How do the breed standards get defined? Is there some committee at the KC which has the responsibility?
But, in the case of the GSD, it seems to be the interpretation of the breed standard that is the issue, rather than the standard itself.
You would be surprised Helen about how blind to what everyone else would think is blimmin' obvious people can become. I couldn't agree more with you but it is difficult to see what to do about it when the breeders do not see a problem, even when that problem is life-limiting for the dogs they love. And they do love them. Perhaps the phrase "love is blind" is appropriate here? Vet checking every animal on entry would seem to be a good idea. But believe me, once you reject certain dogs you are never asked back to vet check at shows again. Significant and damaging social media opprobium has been heaped on vets who try to ensure dogs in shows are fit to be dogs. Again, this is not by evil people, but is a knee-jerk response by the breed blind who view the vets as ill-informed as to what is "normal" for the breed. So the vets, who have had years of advice ignored in the consulting room, are not prepared to run the gauntlet of trial by social media. I don't know what to do about it. Banning breeds would not appear to be helpful, because where do you stop? Who defines what is an acceptable abnormality? We can perhaps (but only perhaps) agree that breeds whose puppies need eye surgery at a few weeks of age should not be promoted. Breeds where the dog cannot breathe or walk well enough to enjoy a normal life should perhaps be banned. But where does it stop? Perhaps banning the public showing of dogs would work. No shows = no reason to breed show-type animals. But therein you ban what for many people is a perfectly harmless hobby. I don't know. I've been involved in a discussion elsewhere about whether buying and showing show bred labradors ultimately promotes the sort of problems you see at Crufts in dogs in general - maybe it does, maybe it doesn't I don't know. What is for sure though is that there is no easy answer to this problem which is of huge significance to canine welfare.
Thank you Lochan it seems to me Crufts have the whole thing 'sewn up'. I am so upset about the whole topic and heartbroken for the poor dogs involved in this 'industry' and they don't have a voice x.
Gosh, THAT is a worry. And a surprise. I would have thought regulation (and inherent integrity for goodness sake!) would have supported those who have sound knowledge and transparency in their work. It seems to have parallels in the medical world that I can recognise. Pillorying in public those who speak out...... A sad state of affairs for the vets as well as the dogs.
Maybe I'm being naive here but if we want to allocate "blame" then it seems pretty clear to me, in terms of governance. From the quote above: "The guardianship of the breed standards is entrusted to the Breed Standards and Stud Book Sub Committee, comprised of experts from each of the seven groups (hounds, toys, pastoral, utility, terriers, working and gundogs) and a veterinary surgeon with canine specialism." It is their job. I would not demonise the individual breeders or owners, and I really do believe that most (if not all) of them love and care for their dogs. If I thought, when watching Crufts, that I was watching cruel, hard-hearted people intentionally exploiting the animals at their feet, I'd be unable to watch. I don't think that is what I'm seeing. I think I'm seeing people who genuinely love their dogs as pets, and who are (as described above) "blind". I'll call them misguided but not cruel and evil. BUT - there is a group of people whose job it is to set the standards. This is a task with an ethical imperative behind it, and anyone who accepts a place on that committee needs to accept that responsibility. The way those standards are set is what drives all the behaviour that follows. If a standard is being "misinterpreted" then it is the job of that committee to clarify it. If a standard is deforming a breed, it is the job of that committee to stop it. I would say that it is the job of individuals on that committee to challenge themselves, examine whether they are wearing tinted / distorted lenses on their sight, and make sure they are not "blind". I'm afraid I think there is a particular responsiblity on the "veterinary surgeon with canine specialism" (whoever that is). If human doctors take an oath to "do no harm", then surely there is an equivalent - if unstated - ethical requirement on the vet. The advice given to the committee is possibly the most influential in the country in terms of influencing long-term canine health. I don't envy that person their job, but they can't walk away from the responsibility. So, if we want to point fingers and blame, then rather than hound individual owners on Facebook I'd think we should shout loud and clear at the Breed Standards Committee and its members - including the professional veterinary advisor - and call them to step up to the plate and do their job they way they should do it. And we should do everything we can to support them in making the right decisions for the right reasons....that's the campaign to run. OK. Sorry. Rant over. I'll get me coat....
Well, I think all is not lost. We are here right now speaking up for them after all Jemima H has done a massive amount to raise awareness and there are others, including little me, who try to do our bit But admittedly it is a long slog. And we clearly are not making much of an impact - yet. I agree with Rosie on the importance of setting and guarding those standards. And some breeds desperately need them changing (brachycephaly being the priority) But in this case, with the GSD, it is not the standards, but the way in which the judges are wilfully misinterpreting them or even ignoring them altogether because they believe they know best. How do we tackle that??
I was heartened by the whippet and by the border collie, who both looked like healthy, active dogs who could live a normal life. Obviously the judges and breeders are upholding the standards well in those cases; why not in the case of other breeds?
Great news speaking up for all dogs is what it's all about. Keep going Pippa and Jemima, I am sure everyone on this forum will absolutely be behind you and speak up too I definitely will if my bloomin' emotions don't get the better of me xxx
More specifically, it would seem, the judges sub committee http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/activities/dog-showing/already-involved-in-dog-showing/judges/ That is championship judges though. Can't find the info on ordinary judges
Good for you, Pippa. Speaking up is one important step. Boycotting shows like this is another possibility. I only caught half of the interview with Neil Fitzpatrick - surely what he was saying though was that we OWE it to dogs to make sure they are healthy and are fit for purpose?
Does the KC accredit the judges? My understanding is that judges in general are from the breeding/show community themselves so perhaps the link needs to be broken in some way. I'm sure many judges do a good job and assess a dog according to the breed standards but perhaps there should be 2 judges the first being a vet whose role would be to solely assess each dog against the breed standard. If they meet the standard it's then over to the "expert" judge to assess for "perfection". If totally supported by the KC I'm sure vets would be more willing to withstand the anger from owners whose dogs don't make the grade. Shouldn't breed standards only be changed where there is clear evidence that the change will improve the health of the breed, so shouldn't that decision rest solely with the veterinary community. Perhaps instead of a solely veterinary "canine expert" they need a panel of veterinarians to approve/refuse changes.
I would argue that their health and fitness for purpose trumps any other consideration - particularly what a group of breeders in a club decide would make a dog look better. If you didn't like the original look of the dog why own them and start breeding them?
Yes there is money in breeding, not necessarily a lot after vet bills, food, heating etc are all taken into account. Us, the public, also have a responsibility when it comes to the financial aspect. Yes, the offspring of a Cruft's winner come at a higher price but it is the public seeking a puppy that gets bowled over with the "his dad/granddad" is a Cruft's champ and the number of champions in the pedigree and are happy to pass their hard earned bucks over because they are buying "the best", and this is probably true whether the dog is from "show" lines or comes from a long line of Field champions
Yes that's the case and the bigger the champion the more the litter will cost, but in this case we're talking about people who tries to let a unhealthy dog pass as a champion. Honestly i don't know why people seek puppies from champions, in my opinion any dog that respect the standard and that can work it's a fine dog regardless if it comes from a champion or not. But that's just me
