New Developments at Crufts

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

Discodog

I wonder if the Newfie was heart screened ?

ISDW

mymo wrote: »

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?

I don't know how they did in the ring, but I know they had a fantastic weekend, if anyone saw it on Thursday, in the group, the Shar pei best of breed was an Irish dog, one of Andrea's friends, they all travelled over together, so I'd say a few beers were sunk. Was brilliant to see Tracy and Alfie running around the group ring at Crufts.:D

andreac

Hey guys, no luck for us unfortunately but Cooper showed great.

My friend as ISDW said got Best of Breed with her Shar Pei and was shortlisted in the Utility group on thursday.
Then the Irish did brilliant in the staffies and Robyn got Best of Breed with her staffie Alfie so got into the big ring too, so the Irish did fantastic!!

getz

the bully ban was only for crufts and was more of a political thing started by the RSPCA and followed up by dog food [lets get in on the act] policy, so far its not spread to other shows as they are not as heavily reliant on them.most pedigree dogs have a health problem,but so do farm animals [some are so bad they cannot walk] race horses,and many other food and sporting animals,but the likes of the RSPCA only go for the easy options, i bet that vet will not get any work in crufts again.

Discodog

getz wrote: »

.most pedigree dogs have a health problem,but so do farm animals [some are so bad they cannot walk] race horses,and many other food and sporting animals,

Did you watch PDE ? Do you realise that farm animals are way better regulated & protected than domestic dogs ? Do you think that it is OK to produce breeds like Cavaliers when they have such a high risk of agonising illness ?

The only thing that the RSPCA did wrong was not prosecuting breeders who ignored the Vet advice not to use their dogs for breeding.

Your posts supports the my view that there are plenty of people out there who see no need for change.

Btw "that Vet" hardly needs to work at Crufts - he's earning a fortune as a channel 4 presenter of "Inside Nature's Giants"

planetX

getz wrote: »

the bully ban was only for crufts and was more of a political thing started by the RSPCA and followed up by dog food [lets get in on the act] policy, so far its not spread to other shows as they are not as heavily reliant on them.most pedigree dogs have a health problem,but so do farm animals [some are so bad they cannot walk] race horses,and many other food and sporting animals,but the likes of the RSPCA only go for the easy options, i bet that vet will not get any work in crufts again.

I don't see how you could call it political - it's about huge concern for the health and welfare of dogs. The fact that the dog food company withdrew is a sign of the growing public awareness and opposition to breeding deformed, unhealthy animals. I wouldn't dismiss what's going on with crufts - the ball is well and truly rolling now, and people are going to demand more change.

Cherry Blossom

getz wrote: »

the bully ban was only for crufts and was more of a political thing started by the RSPCA and followed up by dog food [lets get in on the act] policy,

The vet was appointed by the BVA, if you do some research on it you will find that no dog from the 15 breeds can gain it's CC from now on without passing the health check which will be undertaken at championship shows.

getz

planetX wrote: »

I don't see how you could call it political - it's about huge concern for the health and welfare of dogs. The fact that the dog food company withdrew is a sign of the growing public awareness and opposition to breeding deformed, unhealthy animals. I wouldn't dismiss what's going on with crufts - the ball is well and truly rolling now, and people are going to demand more change.

its political,dogs are a easy target,three race horses were killed at cheltenham yesterday,so if vets are thinking about the health and welfare of their animals,why were they allowed to race knowing just how dangerous it was for them,never mind i will tell you,they will not take on the big money,only the easy option,the problem we have now is that dog health is now on a grey line,and at what stage do you stop,every breed has a problem so is yours the next dog to be classed as unfit to show ?

planetX

getz wrote: »

its political,dogs are a easy target,three race horses were killed at cheltenham yesterday,so if vets are thinking about the health and welfare of their animals,why were they allowed to race knowing just how dangerous it was for them,never mind i will tell you,they will not take on the big money,only the easy option,the problem we have now is that dog health is now on a grey line,and at what stage do you stop,every breed has a problem so is yours the next dog to be classed as unfit to show ?

A lot of people aren't happy about horse racing - what's that got to do with dog breeding?
I'm intrigued that you refer to dogs as a 'target'. Interesting mindset that sees concern for health as an attack. If every breed has a problem then something needs to be done for each breed - whether that means increasing the gene pool by outbreeding, or radically changing the breed standards.

My dog would definitely be unfit to show:p

getz

planetX wrote: »

A lot of people aren't happy about horse racing - what's that got to do with dog breeding?
I'm intrigued that you refer to dogs as a 'target'. Interesting mindset that sees concern for health as an attack. If every breed has a problem then something needs to be done for each breed - whether that means increasing the gene pool by outbreeding, or radically changing the breed standards.

My dog would definitely be unfit to show:p

it seems we may be looking at the wrong reason for the bulldog being rejected, the bulldog beed council has said,the top winning bulldog in question has a old eye injury,it is not visible to the naked eye in the normal manner of being examined by the judge,nor is it visible without pulling the dogs eyelid down and a light being used,it was a knock to the eye the dog had as a puppy and as had no ill effects and the exhibitor had not given this a second thought as a reason the dog would not be classed as healthy by the independent veterinarian on the day, it seems the kennel club are assuming that any mark on the cornea of any bulldog is due to damage caused by eye disease,in this case this is simply not true. and it will be taken up with the kennel club by representatives of the bulldog breed council at a meeting on the 23 march which we hopefully will prevent situations like this accurring in the future, in all other areas this bulldog is healthy and passed all requirements,