Crufts disQs (disqualifies) 6 best of breeds
Quote: The pedigree dog show world has been stunned by landmark decisions made at Crufts this year: six dogs that had been chosen as best of their breeds (Bulldog, Pekingese, Clumber Spaniel, Mastiff, Neopolitan Mastiff and Basset Hound) failed the new veterinary health check. As a consequence, the prize-winning pooches were banned from proceeding to the Best in Group judging. And so ended six dog show enthusiasts' dreams of winning Best in Show at Crufts, the ultimate accolade for a show dog. Health inspections by an independent veterinary surgeon were a new feature this year at Crufts. In response to criticism that not enough was being done to promote good health in prize winning dogs, the Kennel Club instituted a compulsory health check for all dogs that win Best of Breed in fifteen “high profile breeds” (these are breeds that have been particularly criticised for conformation that does not allow a dog to enjoy full health). If any dog fails this health check, it is effectively given a red card, being withdrawn from the remainder of the competition. Up until now, some people may have felt that this health check was going to be lip service to the critics by the Kennel Club. The decisions at Crufts this past weekend confirm that the Kennel Club is serious about enforcing its stated ideals of “celebrating happy healthy dogs”. The inspecting veterinary surgeon specifically assessed four areas of concern on the health front: eye disease, respiratory problems, skin disease and mobility issues. The specific grounds for failure of the disqualified dogs have not yet been announced but the bottom line was that an independent vet decided that their appearance was inconsistent with full, normal health. Ironically, the Bulldog that was judged to be second-best-of-breed was the pre-booked guest on the More-4 Crufts television discussion on Thursday evening. The reason for her tv appearance: she's an example of the “new, healthy” type of Bulldog, with a longer nose and less congested breathing. There's an obvious question: if she had pipped the winning dog at the post for “Best of Breed”, would she too have failed the health test? Is the Bulldog, as a breed, capable of passing health tests? Sorry, it's a long quote but raises some interesting issues.  It would be interesting to see why each was DQed but could this finally be movement to breeding for health, not just "achievement of pefection" of standard (especially if the standard does not include anything related to health). Pekes are "lap dogs" and not expected to bring in the flock, so do they need to have the stamina.....or apparently ability to breathe? But what about the others? Why were they DQed? eye folds, hips, skin.....or ?? |
|
|
| Crufts had gotten stricter this yea due to the fact of unhealthy dogs and how they have been inbred wrongly. Personally i think its great how they have finally understood this matter. The vets have to check each best of breed before letting them into main arena for best of group. Those dogs got dQuilified due to irregualr health, look etc.. for example the basset hound, over the years it has become a stubby, joules long blood shot eyes et.... in the past it looked nothing like it. Also the charles spaniel, the brain is too big for the skull causing it fits and pain  The KC are trying to bring back the normal breeds, and encourage better breeding in pedigree dogs. I beliveif owners are unhappy about their dogs being dQuilified , then if they bred healthy dogsin the first place this wouldnt have happened. Breed standards arent being met. so sad but reality is this.  |
| Too busy to explain why this is a backwards approach to health issues in dogs. Fortunately veterinarian & lawyer Marty Greer says it much better than I could anyway. The first part addresses the so-called health checks at Crufts. The second reponds to a different and oft repeated claim. Both are good reads. Enjoy.  http://naia.typepad.com/naia/2011/01/cr ... ow-up.html Kristine |
| Without knowing ANYTHING about the issue, at first blush one might think they would want to do it at some point in time before they were judged to be best of breed at Crufts... |
| I like the opinion expressed in that link Kristine posted. And echoing Ron above, it is a really bad way to do it for the credibility of Crufts and the judges at Crufts. These dogs are judged to be best of breed followed by a vet who says those dogs are unhealthy dogs? Are not the judges enraged by that? I'd think they'd find it utterly humiliating. There are definitely health concerns with some aspects of breeding some dogs like bulldogs, but this is a terrible way to try and "fix" it in my opinion. |
| That would be called 'nipping it in the bud' Ron. And you're spot on. This should be a requirement across the board as a prerequisite of getting in any show ESPECIALLY of that level. I didn't like how they singled out certain breeds. Test them all if you're gonna test. Vance |
Vance wrote: That would be called 'nipping it in the bud' Ron. And you're spot on. This should be a requirement across the board as a prerequisite of getting in any show ESPECIALLY of that level. I didn't like how they singled out certain breeds. Test them all if you're gonna test. Vance But as pointed out by the vet in Kristine's link, this is just merely cursory physical examination. What about a breed winning dog that has some invisible, yet serious genetic condition which would not be found by a quick vet check? |
| This is interesting. Is this done at Westminster? Other shows? What happened to the dog de bordeux that passed away at the show? He was on three. |
| Interesting article posted by Kristine--a very common sense analysis. Common sense seems to be absent on many levels with the process they chose IMO. The process was implemented backwards at the very least. Pre-screening makes much more sense--but doesn't create near the controversy. Was that the goal??? |
| I think the public needs to know exactly why each of the 6 dogs was disqualified... without knowing that, it's hard to even begin to form an opinion as to whether disqualification was truly justified. Was it obvious the dog was affected or was it borderline... and where's the proof so we can decide for ourselves? Validation of health should have come as a condition for entry rather than public embarrassment after winning. It was rather silly to have a dog win BOB in the show ring based on appearance then declared unhealthy. It was a waste of everyone's time/money. So no dog took BOB for that breed? That would be disappointing for others too. I understand the objective... dogs with prestigious titles will be highly sought after to produce litters... males may produce a high number of offspring. I just don't think this was done logically. It was unfair to single out just a handful of breeds though. Some of the conditions mentioned on the list were serious, others less so... but still not anything an owner wants their dog to have. http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/downloa ... oninfo.pdf Assuming people showing this year knew going in that their dogs would be examined if they won? Hmm.. I wonder if any had 3rd party health clearances but were deemed unhealthy at this show? That would be a can of worms for sure. Honestly, I can see how you'd need to better understand breeding and the limits of perfection within each breed in order to have a better view on this... |
| But the main issue is the Judging. Sort out the Judging you will sort out alot of issues. In alot of cases the go by who is on the other end of the lead not the dog and another point is they have no proof who the dog is as there is no dna check in the uk or id cards on the dog/bitch |
| Sounds to me like the process was done out of order? maybe a high profile appologie is in order from the kennel club and crufts is in order? Although I would not be at all surprised if media schedules pressure had some bearing on this screwup. On a side note, the same could be said for airlines - bare with me. Why allow travellers to fly to another country - some flight stages are well over 12 hours. To be told at that country they are in the wrong (for what ever reason) and turned around arrested or whatever. If they can detect drugs plants food etc at arrivals why on earth can't they do it at departures? |
| The airline issue is completely different. It is a financial decision to check as they enter, rather than as they leave for another country. The agents are trained to deal with only the requirements for the country people/cargo are entering. To check as they exit a country, the agents would either have to know multiple rules, be hired by an independent company (could we trust them to follow out rules) or have multiple staff sent to every airport that flies to or connects to an airport that flies into our country. I like the idea of a standardized vet exam prior to showing, perhaps annually. But there needs to be a limited pool of approved vets for each breed - specialists as it were. That way, each dog in a breed is held to the same vetinary standards/requirements. Genetic testing would only need to be done once for each dog and could be in a central database. |
| Here's an interesting video photo essay that compares dogs from the early 1900's to dogs bred today. It illustrates why people are concerned and very upset about the state of dog breeding/exhibiting today. It's long (9 minutes) but give it a chance. It starts off gently and takes on the more controversial breeds as it progresses. Maybe people who exhibit and breed dogs today are too close and too heavily invested to look at the condition of their breeds objectively. |
| I used to love GSD, now I nearly cry when I see them. |
| that was a great video. It shows how much breeds have been changed for show over the years. Some are heartbreaking, |
SheepieBoss wrote: I used to love GSD, now I nearly cry when I see them. I have a friend who purchased both of his GSDs (the second after the death of his first one) from a breeder who specializes in GSDs for police work. The dogs she breeds would lose in a show ring, but they are incredibly healthy, strong working dogs with great body structure and temperament. Border collie owners and breeders fought for years to prevent AKC recognition of the breed. They judged each dog based on its lineage and ability to work, not on its appearance. We saw plenty of working border collies at sheepdog trials where we used to live, and there was quite a range of physical characteristics among the competing dogs. A "breed standard" in and of itself is not necessarily a bad idea. I wouldn't have purchased purebred Sheepie if I didn't research and understand the breed first. It is when the health and well-being of a breed is in danger of becoming compromised as a result that I begin to question the standards. As for the Crufts veterinary exams (back to the original topic!), I agree that it seems more appropriate to do a thorough physical before competing, as opposed to after the winner is declared. Or check all the winners, rather than a select few. Besides, a veterinarian and a show judge are looking at the dogs from two different perspectives, right? (Ron, can we have an emoticon for "getting off of my soapbox now?"  ) |
SheepieBoss wrote: I used to love GSD, now I nearly cry when I see them. Yes. Me too. Jonsey wrote: (Ron, can we have an emoticon for "getting off of my soapbox now?" )Not sure what that would look like... Maybe we need one of someone ON a soapbox that could precede the oratory!  |
| If they have a health card ( DNA,checks on the issues of that breed ) it would solve many issues. You are showing the right dog/bitch also the breeding issues. Then they can sort out the other issues. |
Parwaz wrote: If they have a health card ( DNA,checks on the issues of that breed ) it would solve many issues. You are showing the right dog/bitch also the breeding issues. Then they can sort out the other issues. If all of our dogs are micro chip and then scanned before shown at Crufts they would have all the details of the health checks that dog has had IE:Hips,eyes, p.c.d. elbows,ectra, and the dog would be the right dog beening shown,  |
Thanks for posting the video!!! I knew before I decided to watch it that I would cry, and I did......like a baby.  I think breeders should really think about how their "selections" are affecting the breed, not just about if it will give them an edge in the ring. Considering this is an oes forum and the oes was mentioned in the video.......what do we think about the physical traits we are selecting for? |
| I agreed with the video on most of those "extreme" breed traits, but I thought the example of the OES was a little bit unfair. Unless Im really mistaken, the "old style" OES they showed is trimmed down. My modern "show quality" sheepies pretty much look like that most of the time too! I do have concerns though about the thickness and softness of modern OES coats. My youngest dog is MUCH more difficult to groom, compared to my older girl, and other past OES I have owned or known, whose coats were courser. Is this just a specific quirk (for Bert) or a recent breed trend? |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|