Crufts; A publicity stunt or good policy?

I certainly think its a start...a disqualified dog wont bring much in the way of stud/breeding fees. There must be a good reason to pull them so..yeah, personally i think its a good thing. It also may educate some people about inbreeding and the effects.

A clumber spaniel also failed.

Yes, I think it is a step in the right direction, thought it is a small step. The down side is that unfortunately, a simple vet check can't catch all problems - what about heart murmurs? deafness? allergies? The list goes on and on.

ETA: I also agree with others who have said on the other Crufts thread that it's unfair for vet checks to only apply to a few breeds - it needs to be applied to everyone.

Honestly without knowing more about exactly why, I don't think there's any way to tell.

They are penalizing the judges decisions, by making the DQ happen after the dogs have already won. Remember that the KC changed the breed standards after PDE for several breeds, but unless the judging actually supports those changes they will be moot. I think it's a public display by the KC that judges are expected to follow the edited standards rather than ignoring them (as most do, since many of the breeds that had the changes made were upset by them, and many of the breed judges are far from unbiased as they are also breeders).

Keep in mind, that unlike in the U.S., the Kennel Club in the UK controls the breed standards directly (and the judging criteria) and not the breed clubs.

Good point, a thorough exam before allowing entry into the show would be much more effective.

Pai said:

They are penalizing the judges decisions, by making the DQ happen after the dogs have already won. Remember that the KC changed the breed standards after PDE for several breeds, but unless the judging actually supports those changes they will be moot. I think it's a public display by the KC that judges are expected to follow the edited standards rather than ignoring them (as most do, since many of the breeds that had the changes made were upset by them, and many of the breed judges are far from unbiased as they are also breeders).

Click to expand...

No matter WHEN the exam is done, I think that maybe it needs to be more than one vet. Say two vets and one judge ... but over all I think it's a step in the right direction.

Was doing health checks in the first place a political concession? Sure. I doubt it would have been done without external pressure. But that alone does not invalidate the effort.

Regarding the results of the effort so far...I have difficult time putting much stock in the claims of people with vested interest. On either side of the equation.

That said, change is needed and I hope this effort helps and leads to a better program in the future as well as a reduced need for such a program.

I can understand that checking the thousands upon thousands of dogs in crufts could be a truly daunting task and I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and suggest that perhaps the decision to just assess the BOBs was as much as matter of logistics as anything else. I would be of course be in support of a decision to examine the BOBs of all the breeds, and give the BOSs a shot at Group if the BOB fails for some reason.

I definitely agree that all breeds should be tested, I'm pretty sure many rotties would fail due to obesity and that too is an issue. I like the effort and really hope it'll lead to healthier dogs.

Isn't the point of this exam to keep exaggerated traits that cause problems minimal? So not all breeds have exaggerated traits. I don't show dogs, and I really don't know how this works. Do all dogs shown have to have health exams prior?

Definitely a political decision. Doesn't mean that it was invalid.

Reminds me of those adds for drink driving where you see the 'dead' people and they tell 'you' what an idiot you are. The point of DQing the dogs AFTER they've won is to shame the judge as much as the breeder. Shock tactics can be quite effective.

Last I heard there were some lawsuits. anything ever go anywhere? Did the kennel club alter anything for the future?

I don't know if it was Crufts or another show, but I remember someone on here talking about a dog that failed the vet check for a scratched cornea or something, which I think is silly, because a scratched cornea is not hereditary.

juliemule said:

Isn't the point of this exam to keep exaggerated traits that cause problems minimal? So not all breeds have exaggerated traits. I don't show dogs, and I really don't know how this works. Do all dogs shown have to have health exams prior?

Click to expand...

Not all breeds are exaggerated, but they all have other issues (genetic disorders/diseases) that I think should be considered. I don't know how much a simple vet check would help with that.

I like the idea of making sure dogs being shown and winning (and likely to breed) are healthy.

I don't think a vet check after judging is enough - or any other vet check. How many times do we tell people looking into breeders that a vet looking the dogs over is not the same as testing. Actually require genetic test results for breed specific diseases, and I'll be impressed.

This is just -kind of pointless and odd, to be honest. I say that as someone who thinks many of the extremities being bred for is dangerous, unhealthy and unethical, but I don't thinK THIS is going to do anything to stop it.