put dog(s) through to BoB level that did not conform to this new standard.
Similarly, and I've posted this before, the GSD that made it through to BoB last year was an abomination, despite the outcry about the breed a year or two beforehand as a result of Pedigree Dogs Exposed. I can't help but get the feeling that judges, and consequently breeders, were giving the fingers to the world.
However, these new measures, if consistently applied (or applied after Crufts 2012 is over), should put a stop to the vested interests keeping the breeds in the same deformed shapes for the sake of winning a trophy. Many breeders interviewed on Jemima's Pedigree Dogs Exposed show were in utter denial about the part they're playing in the genetic abominations many breeds have become. These measures will, I hope, force them to change their views.
I'll be watching developments with interest, but this has got to be a step in the right direction.

Cherry Blossom

DBB wrote: »

Definitely a step in the right direction, and I can only assume they've set out to make some examples?
It'll be a slow enough process though... the fact that these dogs got as far as BoB indicates where the judges are in this process at this time!

Yep, it's the influential few in high places that have meant limited progress up to this point, however they got to arrive in such positions I don't know. It's very likely that some of the judges haven't a clue how to identify a dog with x or y problem without it being written down somewhere. There's probably those that it just goes completely over their heads whether that's down to arrogance or limited capacity to understand health issues properly. It should have a fairly big impact on the breed clubs and breeders when it comes to stud dogs, even those that don't test their bitches are not going to use studs that might produce pups that will be disqualified.

At the end of the day forcing the hand of the judges will in turn encourage better and more strictly enforced codes of ethics for the breed clubs meaning individual breeders have no choice but to comply. The number of people who have told me they 'have to' do this or that gives the distinct impression that there are still a lot of breeders out there testing only because the breed club will come down on them like a ton of bricks otherwise. I guess it's an advantage that they put it like this and are fairly vocal in their complaining, helps separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak .

andreac

Just on my phone but I think its great, although maybe these health checks should have been done before they came to crufts.

TooManyDogs

andreac wrote: »

Just on my phone but I think its great, although maybe these health checks should have been done before they came to crufts.

I think the checks being done at crufts is a good thing. With the whole world watching those dogs being disqualified it will get the message through to all breeders quicker and make them realise the KC are serious

planetX

It's good news. But since they already got best of breed I guess they'll be producing plenty of offspring... at high prices. Shame.

padraig.od

planetX wrote: »

It's good news. But since they already got best of breed I guess they'll be producing plenty of offspring... at high prices. Shame.

No, they don't get a BOB certificate. Would you buy the (expensive) offspring of a dog deemed too unhealthy to win at Crufts...?

planetX

padraig.od wrote: »

No, they don't get a BOB certificate. Would you buy the (expensive) offspring of a dog deemed too unhealthy to win at Crufts...?

I wouldn't, but I can guarantee there's a waiting list of people who will:mad:

are you serious

With these developments at Crufts this is what will happen...
(well what I think is going to happen)

The "best of breed" dog/bitch who now by the new rules/standards at Crufts is now not the best of breed..

This dog/bitch will now be bred with a dog/bitch who is not quite as good as the old rules/standards for best of breed would be...

This then mating creates a pup that by the old rules/standards would not be good enough but with new rules/standards it will be good enough...

Therefore that dog/bitch who is now deemed not good enough will still be used for breeding...

Next year or the year after it will no longer be used, but until then. . .

kylith

garkane wrote: »

With these developments at Crufts this is what will happen...
(well what I think is going to happen)

The "best of breed" dog/bitch who now by the new rules/standards at Crufts is now not the best of breed..

This dog/bitch will now be bred with a dog/bitch who is not quite as good as the old rules/standards for best of breed would be...

This then mating creates a pup that by the old rules/standards would not be good enough but with new rules/standards it will be good enough...

Therefore that dog/bitch who is now deemed not good enough will still be used for breeding...

Next year or the year after it will no longer be used, but until then. . .

I disagree. The dogs that make it to Crufts are far from 'not good enough', the difference between Best and Reserve may be a matter of a centimetre of height or a couple of degrees of leg, indeed choice of best of breed may well differ from jusdge to judge. What we will start to see now is Best of Breeds who are also healthy, which can only be a good thing. It's a poor look-out for a breed if the best of them is diseased.

Wibbs

This is very good news though remarkably long in coming. The non Crufts dogs in the street could see many breeds were becoming walking genetic and functional disasters. Even with these measures where's the line drawn? EG even a "healthy" British Bulldog is stiff legged, overly stocky with an excessively flat face and nothing like the working dog it used to be.

planetX wrote: »

I wouldn't, but I can guarantee there's a waiting list of people who will:mad:

That would be my concern too. Some doggie people breeders and buyers are hellbent on wanting the fashionable mutant look. It's gonna take a long time to change that I suspect.

are you serious

kylith wrote: »

I disagree. The dogs that make it to Crufts are far from 'not good enough', the difference between Best and Reserve may be a matter of a centimetre of height or a couple of degrees of leg, indeed choice of best of breed may well differ from jusdge to judge. What we will start to see now is Best of Breeds who are also healthy, which can only be a good thing. It's a poor look-out for a breed if the best of them is diseased.

KYLITH this is a direct quote from the link on the Crufts page and nowhere does it say that the dogs were diseased....
“The veterinary checks were introduced to ensure that dogs with exaggerated features do not win prizes. The independent veterinary surgeon decided that the Pekingese and Bulldog should not pass their checks and therefore they did not receive their Best of Breed awards and will not be representing their breeds in the remainder of the competition.”

I know full well why certain dogs win at shows and some dogs dont. It is almost always the Judges preference and not which dog meets the breed standards..

As you said the difference between BOB and Reserve is maybe height or angulation..

Does this not only back up my thought that the almost best will be bred with the (old) best creating a new best... ?

Bullseye1

Was there any mention of the King Charles? On that recent BBC series the breeder of a BiB neither confirmed nor denied her dog had the brain abnormality. It appeared the whole King Charles club was in denial apart from that one courageous woman.

Bullseye1

Couldn't the dog insurance companies take a stronger lead in in this by insisting that dogs are tested before they breed them. At the end of the day it is they who will be forking out the millions in vets fees.

DamagedTrax

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Was there any mention of the King Charles? On that recent BBC series the breeder of a BiB neither confirmed nor denied her dog had the brain abnormality. It appeared the whole King Charles club was in denial apart from that one courageous woman.

the king charles club now have a health officer in place that is in total support of your woman and they seem to be making a bit of a difference.

that BiB woman didnt need to confirm or deny about her dog as the medical proof was already available. she just ended up looking a twat on tv

Bullseye1

I also thought the women importing the healthy strain of Dalmations was also courageous. The pedigree dog breeders need more of these people.

DamagedTrax

the KC standards are a joke in most breeds.

seriously, which looks the healthier more resiliant dog to you

this kc type



or this



i certainly know which i'd be going for yet the second dog falls well outside of 'breed standard' because it doesnt carry a massive head, extra weight and isnt stumpy (14" - 16" is stupidly small for the weight they're expected to carry at show)

they talk about breeding for purpose yet the purpose is completely bred out of the staffy. i know its pointless as bull baiting and fighting are illegal but if you're gonna claim you're breeding for purpose then at least make some sort of attempt to do it.

... and as for the poor german shepard

Bullseye1

They look completely different. One looks like a power lifter on steroids and the other looks like a Navy Seal.

It's a similar comparison between the British Bulldog and the American Bulldog. If you look at photographs from the late 1800's and early 1900's the British Bulldog looks more like the American version does now. It's bizarre.

DamagedTrax

thankfully there are people breeding back to older standards now with the stafford. most people i walk with would have the larger, leaner dogs.

the british bulldog is a disaster. i adore the american bulldog, it looks like it does the job and those guys own the weight pulling world.

kylith

garkane wrote: »

KYLITH this is a direct quote from the link on the Crufts page and nowhere does it say that the dogs were diseased....
“The veterinary checks were introduced to ensure that dogs with exaggerated features do not win prizes. The independent veterinary surgeon decided that the Pekingese and Bulldog should not pass their checks and therefore they did not receive their Best of Breed awards and will not be representing their breeds in the remainder of the competition.”

I know full well why certain dogs win at shows and some dogs dont. It is almost always the Judges preference and not which dog meets the breed standards..

As you said the difference between BOB and Reserve is maybe height or angulation..

Does this not only back up my thought that the almost best will be bred with the (old) best creating a new best... ?

In my opinion a dog who's out by a couple of degrees but can breathe is better than a dog who is spot on in angulation, but can't breathe. This is what the judges must learn to look for. If the judge chose a dog who got disqualified as BoB then they chose the wrong dog.

DamagedTrax

+1

if a dog is medically affected/afflicted it shouldnt be best of anything.

Discodog

The Kennel Club has been forced to act. Many of the breed clubs totally oppose the KC. Breeders are making a fortune out of the desire for "extreme" dogs. The buying public won't change until there is social pressure - in other words when owning a mutant is socially unacceptable.

I think that the first report that questioned the KC breed standards was around 1969. Nothing changed until PDE - has there ever been a case of a program having such an impact ? After the first PDE the attitude in the KC & Breed clubs was that all the fuss would die down. There is a lot of criticism of Pedigree when it comes to their dogfood but they should be recognised for dropping Crufts.

My view is that Crufts is still a freak show & at the current rate it will take many years to change. During that time thousands of dogs will suffer needlessly. The KC should of made a real statement & put a moratorium on all shows, including Crufts, whilst this mess was being sorted out. A vet should thoroughly examine every entrant to any show. If in his opinion the animal is suffering or impaired due to breeding then the breeder should be prosecuted.

We are told that the vast majority of breeders are "responsible" yet they are not responsible enough to speak out en mass. Why don't they form their own association & run their own shows ? If they are not in it for the money why don't the breeders abandon "championship" style KC pedigrees & introduce a health pedigree instead ?

**Vai**

Bout bloody time. Now hopefully they will do something about the GSD.

Knine

The Clumber Spaniel didn't past its vet check either today. However it has had the specialist tests done -

HEALTH TESTS:
-HD-A/A, Elbows-0/0, Patellas – free, Eyes – clear, PDP1 - clear

I think they are leaving themselves open to lawsuits. Its going to be an interesting few days judging with GSD's, Bassets still to go. They have earmarked 15 breeds

ISDW

Knine wrote: »

The Clumber Spaniel didn't past its vet check either today. However it has had the specialist tests done -

HEALTH TESTS:
-HD-A/A, Elbows-0/0, Patellas – free, Eyes – clear, PDP1 - clear

I think they are leaving themselves open to lawsuits. Its going to be an interesting few days judging with GSD's, Bassets still to go. They have earmarked 15 breeds

I believe the Clumber has conjunctivitis, which is why it failed.

I think its brilliant that they are withholding the BoB, but how on earth did these dogs get to this position in the first place? And they still get the CC.

Knine

I just seen a copy of the vet cert on facebook. The dog had entropian which causes conjunctivitis, also canker of the ear was mentioned. I don't know how the judge didnt spot that as Ive seen dogs with this condition and its not something you can hide.

FoxyVixen

It's great that the KC is taken on board the health of the dogs, it's about bloody time in all honesty. But why are they going about it backwards??

Brilliant that those dogs didn't get to participate in BoB.
However they still won in their respective classes, thereby implying that it's still acceptable to breed to that standard of genetic defect for want of a better term.

Why weren't they vet checked before said classes and denied permission to participate? Smells a bit fishy to me. Looks more like they're trying to hush critics a bit. Interesting to see how the GSD fairs.

TooManyDogs

FoxyVixen wrote: »

It's great that the KC is taken on board the health of the dogs, it's about bloody time in all honesty. But why are they going about it backwards??

Brilliant that those dogs didn't get to participate in BoB.
However they still won in their respective classes, thereby implying that it's still acceptable to breed to that standard of genetic defect for want of a better term.

Why weren't they vet checked before said classes and denied permission to participate? Smells a bit fishy to me. Looks more like they're trying to hush critics a bit. Interesting to see how the GSD fairs.

We were talking about that earlier, the only conclusion we came to was that 1 vet could check 15 dogs but how many vets would be needed to check every dog going into the classes associated with each of the 15 breeds? It could simply be a logistical decision

ABajaninCork

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I also thought the women importing the healthy strain of Dalmations was also courageous. The pedigree dog breeders need more of these people.

Do you mean the lady who cross bred a Dalmatian with a Pointer? The dog is called Fiona and competed at Crufts last year. Don't know if she made it through again though.

I wish they would extend the vet checks to ALL BoB's TBH.

Cherry Blossom

FoxyVixen wrote: »

Why weren't they vet checked before said classes and denied permission to participate? Smells a bit fishy to me. Looks more like they're trying to hush critics a bit. Interesting to see how the GSD fairs.

This was the very first 'outing' of the new rules. No better place for it to be implemented that such a high profile event that gets so much media coverage. The checks will apply to the 15 breeds before they can be given their Championship title from this point onwards. They are trying to put the responsibility on the judges and rightly so. The dog's were awarded BOB by people with a vested interest in the breeds, the implications were that the breed in its entirety was not represented as a result of their perception of what is 'best', so it makes them all sit up and take notice. If the checks were done before entry to BOB this wouldn't have happened and the breeds would still have been represented in the groups. Would we all be talking about it if it wasn't first implemented at Crufts?

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/3494/23/5/3

There are *rumours floating around that both the peke and the bulldog failed on old eye injuries that are now healed, not something that can be geneticly tested for but both breeds are prone to eye injuries due to the exaggerated facial features. There will no official statement so I can only assume this information has originated from the owners.

*disclaimer

CL32

Great news.

Make the bulldog a bit healthier and give him a better quality of life and I'll take ten of them please Bob.

Bullseye1

ABajaninCork wrote: »

Do you mean the lady who cross bred a Dalmatian with a Pointer? The dog is called Fiona and competed at Crufts last year. Don't know if she made it through again though.

I wish they would extend the vet checks to ALL BoB's TBH.

I don't think she personally cross breed the pointer into the dalmation. It was a breeder in the USA who identified that the existing breed was missing an important chemical which the pointer DNA could provide. It was done over years so that the dalmation in the US are very healthy. The woman in the UK imported some dogs and is breeding them.

At the end of the day all of these with very few exceptions are man made. In recent years European breeders have been responsible for creating some monsters. What the guy in America did was something very positive and has created a healthy strain. Hopefully this Cruffs is a wake up call to these breeders who bring other breeding into disrepute. There are plenty of good and healthy breeders and these people should be rewarded.

Cherry Blossom

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Was there any mention of the King Charles?

From my understanding of the tests they wouldn't suit as they seem to be looking for signs of how exaggerated features have impacted the dog negatively, with a lot of the Cavs problems there may no visible symptoms so they could well be letting badly affected dogs pass. Maybe it's not possible to measure a Cavs head and tell anything from that alone. I'm pretty sure they will extend the tests beyond what they consist of at the minute. But for the time being they are looking at problems that are easily identified (it also has to be fair). It probably would require a fairly extensive understanding of the various breed problems, how they are diagnosed and what they are trying to achieve here to completely 'get' why they have set it up the way they have. All I know is it's progress and good progress into the bargin, and hopefully there is still more to come.

Discodog

Surely it would be a very simple matter to introduce a full mandatory health check before you can enter a dog in any competition. If the dog had a propensity to a genetic disorder, like the Cavalier, then it should have to be genetically screened. The same health certificate could then be used when selling it's offspring. This could all be done by the owner's Vet months before any competition. Advertising sites could then insist that the license number is printed on any adverts.

Many of the dogs that are "failing" are doing so because of medical conditions & not genetic mutations. Does it really matter whether a Bulldog's face protrudes by x or y millimetres - the facts are that it can't breath. The only reason for the KC pretending to get tough is because of the publicity that surrounds Crufts & that isn't there at the BoB shows.

The real depth of the problem was illustrated during PDE by the Boxer breeder who ignores health advice even though they are a Vet ! That person should be banned from any breeding or showing & disbarred from Veterinary practice.

Hopefully the PDE follow up will cause Channel 4 to review it's sponsorship. It would of been a huge statement if the "responsible" breeders had used Crufts to protest for better welfare - in other words to back their words with actions.

borderlinemeath

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

From my understanding of the tests they wouldn't suit as they seem to be looking for signs of how exaggerated features have impacted the dog negatively, with a lot of the Cavs problems there may no visible symptoms so they could well be letting badly affected dogs pass. Maybe it's not possible to measure a Cavs head and tell anything from that alone. I'm pretty sure they will extend the tests beyond what they consist of at the minute. But for the time being they are looking at problems that are easily identified (it also has to be fair). It probably would require a fairly extensive understanding of the various breed problems, how they are diagnosed and what they are trying to achieve here to completely 'get' why they have set it up the way they have. All I know is it's progress and good progress into the bargin, and hopefully there is still more to come.

Syringomyelia can only be accurately diagnosed by an MRI scan so that wasn't going to happen at crufts. The stats on it are chronic, something like 95% of cavs have the malformed skull formation (part of the cause) and over 50% go on to develop SM.

Discodog

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Syringomyelia can only be accurately diagnosed by an MRI scan so that wasn't going to happen at crufts. The stats on it are chronic, something like 95% of cavs have the malformed skull formation (part of the cause) and over 50% go on to develop SM.

And you can bet your bottom dollar that the breeders won't be queuing up to have it done. In reality programs like PDE get a very small audience. There will be thousands of people buying cute Cavaliers who have no idea of the risk.

borderlinemeath

Discodog wrote: »

And you can bet your bottom dollar that the breeders won't be queuing up to have it done. In reality programs like PDE get a very small audience. There will be thousands of people buying cute Cavaliers who have no idea of the risk.

If they want to be KC registered they'll have to. Although the US KC haven't acknowledged it yet.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cts=1331393078325&ved=0CC8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cavalierhealth.org%2Fsyringomyelia.htm&ei=AXFbT7PtGYXAhAfU7sCoBA&usg=AFQjCNG2upPzoRTJ_01FjHQlt0gnOZkDhg

The British Veterinary Association (BVA) and the UK's Kennel Club (KC) issued in March 2012 a set of Chiari-like malformation and syringomyelia (CM/SM) breeding guidelines*, with the aim of removing from breeding programs, cavalier King Charles spaniels with early-onset SM, and thereby reducing or even eliminating the incidence of CM/SM in future generations of cavaliers.
* This SM breeding protocol is limited to cavaliers (and other breeds) registered with the UK's Kennel Club. The two USA national cavalier clubs have refused to acknowledge the existence of any SM breeding guidelines, and the US clubs place no restrictions on breeding cavaliers with CM/SM. See Editor's Note, below.

This breeding protocol replaces the 2006 SM breeding protocol which was approved by a panel of veterinary neurologists at an international syringomyelia conference. Click here to read that 2006 SM breeding protocol.

While the 2012 CM/SM scheme is open to all breeds, and particularly certain toy breeds and their crosses, it is no secret that CM/SM is largely a genetic disease of the cavalier King Charles spaniel, and but for the fact that nearly all cavaliers have CM and a vast majority of them have SM, the BVA and the Kennel Club would not have united to create this CM/SM scheme. See Syringomyelia for details of these disorders.

Discodog

If I were beating my dog I would face prosecution & the beating would have to stop immediately. The analogy here is the suffering is allowed to continue whilst "guidelines" are drawn up which may or may not be followed or be mandatory.

The KC, the Vets & the RSPCA should of got together & announced a total ban on the breeding of Cavaliers. There needs to be a total moratorium until you can be sure of not causing further suffering. The only reason why this can't be done is money as greed is more important than health.

There seems to be this almost grovelling attitude in animal welfare that we should be very grateful for small mercies. Many animal welfare groups had to be seen to "show gratitude" for the Dog Breeding Bill even though it legalises puppy farming. We have to be grateful for the grace & favour grants given out to rescues and we will have to accept an Animal Welfare Bill that is likely to fall well short of what is required. The same attitude seems to be prevalent regarding the tiny reluctant changes being made by the KC.

borderlinemeath

Discodog wrote: »

If I were beating my dog I would face prosecution & the beating would have to stop immediately. The analogy here is the suffering is allowed to continue whilst "guidelines" are drawn up which may or may not be followed or be mandatory.

The KC, the Vets & the RSPCA should of got together & announced a total ban on the breeding of Cavaliers. There needs to be a total moratorium until you can be sure of not causing further suffering. The only reason why this can't be done is money as greed is more important than health.

There seems to be this almost grovelling attitude in animal welfare that we should be very grateful for small mercies. Many animal welfare groups had to be seen to "show gratitude" for the Dog Breeding Bill even though it legalises puppy farming. We have to be grateful for the grace & favour grants given out to rescues and we will have to accept an Animal Welfare Bill that is likely to fall well short of what is required. The same attitude seems to be prevalent regarding the tiny reluctant changes being made by the KC.

I agree with you about cavs, with any other breed you *should be able to find a healthy example, although it might not be to "breed standard" but they are edging in the right direction with that.

With the myriad of diseases and disorders that the cav suffers from, it's extremely rare to find a healthy strain, anywhere. It's a breed that's promoted as a good all round family dog and for that part seem to be exploited to the hilt by puppy farmers and bybs. SM was the only disease mentioned on PDE but mitral valve disease is rife in the breed as well - affects older dogs but in cavs it's 20 times more prevalent than any other breed. Even with cross breeding programmes to eliminate SM, and MVD there's still plenty of eye and hip and knee problems to deal with.


*not an expert so correct me if I'm wrong!

Discodog

borderlinemeath wrote: »

I agree with you about cavs, with any other breed you *should be able to find a healthy example, although it might not be to "breed standard" but they are edging in the right direction with that.

I would have to disagree. Is there any breed that can't suffer from health issues as a result of inbreeding ? Is "edging" good enough ? If I am breaking the law can I tell the Judge that I am edging towards legality ? Even our old Cruelty to Animals Acts defines cruelty as causing unnecessary suffering. Why should irresponsible dog breeding be immune ?

borderlinemeath

Discodog wrote: »

I would have to disagree. Is there any breed that can't suffer from health issues as a result of inbreeding ? Is "edging" good enough ? If I am breaking the law can I tell the Judge that I am edging towards legality ? Even our old Cruelty to Animals Acts defines cruelty as causing unnecessary suffering. Why should irresponsible dog breeding be immune ?

I'm not talking specifically about inbreeding or the poor examples that some consider to be "breed standard". I'm saying that with other breeds you can find healthier examples that with crossbreeding can improve the health of the breed. Take the dalmation Fiona that was crossed with the pointer as an example.

With cavs, there's just so so many problems that it's next to impossible to find an example of a dog that doesn't suffer from either SM or MVD or both. I'm saying the future for the breed is very grim indeed.

Cherry Blossom

Discodog wrote: »

I would have to disagree. Is there any breed that can't suffer from health issues as a result of inbreeding ? Is "edging" good enough ? If I am breaking the law can I tell the Judge that I am edging towards legality ? Even our old Cruelty to Animals Acts defines cruelty as causing unnecessary suffering. Why should irresponsible dog breeding be immune ?

There is no dog fullstop that can be guaranteed to be free of health issues, inbred or not. This all comes back to your anti-breeding agenda which is completely unreasonable. Your suggestion of putting a stop to breeding of Cav's is completely irrational.

The KC, the Vets & the RSPCA should of got together & announced a total ban on the breeding of Cavaliers. There needs to be a total moratorium until you can be sure of not causing further suffering. The only reason why this can't be done is money as greed is more important than health.

Congratulations, you just made Cav's a puppy farm/byb only breed and probably wiped out the entire 5% free of SM and MVD. :rolleyes:

In other news - two of the Mastiff breeds disqualified today while Kermit hobbled round the ring to take 3rd in the Pastoral group over a plethora of dogs 100 times more capable of herding up sheep including all 4 of the Belgian breeds which are slowly replacing them in police kennels in Europe.

So far one third of the 15 ear-marked breeds have been disqualified from the groups with still two waiting their turn tomorrow.

planetX

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

There is no dog fullstop that can be guaranteed to be free of health issues, inbred or not. This all comes back to your anti-breeding agenda which is completely unreasonable. Your suggestion of putting a stop to breeding of Cav's is completely irrational.



Congratulations, you just made Cav's a puppy farm/byb only breed and probably wiped out the entire 5% free of SM and MVD. :rolleyes:

In other news - two of the Mastiff breeds disqualified today while Kermit hobbled round the ring to take 3rd in the Pastoral group over a plethora of dogs 100 times more capable of herding up sheep including all 4 of the Belgian breeds which are slowly replacing them in police kennels in Europe.

So far one third of the 15 ear-marked breeds have been disqualified from the groups with still two waiting their turn tomorrow.

irrational? It was suggested by a vet. 5% free of SM is not enough of a genepool to continue an already horribly inbred breed - unless people accept the need for introducing healthy genes from other breeds. That would mean someone very knowledgable 'controlling' the breeding. More realistic to let the breed go.

Wibbs

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

There is no dog fullstop that can be guaranteed to be free of health issues, inbred or not.

Whose talking about guarantees though AJs? Between the extremes of many pedigrees and say the Australian Dingo that would only have background levels of genetic damage, there are breeds and "mutts" of those breeds that are relatively free of health issues. There exists a huge gulf between "inbred or not". Selective* inbreeding massively increases the risk of health issues. This is a given. It narrows the gene pool selecting for certain traits and alongside those traits come the problems. This goes triple for traits that go against function. IE flat faced traits a perfect example. Racehorses seem to suffer a lot less, maybe because the selection is for pure function which goes hand in hand with overall health? In dogs greyhounds are very much on the lower end of the genetic health issues front maybe for the same reasons? IMHO the second we start breeding for looks outside the functional "dog shape" we're in trouble.

In other news - two of the Mastiff breeds disqualified today while Kermit hobbled round the ring to take 3rd in the Pastoral group over a plethora of dogs 100 times more capable of herding up sheep including all 4 of the Belgian breeds which are slowly replacing them in police kennels in Europe.

Yea AJ it's sad to see the state the GSD is in. It's not so long ago the GSD was the go to dog for overall strength agility and obedience. Not any more. My worry is that if those Belgian breeds get popular among "civilians" then the same guff might happen again. That said I doubt it. Larger dogs of that type don't seem to be popular anymore. Certainly in Ireland anyway. It's rare enough you see GSD's anymore. Ditto for Dobermans and the like. When I was a kid it seemed every second person had a GSD or dog like it. Now it's much more the small dog breeds I see in my travels. I can't recall ever seeing a Belgian shepherd. Rotties seem to have replaced that type of dog if people are looking for the larger dog. Or is this just me/my locale



*I say selective, because narrow genetic diversity isn't so much the issue. Contrary to popular belief - and I'd have believed it myself before I read an article on the research - wild wolves can be quite "inbred", can have quite narrow gene pools in an area(not unlike us humans). Yet for all that genetic health in those populations is good. EG not a single wolf in the US has ever tested positive for hip dysplasia. Neither has the coyote or the Dingo. Studies in captive wolves show they have hip scores at or very near zero. A score very few dogs would have and no GSDs.

Discodog

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

There is no dog fullstop that can be guaranteed to be free of health issues, inbred or not. This all comes back to your anti-breeding agenda which is completely unreasonable. Your suggestion of putting a stop to breeding of Cav's is completely irrational.

You constantly refer to responsible ownership - it's one of your agendas. You also frequently refer to responsible breeders. The simple fact is that, in the opinion of some experts, the Cavalier has reached a tipping point where there simply may not be enough healthy individuals left in the gene pool.

How can it be responsible ownership or breeding to produce a dog that has such a huge likelihood of developing an excruciatingly painful, incurable disease ? So what if the "breed" disappears. It is really more important to have a specific "breed" than healthy dogs.

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Congratulations, you just made Cav's a puppy farm/byb only breed and probably wiped out the entire 5% free of SM and MVD.

If the breeding of Cavaliers were banned by law it would effect puppy farms just as much as "responsible breeders". One could consider setting up a screened breeding program but would the cost be justified just to produce a dog that looks a bit different to other dogs ?

In the past if someone had asked me where to get a pedigree dog I would always refer them to the Breed Club. I like many others made the natural assumption that they would not only be experts but would prioritise issues like health. It turns out that you are just as likely to get an unhealthy dog from the "responsible" breeder than from a puppy farm, perhaps even more likely.

The Breed Clubs will blame the KC & the KC will blame the Breed Clubs for not following the new rules. The KC have been happy to allow ten of thousands of dogs to suffer & now they are pretending to care.

The only "Anti" in my agenda is against pain & suffering.

DamagedTrax

great to see the staffy in best of group was a nice tall chunky lad!

CrowdedHouse

Lhasa Apso \o/

Bet the one in Crufts isn't allowed play in the sand like ours........:D


DSC_1053 by Crowded_House, on Flickr

mymo

Lovely dogs, we have one and my daughter was delighted.
Ours looks just like your cream girl, but with added mud this morning;)

Anyone hear how Andreac got on?

ABajaninCork

Yes, we watched it last night and my husband picked out the Lhasa as the winner!:D I personally liked the dog very much, but thought the Newfie should've won.

No chance of my SiL's Lhasa looking like that though. He loves the mud too much. As for my Shih Tzu? Forget it! It's all I can do to brush and clip him, never mind giving him a show coat. My boy has the attention span of a flea and as much patience!!:D