The following comes from Alison Skipper, one of the health check vets at Crufts:
One of the few positive things about being one of the two independent vets at the centre of this controversy is that I am, at least, independent. What I am about to write is my own opinion, and nobody has told me what to say, or even asked me to say it. Most of the other big players in this story have a vested interest of some kind: they are important people in the Kennel Club, or the British Veterinary Association (BVA), and so can’t speak completely freely, or they are well known people within the dog world, such as important judges or exhibitors.
Will Jeffels and I are not any of these things: we trained as vets because we like animals and wanted to work with them, and we volunteered to be the first vets implementing the new show checks because we supported the initiative and decided – rashly, perhaps – to get involved. I haven’t even seen Will for 20 years or so – we didn’t meet during Crufts – but we are united in our willingness to stand behind the reforms. I grew up on the fringes of the dog show world. My mother took out our family affix in 1952, and was a regular breeder during the 1950s. I’ve been coming to Crufts since it was at Olympia, with the clickety- clackity old wooden escalators up from the tube station. I’ve been a small animal vet for 22 years, and have had pedigree dogs of my own throughout this time.
I used to be very active in Australian Cattle Dogs, and was one of the driving forces behind an international effort in 1996 to source samples to develop a DNA test for PRA in the ACD; this was rewarded by the development of a gene specific test by OptiGen in 2004.
I wrote the veterinary column for Our Dogs for over five years. I am currently (unless they kick me out over this) a member of four breed specific canine societies. At the moment, I have four dogs of smaller breeds. Over my time in dogs, I’ve done a bit of showing, including at Crufts, I’ve bred three litters (with one DIY caesarian!), and I’ve done club level agility for several years. I work in a small animal practice with lots of dog breeder clients, including some successful show kennels, and a large proportion of working dogs. However, I have never shown dogs seriously, and the one time I judged a match at a fun day, I realised that judging was not for me. What I am, I hope, is an ordinary vet with a strong interest in, and love for, the pedigree dog, a good degree of clinical competence, and enough personal integrity to do what I think is right. I know how the dog world works, but I know very few of the main players within it, and these, I think, are the reasons why the KC and BVA appointed me as one of these first two vets.
To go from a quiet life one week to being at the centre of such an emotive controversy the next is not easy, or fun. Why did I agree to do it? It wasn’t for the money; we didn’t get paid. The KC gave me food for the weekend, a bed for the night, and the chance to watch the groups on the days I was at Crufts, which was all very nice but I could have stayed at home and watched it on TV, and saved myself a lot of trouble. I’m not stupid: I knew it would be extremely controversial, and that I would probably have to make decisions that would be very unpopular. And it wasn’t without personal risk; if I were found guilty of false certification I could be struck off the veterinary register and lose my livelihood. That’s a pretty strong incentive to be accurate when carrying out a clinical examination.
I agreed to do this because I thought it would help to improve the health and welfare of pedigree dogs. Personally, I see nothing wrong in the ethical production of pedigree dogs, except perhaps for the argument that there aren’t enough good homes out there for the dogs there are already. A healthy, happy pedigree dog obviously has as good a quality of life as a healthy, happy mongrel. However, nobody is compelled to breed pedigree dogs. It’s something we all choose to do. And it seems to me that, if we are choosing to bring new dogs into the world, it’s only right that we should do what we can to produce dogs who are not physically prevented from having a good quality of life.
As has often been stated, there are two problems with this that are undeniably more of an issue with purebred dogs than with cross breeds: the various genetic issues that afflict different breeds, and the issues of health and welfare that relate directly to exaggerated conformation. For some years, ethical breeders have made huge progress in improving welfare through the various schemes for monitoring inherited disease. This is hugely important, and has clearly helped to improve lives for thousands of dogs; breeders should be proud of what they’ve achieved in this area.
But inherited disease is only one side of the coin, and until recently, the other side of the coin, the problems caused by extreme conformation, has been rather overlooked within the dog fancy. The two sides are quite separate; a breed can have very moderate conformation and be plagued by serious inherited disease issues, such as the Cavalier, or it can be relatively healthy in terms of invisible problems and yet have clear issues with some aspect of its body structure.
This high-profile breed scheme is a hugely important step towards reducing the problems associated with extreme conformation. Nobody ever said, “Oh good, I’ve produced a puppy which is going to suffer pain as a result of the body shape I chose!”, but it’s all too easy to overlook chronic low-level discomfort, and I think it’s undeniable that some breeds are associated with issues of this kind. Dogs that have always had exposed, irritated inner eyelids aren’t going to scream with pain or stop eating because their eyes hurt; they don’t know any differently, but surely the same dog would have a better quality of life if its eyelids fitted better to the eyeballs. It must be better to be a Pug who can chase its friends in the park than to be a Pug that struggles to walk along a path. Surely these things are not in dispute, or they shouldn’t be.
The brief that Will Jeffels and I were given by the KC was very clear: we were not meant to assess conformation in the same way as a judge would, and we were not meant to penalise a dog because of any aspect of its shape or structure, unless we felt that attribute had led to a problem with its health or welfare. So we couldn’t reject a dog just because it had a short face or lots of skin folds, for example, or because we didn’t like the way it moved; only if it had trouble breathing, or a skin infection, or was lame, as a result of its structure.
We were chosen to do this, rather than specialist vets, because Steve Dean thought it would be unfair for judges to be over- ruled by, for example, specialist ophthalmologists, because they might notice things that no judge could be expected to see. He thought that experienced general practitioners would know what’s normal and what isn’t – we earn our livings doing it – and would be able to see obvious problems that a judge could also see.
The KC told us exactly what they wanted us to do, and then left us to go and do it. They did not try to influence our decisions in any way. We could have passed – or failed – any or all of the 15 dogs quite freely. It is sad that some dogs failed, but I think it shows that there is a need for this scheme: if we had been assessing a group of Borzois or Cairns or Dalmatians I don’t think any would have failed. Obviously, I am bound by professional confidentiality and cannot comment on any of the dogs I examined. The owners are not so bound and I would be happy for any of the owners of the dogs I examined to make public the form I signed, in its entirety. I wrote several comments on most of them, and many of the comments I wrote were positive, even on dogs I failed. I have enormous sympathy for the owners of the dogs that were failed. It must have been disappointing, embarrassing and humiliating, and it gave me no pleasure at all to do it.
There are several general points from the examination process, however, which I think are worth emphasising. Firstly, there are many possible reasons for failure. Some of them may be temporary: lameness, for example, may have gone by the next day, but one fundamental rule of veterinary certification is that you can only attest to what you see before you at that moment; you cannot speculate on what the animal might have looked like five minutes earlier or five minutes later. Also, as with judging, there may be problems that are found on close examination of a dog that would not be visible from the ringside. Secondly, it’s obvious from the photographs on the Internet that some of the BOB winners which failed were indeed of more moderate conformation than some other dogs within that breed. It must have been particularly galling for those owners to fail. However, we weren’t being asked to judge whether a particular dog was better than the breed average; we only examined the winner, and if the winner still had a problem that affected its welfare on that day, our task was to say so.
If it displayed the least extreme conformation in its breed, then the judge had done the best job they could from the stock available, whatever the end result; and if the winner showed far more moderate conformation than would have been the case a few years ago, then that is still to be praised, even if there was still a problem.
One thing that I am angry about is that the media coverage is focused so exclusively on the dogs who unfortunately failed. I wish there were more attention on the dogs that were passed. Nine dogs were judged the best of their breed, passed as free from issues that were affecting their health and welfare, and went on to compete in their groups, with several being shortlisted by the group judges. Those breeds should be enormously proud of what they have achieved, because in many cases the winners were indeed of far less exaggerated conformation than they would have been a few years ago, which is a great cause for celebration.
Those breeders have done wonders. For example, even Jemima Harrison has written positively about the winning Bloodhound on her blog, which is remarkable. I was really glad to see ‘my’ Bloodhound in the big ring, moving soundly and with eyes free from discomfort. That’s what it should all be about.
It’s natural that emotions should be running high; change is often difficult. And it’s inevitable that there will be teething problems in a new and unprecedented process. Everyone who was involved in this endeavour will have learnt from it, and certainly there are some aspects of it that can be improved.
Will Jeffels and I strongly feel that the initiative is worthwhile, and we are continuing to support the KC in its efforts to promote healthier conformation. Dog showing is a sport, a hobby. The world would still spin on its axis if there were no dog shows. If we choose to spend our leisure time, or in some cases our careers, in the world of dog showing, we should remember that we wouldn’t be able to do it without the dogs, and the least we can do in return is to choose healthy body shapes for them to live their lives within.”
So the claim that these vets are anti-purebred dogs or animal rights activists is simply Dale Gribble conspiracy mongering.
They are very much supportive of purebred dogs and dog showing, which is why they would be the vets at a KC show of this stature in the first place.
This statement strongly suggests that much of the chest thumping about how healthy the dq’d dogs were is nothing more than spin or a simple misrepresentation of the facts.
The Kennel Club wants to have relevance in the future. These vet checks for BOB winners are a step in the direction of long-term institutional legitimacy.
And as for all the talk of forming an FCI registry in the UK, will the implication of this new registry be that this is the registry that doesn’t care about the health of its dogs?
Good luck with that!
***
Of course, not well-received on the anti-PDE Facebook Group:
(Click to make larger).
That woman’s blog is Pedigree Dog’s Exposed. And I’d hardly call her statement about Jemima Harrison’s coverage of the bloodhound a ringing endorsement of her work.
Just would like to emphasize this:
“Dog showing is a sport, a hobby. The world would still spin on its axis if there were no dog shows. If we choose to spend our leisure time, or in some cases our careers, in the world of dog showing, we should remember that we wouldn’t be able to do it without the dogs, and the least we can do in return is to choose healthy body shapes for them to live their lives within.”
Kudos to both Dr. Skipper & Dr. Jeffels. They did the right thing & after all the smoke clears I think a lot more people will realize that it was for the best.
If some want to throw their toys out, I say let ’em. The kc would be better off without them I suspect.
The fci will only recognise one kc organisation per country I believe, fat chance it’s going to be the new one, as the current one is acknowledged in some respect already.
And well done to those vets.
Thank goodness that these fine vets had the integrity to bite the bullet and do the right thing. When all the sour grapes have sunk into the sands of time these two vets will still be there as examples of ordinary people who do their job, do it well and refuse to be swayed from the task allotted to them by people who to me appear to value a win in a show ring over the long term health and happiness of their chosen breed of dog. I am glad to see this letter and i think it is unfortunate that they are crippled by their respect for confidentiality matters related to the examinations. The “winners” have no such restriction. These vets risked their careers when conducting their checks for the grand reward of a nights accomodation and some free food so I am confident they were thorough with their checks. How many of us would show this sort of integrity and courage in similar circumstances? PS great comments Jess and Massugu and thanks for posting this letter Scottie.
Only one thing to say: if you must do this, please examine/vet check all entries PRIOR TO JUDGING!!! No more, no less!!!
I agree in theory, but this would mean that each dog show would last two weeks at least.
I mean I do agree, but it’s like checking every container at a port for drugs and explosives. They just can’t check them all.
It is my understanding that all dogs entered at Crufts had passed all required health screenings. Given that, why would you make the statement that you did?
Because required health tests aren’t enough.
That’s why.
Am I missing something here? Please do help me fill in the blanks!!! As I understand this – and please do correct me if I am wrong and tell me why I am wrong – the exhibits at Crufts all passed pre-entry vet checks. Then an exhibit won that passed all the prelim health screens conducted by??? specialists or GP vets, was DQ’d by a GP vet… Are you sensing a disconnect here??
Go to your nutbar blogs and intellectually masturbate.
You think I’m going to coddle your ingorance, step off, bitch!
What The F#####?
Don’t be a moron. This is what the vets were looking for:
This was not an inspection to pass ‘health tests’, like CERF, where you must see a specialist, or getting an echocardiogram.
This was a general vet inspection that any GP would do. The judges and the exhibitors knew ahead of time what the vets would be looking for.
These arguments that the vets were somehow conducting the equivalent of an in depth examination for ‘health tests’ instead of a visual inspection to spot obvious physical problems does you no favors. It is too easy to refute.
They are TAKING HEALTH MORE SERIOUSLY.
This policy was announced over a year ago. People knew this could happen.
You people are acting like a bunch of spoiled little shit children who need a good spanking.
When the rules of the game change, you follow the rules or don’t fucking play at all.
Got it?
If not, fuck off.
How so? Please do explain!!!
Three things:
1. The Kennel Club rules stated that “instruments” were not to be used, but yet opthalmic instruments were used.
2. I have “heard” but not confirmed, that two of the failed dogs have since passed testing with a canine Ophthalmologist. If that is true, what is the function of a general vet failing a dog that a canine eye specialist has subsequently passed? I have also “heard” that a number of failed dogs came to Crufts with current Cerf eye clearances. If purposeful failing fo dogs was done to appease animal rights people, it is a very sad day in dogs.
3. Crufts list of 15 breeds to be subject to veterinary exam has now grown to 29 breeds.
***retrieverman*** Why aren’t required health tests enough? That is like changing the rules mid-stream and not giving anyone a chance to correct. In my opinion, a “got-you” moment. Not good for The Kennel Club, not good for purebreed dogs, the only people I can see that it is good PR for is Animal Rights people and Jemima Harrison.
In all due respect, I believe in health testing and breeding healthy dogs, but this appears to be a travesty.
With all due respect, fuck you.
This isn’t a nice little blog that allows diversity of opinion.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
Meaning WHAT??
What is so scary about diversity of opinion????
This isn’t about opinion.
It’s about lies. Lies, as in spouting things that aren’t true.
If you call an animal rights activist, you are lying.
I’m not an animal rights activist. I’ve called animal rights fascism in the past.
But you people are so clueless, that you are shooting yourselves in the foot.
So take you fucking attitude and shove it up your ass!
Really don’t know where to start here other than to write that I am surprised/appalled by the crudeness of the replies. Maybe I should not go forward!!!
However, since you asked , which you did, and I answered – and you did not like my reply – I have only one question : where are you going with this and what do you hope to accomplish? For the sake of sanity and simplicity – please do leave all name calling aside!!! Awaiting an intelligent reply!!! ( Is that too much to ask???? ) Sorry – I just could not resist!!!
“Maybe I should not go forward!!!”
Yeah, probably not.
Please do state your creditials/involvement in purebred dogs before we go any further!!!
At this point in time I don’t know who any of you are or what your agenda is. However, in signing off from this , I will say that you have a hell of a lot to learn – from both the dogs and the people that breed them/love them.If you really really do care, ask me and I can put you in touch with amazing people. If not, continue your Internet rants which I will duly reply to in the hopes that at some point you will open your mind. Hard to argue with STUPID!!! Okay – Hit me with your best shot and WE ARE GOING PUBLIC WITH THIS!!! BRING IT ON!!!
I think you’re confused as to how private blogs work. If Scottie doesn’t want to deal with you he’ll just ban your IP. You’re not entitled to make anyone here interact with you or answer your demands or insults.
Going public? LOL. It’s already public.
I bet this blog gets more readership than any rag you showple put out.
I’ve dropped the f-bomb on shitheads like you before. This isn’t a giant secret!
What the hell are you ranting about? This is a public blog!
Tell you what, sweetheart. I am a breeder. A bitch of my breeding went BOB last weekend. And I find the whiny little pissant reaction to these very simple, knew about them in advance vet checks to be disgusting. What a bunch of whiny little spoiled children. You are doing the entire dog world a disservice with your reaction.
Pay attention to what the pet people think; they agree with me. And they outnumber the breeders thousands to one. I think you’d better get freaking clue and start taking public reaction into account before throwing a tantrum, because you look like a bunch of tin foil hat wearers right now.
You know what. I’m crude.
But not half as crude as you people are. You people defend the indefensible. Jess took your ass down. You’re just too fucking stupid to figure it out.
If you think this is a nice little blog, where you’re allowed to give me shit and I just take it up the ass, you are sorely mistaken.
Whines in this regard will be met with what a wise man once said:
“Cry me a river.”
–Justin Timberlake
I’ve been waiting for some intelligent discussion from the fancy since this whole thing started.
And I’m still waiting.
And your point????
My point now ought to be that you’re quite possibly the dumbest person to have ever commented on this blog, except for maybe the people who want to fight dogs or who think Chihuahuas are fennec foxes.
“1. The Kennel Club rules stated that “instruments” were not to be used, but yet opthalmic instruments were used.”
Bullshit. It was a penlight. Or maybe you’d have preferred for the dogs to simply be DQ’ed because the vet saw something that they weren’t sure of, instead of using a penlight to be sure? I’m sure you’d bitch either way.
“2. I have “heard” but not confirmed, that two of the failed dogs have since passed testing with a canine Ophthalmologist. If that is true, what is the function of a general vet failing a dog that a canine eye specialist has subsequently passed? I have also “heard” that a number of failed dogs came to Crufts with current Cerf eye clearances. If purposeful failing fo dogs was done to appease animal rights people, it is a very sad day in dogs.”
And I have heard, from the BVA, that they don’t certify eyelid problems. If the dogs have CERF certs, produce them and end the mystery. Oh, maybe the reason why the certs haven’t been produced is because they don’t exist? Well, you ‘heard’ that here! This is all rumor-mongering, which could be put to rest if the Bulldog and the Peke owner would release their proof of eye certification, and the Crufts vet reports. But they don’t. What are they hiding, hmmmm?
Sad day in dogs, indeed.
“3. Crufts list of 15 breeds to be subject to veterinary exam has now grown to 29 breeds.”
Good! They ought to be doing ALL OF THEM.
“In all due respect, I believe in health testing and breeding healthy dogs, but this appears to be a travesty.”
No due respect, you appear to be a moron. I don’t what it is about the dog fancy but they’ve a serious shortage of critical thinkers.
Since when did a penlight become a diagnostic tool? I expected the vets to follow the instructions that required no tools.
CERF does indeed certify eyelid problems, from their webisite:
CERF Categories
Category A Category B
Eyelids:
All Others – A0
Entropion – A1
Ectropion – A2
Distichiasis – A3
Ectopic cilia – A4
Eury/Macroblepharon – A5 Third Eyelid:
suture tip opacities – E2
Micropapilla – G5
I said the BVA. The bulldog was, IIRC, a Brit.
http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2012/03/bva-clears-up-eye-test-confusion.html
As I said, if the dogs are certified, show me some certificates.
Can’t you read? Did you even bother with the link? IT WAS A VISUAL INSPECTION. They were looking for specific conditions for each breed. So what if they used a penlight? Or would you rather they think, “Welllll, looks like some scarring on the cornea, we’ll just assume that due to ‘pickyoureyedisease’ without a better look, shall we?”
Like I said, you’d bitch about it either way.
These inspections were announced ages ago. The exhibitors agreed to abide by the inspections by entering and competing. They need to SUCK IT UP.
Jess, you specifically brought up CERF Certificates which do diagnose eyelid diseases, you are correct that BVA currently does not.
And I’m still waiting for eye certs, OF ANY KIND. The only one that’s been produced is for the Clumber, and it quite explicitly doesn’t mention anything about the eyelids at all.
This is extremely disappointing, because the Bulldog bitch was a nice, moderate ‘new’ type bitch, and I’d really like to know why she was DQ’ed, not rumors, not paranoid innuendo, the real reason. All her owners have to do is released the the vet’s notes from the inspection and put it to rest.
retrieverman, Sir: I never called you an animal rights activist. I did say that if these dogs were disqualified to appease animal rights activist is was a sad day in dogdom. I stand by that statment.
Well said!!!
These dogs were DQed to ‘appease’ the pet loving public, who has always been sold on the idea that show breeders are the end all, be all, the best and most conscientious of breeders, and now feel betrayed and want to SEE SOME CHANGE.
You’d better hope the animal rights activists you so fear don’t pay any attention to the insane paranoid rantings that have been coming out of the collective fancy’s mouth, because you are quite literally handing them a loaded gun to shoot you with.
Interesting statement, Jess. So in your opinion these dogs were DQed, not because it was deserved but to appease the pet loving public?
I warned you not to be a moron. Reinterpreting any of my statements in the light of your own paranoia is moron territory. If you think Scottie is rude, you’ve experienced nothing, because I can rip you to pieces without resorting to foul language. Your arguments are weak, because your position is weak.
These vet checks are the result of a vast public outcry about unhealthy purebreds. The exhibitors knew about the vet checks, knew what the vets would be looking for, and why these checks were instituted. It was a given that some dogs would be DQed, because some of the defects that were being checked have become ‘breed features’ instead of disease processes.
Yes, the DQs were DESERVED. I understand that the judges have to put up the best of what appears before them. But there is simply no way, in some of those breeds, that the BOB could NOT have been DQed under the guidelines the vets were going by.
I am not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
Could the implementation have been better? Sure. Was it too soon to expect much change in some breeds? Oh, yes. I am a breeder, and I know about generation time, and it was way too soon.
However, the time to address these issues was when the KC announced the inspections. What it looks like to me, and the general public, is that the fancy thought this was simply an exercise in PR, and not a commitment. The fancy was wrong, and now they’re having a hissy fit.
Keep on waving your little fists, and ranting about Peta, and putting forth paranoiac conspiracy theories. But realize that the world is watching, and judging, and they will find you wanting.
The dogs were not CERFd they were BVAd and the BVA came out and said that the portion of their exam that would cover ectropion was NOT RELEASED by the Clumber breeder and that the portion of their report that was released would not show a positive or negative result for ectropion.
There is no conflicting EVIDENCE here, just a breeder trying to lie through omission of key facts and suggesting that the information she has released says something that it does not.
Evidence doesn’t matter.
These people are defending their church. The priests might be buggering boys, but the church must be defended!
WHATTT!!!!!
You statement is beyond stupid!!!
Okay.
I’ve had enough.
Get the fuck off this blog.
DO NOT COME BACK.
YOU CANNOT FUCKING READ.
DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND DON’T COME BACK.
YOUR COMMENTS WILL NOT BE APPROVED.
The fact that you don’t get it is truly sad.
All of your statements on this blog show that the dog fancy is not only deep in denial, but that it stays there quite willingly. Your concern for the buyers of pets rings especially false, since you and all these naysayers and tin foil hat wearers are DISCOUNTING THE REACTION OF THE PET OWNING PUBLIC TO YOUR BLATHERING.
Pay better attention to the pet people. If you truly want them to have healthy puppies and to trust breeders, it’s to your advantage to pay attention to what they’re saying about the fancy’s response to the Crufts DQs.
Don’t know how things are in the U.K. regarding CERF so will refrain from commenting. The AKC has the CHIC registry – my dogs are all listed. Are we talking apples and oranges here? Aside and a bit off topic here: I have been involved in purebred rescue since the 1990’s. Much of what we do is try to educate the buying public to make educated, informed decisions when acquiring a dog. I always stress that acquiring a dog is a BUSINESS, not an EMOTIONAL decision. I tell prospective buyers what questions to ask, where to look for information, etc etc, etc. All too often they don’t. They surf the web, find a slick web site, fall in love with a picture of a dog, pay by PAY PAL and 6 months later the dog – usually a poor representative of its breed, is in rescue.Many pet buyers do not want to take the time to educate themselves about the breed, go through the lengthy interview process that most reputable breeders put prospective buyers through, and pay the higher price. Cannot comment on shelter dogs but sure would be interested in finding out how many mixed breed shelter dogs are returned to shelters. Although I cannot speak for all breeds, most purebred breed clubs “take care of their own kind” – i.e. rescue them from shelters, spay/neuter and do their best to find these dogs – usually not the products of breeding by their members – new, forever homes.
If acquiring a dog is a business decision, then it’s a crappy one.
You actually don’t mean this.
The breeders seem to be pretty poor at giving the consumers what they actually want. The whole reaction to this year’s Crufts has made the dog fancy look about as good as the tuna operations that used to catch a bunch of dolphins. People might like tuna, but they don’t want dead dolphins.
People want puppies. They don’t want lies about health tests and childish fits about mandatory health checks. They don’t want continuous parroting of obvious lies, like the one that is being bandied about that the Clumber spaniel’s eyelids were checked. They either weren’t or that part of the test hasn’t been revealed.
Your consumers deserve better than this.
I’m quite sure irony of the EMOTIONAL reaction of the dog fancy to this, hmmm…Crufts debacle, (the dog fancy which *should* be reacting in a BUSINESSLIKE manner), is totally lost on you.
All this paranoia, conspiracy theory, and rumor-mongering isn’t very BUSINESSLIKE, is it?
I sincerely hope that the AKC will consider doing the vet check. I wonder about a downside of dogs that breeders know will not pass the vet check and sold to unsuspecting public. The AKC and breed clubs need to start monitoring litters born per year and acknowledge when a buyer reports problems…which they don’t do now. I have tried it with two of my dogs and heard nothing from the breed clubs.
They won’t — or at least not unless the current AKC leadership is replaced.
One of the reasons the original Cavalier King Charles breed club was passed over for recognition (the AKC instead appointed a splinter club as their ‘official’ club) was because the club wanted to require certain health clearances be done before a Cavalier could be registered. In other words, in the past the AKC has actually poached a breed from the original studbook holders rather than implement required health checks as a part of registration. They’re morally bankrupt as an organization.
I have been told that’s why the Silken Windhounds went UKC and not AKC as well. DNA samples are a requirement of registration.
Statement by the Basset Hound Breed Clubs and the Basset Hound Health Group:
BOB Basset failed by The Kennel Club vet inspection afterwards passed eye examation by Basset Breed Vet who’s specialty is ophthalmology in his practice. He is a Basset Hound owner, breeder, exhibitor and judge. In his own words, he found the Best of Breed elect “A very sound dog with sound eyes and perfectly healthy skin. He is an effortless, sound mover with enough ground clearance – and certainly fit for function”.
I find it hilarious that you conspiracy theorists can point to the evaluation of VET WHO BREEDS BASSETS as UNBIASED.
That’s like the Catholic Church saying, “Don’t you worry! We’ll take care of those pedophile priests!”
Do a search of the PDF, you won’t even find the word ‘ectropion.’ Or ‘entropion’ or ‘disease’ or ‘excess’ or ‘wrinkles.’
This makes them even worse in my view.
I would love to see a self-reported database that breeders and puppy owners can put health information into.
That was to Kathie, sorry.
You are onto something! Keep it up.
Doctor,
I give you credit for writing this letter.
At the same time, not only do I disagree with some of your comments, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, I am reading biases into your comments.
Three points
– If the Kennel Club feels that certain aspects of a breed of dog are too exaggerated and detrimental to a breed, then the Kennel Club should get together with the breed clubs and change the standards for the breed. As I am certain you are aware, there are a variety of things that vets will judge differently. One will think that it’s not a problem whereas another will think that it is a problem. I believe that you’ll get more problems with this system since there are more variables.
– There are a HUGE number of genetic problems that are more severe that you cannot check for that should be of concern. Heart issues in a variety of breeds for example. The Kennel Club could require certifications, but apparently is choosing the coward’s way out. What would you, as a dog owner, rather deal with? Entropion or Cardiomyopethy?
– What really concerns me, however, is your comment about a healthy pure bred dog versus a healthy mutt. The inference here is when obtaining a mutt, you run the same risk of health problems as with a pure bred dog. That is UTTER nonsense. When my wife and I bred Rottweilers, we checked ALL of our dogs for heart issues, eye issues, hips, shoulders and elbows. I’d like to know of ONE mutt breeder anywhere who has checked for one of those. So please don’t infer that ANY mutt is going to be equally healthy as a pure bred dog.
Actually, actuarial data from dog insurance companies disagrees very strongly with your claim that mutts aren’t healthier than purebreds. You have to control for size, but once you do that, it’s simply not true that crossbreeds and mongrels are somehow genetically inferior.
Heterosis exists in dogs, despite what propaganda you may have read.
Way to miss the point, sweetie.
“If the Kennel Club feels that certain aspects of a breed of dog are too exaggerated and detrimental to a breed, then the Kennel Club should get together with the breed clubs and change the standards for the breed.”
Yeah, they already did that. There was a big stink about it, too.
“As I am certain you are aware, there are a variety of things that vets will judge differently. One will think that it’s not a problem whereas another will think that it is a problem. I believe that you’ll get more problems with this system since there are more variables.”
Probably because a fancier will pass off a disease process as a ‘breed feature’ and a vet usually won’t, eh?
“There are a HUGE number of genetic problems that are more severe that you cannot check for that should be of concern. Heart issues in a variety of breeds for example. The Kennel Club could require certifications, but apparently is choosing the coward’s way out. What would you, as a dog owner, rather deal with? Entropion or Cardiomyopethy?”
Yeahh, you might want to check up on things before you make a fool of yourself, ‘judge.’ These checks were never meant to be COMPREHENSIVE health evaluations. They were to be outward checks for specific problems only, related to the ‘new standards.’ You’re creating a fallacy, which seems to be quite typical for the fancy’s defense squad: we are not talking about choosing between diseases, especially diseases that aren’t equivalent, with one being undetectable without specialized equipment. We are talking about outward appearances only.
“What really concerns me, however, is your comment about a healthy pure bred dog versus a healthy mutt. The inference here is when obtaining a mutt, you run the same risk of health problems as with a pure bred dog.”
Exactly what about this:
“As has often been stated, there are two problems with this that are undeniably more of an issue with purebred dogs than with cross breeds: the various genetic issues that afflict different breeds, and the issues of health and welfare that relate directly to exaggerated conformation.”
Is so very hard to understand. All dogs have genetic issues, when you breed within a closed system you stand a far greater chance of doubling up on those issues. Simple math.
“That is UTTER nonsense. When my wife and I bred Rottweilers, we checked ALL of our dogs for heart issues, eye issues, hips, shoulders and elbows. I’d like to know of ONE mutt breeder anywhere who has checked for one of those. So please don’t infer that ANY mutt is going to be equally healthy as a pure bred dog.”
Yeah, sweetheart, THIS MUTT BREEDER does health tests relevant to the breeds I cross. Would you like some sauce with your crow? And the stats from the insurance companies don’t bear the rest of your assertion out.
>The inference here is when obtaining a mutt, you run the same risk of health problems as with a pure bred dog. That is UTTER nonsense.
You are right. The mutt will be at lower risk for health problems.
>So please don’t infer that ANY mutt is going to be equally healthy as a pure bred dog.
Never seen anyone make that claim. The claim has always been that mutts ON AVERAGE are healthier than purebreds and whatever little data we have backs that up.
Sorry, but the claim that mutts are healthier is ridiculous on the surface.
As I said, I bred Rotts for 25 years. ALL of my dogs went through various health checks. We pulled dogs from breeding if we thought there was ANY chance of passing on some genetic disease.
As I said, give me ONE example of someone who has bred mutts who performed ANY checks for genetic diseases. It doesn’t happen! Period.
So now you have a situation where someone is breeding dogs WITH genetic health problems (mutts) and you’re trying to say that their dogs are going to be healthier than people who are checking for these things and eliminating dogs.
Sorry, but you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Any basic biology/logic course will tell you that.
If what you are saying was true, there would be no reason for breeders to test for anything. It would also be an argument FOR puppy mills. No health testing.
I won’t even go into the socialization issue for mutts, which is a major reason for them being put down.
If you’ve got data suggesting otherwise, put it up. There’s no such data.
Please spend some time on Pubmed before you make a fool of yourself. There are many, many studies that show that mixed breed dogs are at lower risk than purebreds for certain diseases. I posted these links on this very blog nearly two years ago, I’m sure there are many, many more studies NOW that back up the assertion that ‘purebred’ is a risk factor:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20303134
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20060988
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17916033
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14664452
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9394894
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8603904
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1293122
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2768063
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3710885
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7226844
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7385051
You’ll even find some studies that show that certain breeds have a LOWER risk factor for some diseases than mixed breeds.
We are not talking about your dogs, or your neighbors dogs, or my dogs. We are talking about population genetics, statistics using large numbers. The stats repeatedly show that mixed breeds are at lower risk for many diseases than purebreds. In fact these stats are so reliable that incidence of disease in mixed breeds is used as a BASELINE, for the ‘expected’ incidence of disease in a population of dogs. When you see something like Afghan hounds are ‘over-represented’ in terms of chylothorax, that is what is meant. Compared to mixed breeds and other breeds, Afghans have greater rates of chylothorax.
“Any basic biology/logic course will tell you that.”
I do not think this means what you think it means.
“So now you have a situation where someone is breeding dogs WITH genetic health problems (mutts) and you’re trying to say that their dogs are going to be healthier than people who are checking for these things and eliminating dogs.”
No one is saying any such thing. Please take a course in remedial reading and come back if you want to have a real discussion.
Your post proves nothing what so ever.
And please refrain from the personal attacks about making a fool of myself. I learned how to deal with that in third grade. (I’m not 64)
Dogs that ARE tested for genetic diseases produce HEALTHIER puppies than dogs that are not (mutts). By arguing against that, YOU are making a fool of yourself.
Beyond that, you’ve proven my first point, which is that the doctor demonstrates a bias by even bringing up the mutt issue.
It is quite apparent that you are NOT concerned about the advancement of the sport of purebred dogs, but interested in having mutts replace purebred dogs for families.
BTW. I have NO problem with people getting mutts, especially through rescue. If it wasn’t for things that I do with dogs that require that my dogs be purebred, I’d probably have a mutt.
Take your religious dogma and shove it up your ass.
I love how you call me ignorant. Well, fuck you.
You’ve shown to the world that you’re an ignorant fool already.
There is no evidence for your position. You cannot know all the bad recessives that are in your dogs or all the bad gene combos that exist or could exist. To know that, you’d have to have more knowledge than even the best geneticists in the world.
You cannot breed out all the disease in dogs.
That’s a simple lie.
The best you can do is dilute the risks of getting these disease, which is a major feature of heterosis, which you seem to think makes me ignorant.
Heterosis exists all organisms that are bred to breeds and then outcrossed.
Dogs are not an exception. They are not magical animals.
If you insist on calling me ignorant, your ass is banned.
Got it, punk?
Think we’ve got a live one here, Scottie.
“Your post proves nothing what so ever.”
And yours does? How does that work exactly? I post links to studies that show that yes, indeed, some purebred dogs are at higher risk for some diseases than mixed breed dogs, as proof that mixed breeds have lower disease risk than purebreds. I proved my statement. You’ve proved that you really need those remedial reading classes I mentioned.
I’m curious, really, as to why the fancy has such poor reading comprehension. Maybe it stems from having standards, and then ignoring the provisions in them. Like the Afghan standard says, “The Afghan Hound should be shown in its natural state.” Consistently ignoring the guiding light, the bible or your breed, must lead to a state of easily ignoring any information that is inconvenient or might cause you to think a little bit.
“And please refrain from the personal attacks about making a fool of myself. I learned how to deal with that in third grade. (I’m not 64)
If you’ll refrain from being a moron, I’ll refrain from pointing it out to you.
“Dogs that ARE tested for genetic diseases produce HEALTHIER puppies than dogs that are not (mutts). By arguing against that, YOU are making a fool of yourself.”
Actually, I’m not arguing against that at all. And I challenge you to find anywhere that I’ve stated that. What I’m arguing against, and what I’ve proved, is that mixed breeds are at lower risk for some diseases, quite a lot of diseases but certainly not all, than purebred dogs. This is due to simple biology; breeding within a closed system concentrates genes, both good and bad. A purebred population is, by definition, an inbreeding population, and mixed breed dogs are, by definition, an outbreeding population. That is why when scientists look for the genes which predispose dogs to disease, they look at purebreds, not mixed breeds. Such genes are easier to find in a population with a high incidence of disease and a low level of genetic diversity.
It works that way for people, as well, btw. Closed populations always show higher levels of inherited disease than open ones.
“Beyond that, you’ve proven my first point, which is that the doctor demonstrates a bias by even bringing up the mutt issue.”
So it’s not only *my* posts you are having trouble comprehending. This is what the vet actually said:
“As has often been stated, there are two problems with this that are undeniably more of an issue with purebred dogs than with cross breeds: the various genetic issues that afflict different breeds, and the issues of health and welfare that relate directly to exaggerated conformation.”
And it’s absolutely true. Mixed breeds are at lower risk for hereditary disease than purebreds.
“It is quite apparent that you are NOT concerned about the advancement of the sport of purebred dogs, but interested in having mutts replace purebred dogs for families.”
Guess you missed my comment up thread. I breed both cross-bred dogs and purebreds, specifically Afghan/Saluki crosses and purebred Salukis. A bitch of my breeding recently went BOB and now needs two singles to finish. I don’t consider purebred dogs a ‘sport,’ my kinds of dogs pre-exist your ‘sport’ by a millennia or so.
No conservation geneticist with their feet firmly planted in reality will tell you that we will still have Giant Pandas or Tigers a hundred years from now. Their gene pools are too small to be sustainable. If dog breeders are smart, we will still have different breeds available to us in a century; if we are stupid, we will not. This is simple biology and something that anyone who deals with livestock will tell you. The fact that the dog fancy does not understand how this works is not only sad, but dangerous, because if we do not keep our noses clean, someone will legislate that we will have our noses wiped, roughly, with sandpaper.
The difference between you and me, as breeders, is that I am under no illusions about the true value of ‘health testing.’ I do test my dogs, and I am not lucky enough to have any DNA tests in my breeds so that I can definitively state that no, this puppy will NOT develop a particular disease. I am honest with my puppy buyers; a Saluki will have a higher risk of developing mitral valve disease or hemangiosarcoma than your average mixed breed. A Saluki will have a lower risk of developing hip dysplasia than your average lab mix. An Afghan will have a higher risk of chylothorax, or laryngeal paralysis than your average mixed breed.
Note that there are NO tests that will tell me whether a given dog will develop mitral valve disease, hemangiosarcoma, laryngeal paralysis or chylothorax. There are no tests that will tell me the offspring of a given dog will or will not develop these problems. So I would be LYING THROUGH MY TEETH to tell my puppy buyers that a puppy from me is guaranteed to be healthy, or will be healthier than this dog or that dog, wouldn’t I? I can only be honest and talk about known risk factors for disease in my breeds.
I care deeply about purebred dogs, which is why I am honest and open about the problems associated with being ‘purebred,’ instead of spouting a party line of bullshit than any moron could see through. The ‘sport,’ as you call it, has done more damage to the very *concept* of dog ‘breeds’ than anything else I can think of, mostly due to it’s very damaging effect on the brains of dog breeders!
“BTW. I have NO problem with people getting mutts, especially through rescue. If it wasn’t for things that I do with dogs that require that my dogs be purebred, I’d probably have a mutt.”
Lovely. Also completely irrelevant.
Wow things have got interesting since I last visited this post!
Unlike most people commenting here I am not a breeder or someone that shows dogs or a judge for that matter.I am Joe Average….one of those people you mention…a member of the general public who loves dogs!
Now I dont even own a dog at the moment as we are in that uncomfortable phase where my wifes assistance dog has died and we are not comfortable with getting a replacement yet. Bodie was a mongrel I suppose, GSP x Doberman who was 17 years old when she died and only showed her age in the last 6 months of her life (apart from a few grey hairs). I want my next dog to be just as healthy and I want all breeders to breed healthy dogs and if that means a few less wrinkles on its face or a longer muzzle well thats an easy choice isnt it????
Any person with an internet connection can look at old photos of their chosen breed and see that that the physical soundness of many breeds is being sacrificed to make pretty dogs in the eyes of the dog show people. One I paid attention to recently was the German Shepherd, straight backed strong working dogs which are now being bred into something I would not want to own.
I hope that the application of these vet checks will make dog breeders think about their priorities when they breed dogs and place health issues above prettiness (or what the current judges feel is pretty). If pedigree breeders are rewarded in the show ring for breeding healthy dogs over pretty dogs “consumers” (yes I know that is an ugly way of phrasing it) at the bottom of this issue will get a better dog….its just that simple. This change will take generation I know but this event has created a potential turn around point for dog breeders. Rather than fight the change they should embrace it, put aside any short term percieved loss and accept they will be rewarded in the show ring for breeding healthier dogs and punished in the show ring for failing to change. How could anyone who genuinely cared about the health of their dogs and their breed not feel that this is a good thing?
Thank you Scottie and Jess for slugging it out with people who really need to take a step back and look at what these vet checks mean for the long term health of the breeds they claim to love.
Thank you Russell and all of you who took the time to post.
I am sorry the breeders are all in a huff, but doesn’t it always go in stages? Anger and denial is the first stage to acceptance, but people will be accepting these changes because they are for the benefit of the breeds.
I see two main problems with pure-breeding;
1.Breeding for extremes of conformation is a road hard to reverse, but it has led to many new kinds of unsoundness ie the German Shepherd rear end, Sharpai and other extremely wrinkled dogs, the excess brachyocephaly, the extremely dwarfed legs, using heterozygous lethal dominants as a breed criteria as in ridgebacks.
2. Closed registries like the AKC mean that the gene pool of every breed is shrinking every generation, nothing new ever comes in, so in enough generations everyone shares the same founding fathers and deeply buried recessives become omnipresent and when they meet another homozygous individual, genetic diseases manifest.
Most if not all of the current diseases found in purebreds are either due to a weakened immune system or once deeply buried homozygous genes meeting up.
Kate I’m with you and would also like to thank all the people that have contributed to these comments. Even comments based on fear and ignorance have been useful and interesting to me. Some excellent points have been raised and as someone who has very little experience of show dog breeders it has been enlightening to see their rejection of something that they should not fear if indeed they are breeding happy ond genetically sound animals. It has also been interesting to see your frustration Scottie and I mean that in the nicest possible way. It gives me a genuine insight into the frustration that these two vets and the sound minds that brought about this change must currently feel.
Sure it would have been great if all dogs could recieve these thorough examinations before the show but as Scottie states it is just not logistically viable to do this. I would have liked to see these tests applied to all BOB animals but the small group it was applied to is certainly great start to something that was bound to cause such backlash.
At the end of the day many pedigreed dogs are being genetically channelled into a place that is not humane or good or right. Strip away all fear and accusations and that’s the simple fact. If these types of vet checks can curb or stop that trend then as decent human beings we should embrace that change for our own good and the good of the dogs we care about.
a bit of a heated discussion here. I don’t quite understand why the UK doesn’t use something more like CERF. It would seem to me that it would be pretty easy to require a CERF prior to even entering. That certainly wouldn’t eliminate other issues (lameness, etc), but it appears that the UK “eye checks” are less extensive than a CERF (is that the case?).
I do have a quibble in that if the dogs had been checked prior to the ring (at least the high profile ones. Or even randomly select a breed “day of” and check the dogs entered) it might have been the case that a dog that would have passed might have been there to be judged. I do NOT think it is the case that every judge picked the best they could. There at least appears to have been an alternative bulldog choice. I don’t know about UK judging, but in AKC the judge CAN refuse the awards. I have (and cudos to the two judges I’ve seen do this because at least these instances, the dogs really were not sound) seen this happen twice.
I also agree with the vet that the dogs that DID pass should have been given some positive coverage. It is, IMO, as important to provide positive feedback and “praise” when someone does it right (or at least better) as it is to provide correction feedback when they do it wrong.
[…] mainly for being a Grade A moron and, therefore, too stupid to comment on this blog. (Here’s the link to the original post from which the following tidbits came. The stupidity is in the comments […]
I bought a Shar Pei so i could get back into the showring after a few years away from it,after owning my Shar Pei a few weeks i noticed one of her eyes getting bad and she needed 2 stitches in the eye to solve the problem,i now read i cant show my Shar Pei as my Vet has to register these kind of fault with KC UK,i can understand not breeding from a dog with these faults but not being allowed to show seems unfair,especially after i paid £41 to register my dog with the KC UK so i could show,why didnt they ask me before i registered her did i have any tacking done or similar stuff and refuse my applicaton for joining the KC UK,as theres no real need for me to be in the KC UK anymore. Unhappy