RSPCA vs Crufts

[nancy]

Did anyone else see this story:

 

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/highlights/...tics.4498557.jp

[Tranquilis]

Hopefully, there'll be a continuing parade of high-profile defections... Not all at once, but a string of them. A mass defection would kill the KC, and that's not the best path forward. What's needed is continuing, painful, pressure to force a series of deep changes in KC rules regarding health and breeding, but that leave the KC alive and able to enforce those same changes.

 

Potentially, the KC can become an ally, and not the enemy, given the right circumstances.

[Dalesred]

This follows a recent documentary on British TV about the whole issue, which I mentioned on another thread. The KC came out of it looking like blundering idiots. Clearly the RSPCA has decided to take a firm stance. Good. The withdrawal of the RSPCA made headline news nationally too: so much the better.

[Kelliwic Border Collies]

Is there something I don't know about regarding health test requirements for showing at Crufts, or is this just a straight up lie from Tony Lambert?

 

We had a record attendance at Crufts last year and one of the things judges score on is the health of the dog.

 

Or is he only referring to whether the animal visibly has a cold, for example? If so, it's still pretty misleading, IMO. It dances around what the whole controversy is about.

[Tranquilis]

If so, it's still pretty misleading, IMO. It dances around what the whole controversy is about.

The KC (and AKC) do that a lot - Tapdance around the issue at hand. And frankly, given that at least one KC judge flatly stated that the crippled 'show line' GSDs are not only orthopaedically correct, but that they were superior to the working line dogs in working ability, and given that Tony Lambert himself accused the KC's own top consulting geneticist of "not putting much science" in his damning reports on the genetic health of the pedigree line dogs, I can only say that any claim of active health checking founders on the abysmal and arrogant ignorance of the KC officials.

[jdarling]

The KC doesn't care about the health of the dogs, and I'd be suprised if they start any time soon. Even here in the states, the system is completely flawed. Just in Idaho, here are two prime examples of what I mean:

 

Robbie CEA "go-normal" ... Optigen DNA tested "affected." He's an AKC Champion. Why is that?

 

Here's Passion.

 

Here's Lace.

 

Both AKC Champions. So what's the problem?

 

On the blog, it mentions:

Lace and Passion

Lace's OFA results came back on 8/23/08 and the news is not good. She is moderately dysplastic. Passion's OFA results came back 9/13/08 and the news about her hips is not good either! She is moderately dysplastic also! I am bummed out as I had such high hopes for both of them.

 

Having had a dysplastic dog, I feel for her. I know the heartbreak. However, what I'd like to know is how these dogs ever became Champions. Working ability? Nope. Health? Nope. Looks. Imagine that.

 

I became curious as to how the AKC defined "Champion" ... so I looked it up. Here's a blurb directly from the AKC site:

 

Conformation

If you have questions or comments about Conformation, contact the AKC staff.

 

Dog shows, or "conformation" events, are the signature events of the AKC. They concentrate on the distinctive features of purebred dogs and help to preserve these characteristics by providing a forum at which to evaluate breeding stock.

 

Exhibits are judged against individual breed standards, which have been established for the AKC-recognized breeds by their parent clubs. These written standards describe the ideal size, color, and temperament of each breed, as well as correct proportion, structure, and movement.

 

(emphasis added.)

 

The whole system needs some serious re-working, and I hope more supporters step out and send a message home.

 

And before some conformation zealot starts screaming about how working dogs have HD too, save it. That's not what this thread is about.

[Tranquilis]

The whole system needs some serious re-working, and I hope more supporters step out and send a message home.

Frankly, what I'd hope to see in the KC and AKC, and what I doubt we'll ever actually see, is a 'work' competition added, and that no dog could hit 'champion' until it'd cleared specific hurdles in both lines- conformation and working - that is, no dog is good enough to be a champion unless it looks like a champion and works like a champion. And I'd also have the 'working' line of titles set senior to the conformation line.

 

But I'm purely dreaming; it won't happen. The conformation-only breeding is far more easy, and the majority of those breeders will never consent to being forced to prove their dogs in a field trial.

[Lenajo]

A gentle reminder that despite the included required health to do the job, our "champions" on the trial field are not necessarily a guarantee of health either. There are dogs that win, and some that win big, that have bad hips, "go normal" eyes, that seize.... and have and/or produced dogs repeatedly with any and all of the above.

 

Before you incinerate yourselves getting wound up to flame me, yes they are the *minority*. Breeding and selecting for work has proven a very successful method for maintaining a healthy breed. I am just pointing out that it does happen, and that we are throwing rocks in a glass house if we think everybody else has the problems.

 

Let the KC sort out their own mess and lets combine our efforts and lessons from their failures to figure out how to make the working Border Collie even better.

[Tranquilis]

A gentle reminder that despite the included required health to do the job, our "champions" on the trial field are not necessarily a guarantee of health either. There are dogs that win, and some that win big, that have bad hips, "go normal" eyes, that seize.... and have and/or produced dogs repeatedly with any and all of the above.

Certainly - And no, you'll get no flames from me. But as you correctly point out, those problems are far more rare in champion working dogs - Those champions are champion because their working ability exceeds their defects. OTOH, conformation-only breeding allows defects to pass that would be absolutely insurmountable in a working dog.

[Journey]

OTOH, conformation-only breeding allows defects to pass that would be absolutely insurmountable in a working dog.

 

 

OK, I'll bite...what defects? Aside from "ability".

 

Karen

[Ooky]

Frankly, what I'd hope to see in the KC and AKC, and what I doubt we'll ever actually see, is a 'work' competition added, and that no dog could hit 'champion' until it'd cleared specific hurdles in both lines- conformation and working - that is, no dog is good enough to be a champion unless it looks like a champion and works like a champion. And I'd also have the 'working' line of titles set senior to the conformation line.

 

But I'm purely dreaming; it won't happen. The conformation-only breeding is far more easy, and the majority of those breeders will never consent to being forced to prove their dogs in a field trial.

 

Ok, but what about the non-working breeds? How to judge their function? I'm talking about the breeds bred to be royal lap warmers and companions only. Not saying there isn't a good system out there for them too, I just can't imagine it. Can working ability even be regained in some formally working breeds at this point? And I obviously really think health and soundness standards should be explicitly stated in all breed standards.

 

I saw a pb GSD the other day that made me want to cry - going into the vets I was walking past. It was young, probably 8 months. It's hind legs looked like the ones in the dogs in that video. I can't see how people could ever think that would be something to go for. It may be just me, but I don't remember seeing GSDs like that 20 yrs ago when I was a kid, at least not like I notice now. This dog was just particularly bad.

[ShoresDog]

A mass defection would kill the KC, and that's not the best path forward.

Why not? What do the KC or AKC do that make these organizations worth continuing?

[Tranquilis]

OK, I'll bite...what defects? Aside from "ability".

 

Karen

Oh, I'm not speaking specifically to the BC here - To all breeds, including the ACK 'working breeds.' Again picking on the GSD: Roach backs, excessive angulation, hock-walking, and so on. Or on the KCC Spaniels - Mitral valve disease, Syringomyelia, and other disorders. Or on the Old English Bulldog - Inability to whelp naturally. All those are massive defects, and I've only touched the surface. Or lesser defects - Cocker Spaniels no longer suitable for field work, or Basset Hounds with skin problems and ears they can walk on, and that are also no longer suitable for fieldwork, or Standard Poodles that no one bothers to use as field dogs anymore, despite that being their original purpose, and so on. Not all pedigreed breeds, nor even most working breeds, are seriously affected, but too many are - If field testing were a mandatory part of the 'championship' process, we'd at least start seeing dogs that can work, as the breed was intended, in the show ring.

 

Why not? What do the KC or AKC do that make these organizations worth continuing?

At this time, they're simply the most influential, broad-based canine registry and competition organizations, and can radically influence the direction of multiple breeds with a single rules change. If we can get them to implement the necessary changes, they then cascade those changes to a whole host of breeds. Why replace an organization, if you can co-opt it, instead? But, of course, it's going to take a major sea change in their manner of thinking. Continual defections by key support organizations may yet provide the pressure to effect that sea change. Or maybe not. But lets not throw away the tool until we're sure it's beyond repair.

[Tranquilis]

Ok, but what about the non-working breeds? How to judge their function? I'm talking about the breeds bred to be royal lap warmers and companions only. Not saying there isn't a good system out there for them too, I just can't imagine it. Can working ability even be regained in some formally working breeds at this point? And I obviously really think health and soundness standards should be explicitly stated in all breed standards.

Well, not all companion breeds were originally companion breeds, either - Some were watch dogs, some (like the Standard Poodle) were originally field dogs that have been misplaced, and others have had their jobs more or less made obsolete. But even when a breed was made purely for a non-working purpose, there are still physical competitions that they can perform - Advanced obedience and agility - or some specialized amalgamation of the two - to demonstrate that the dogs are physically and mentally at least within certain functional parameters. It doesn't have to be hard to come up with a system - All it takes is a little work.

 

Having grown up agound sound GSDs - A good friend had some *really* excellent dogs - I find the 'show' GSD to be the most heartbreaking of the lot, though the KCC Spaniel is perhaps just as bad.

[Shetlander]

I saw a pb GSD the other day that made me want to cry - going into the vets I was walking past. It was young, probably 8 months. It's hind legs looked like the ones in the dogs in that video.

 

Isn't it awful? A few years back I was at an agility match and a woman was walking her GSD puppy around -- probably also 8 months or so. I literally felt nauseated when I watched the dog walking. And she was such a sweet, intelligent looking puppy who had been bred to be crippled.

 

At a show I once spied a couple carrying two pug puppies. I love that breed and went over to coo over the pups. When I got up close, I saw their noses had been pushed in as badly as you see on some Persian cats -- where it isn't just pushed in, but seemed to be indented in their face. It was hideous. And there I was trying to make noises that sounded like I wasn't horrified after I had rushed up to the proud owners.

[Journey]

Oh, I'm not speaking specifically to the BC here -

 

Oh, that changes the question somewhat then.

 

Not all pedigreed breeds, nor even most working breeds, are seriously affected, but too many are - If field testing were a mandatory part of the 'championship' process, we'd at least start seeing dogs that can work, as the breed was intended, in the show ring.

 

Hmm, I doubt the requirements would change anything. The KC already has the requirement in place for a full Sh Ch. in Border Collies - only 1 dog to date I believe has accomplished it. That and they've dumbed down the requirements recently.

 

The ISDS and the ABCA are registries in themselves, so what have they been able to do about CHD, CEA, Epilepsy, etc.... they have done a lot but they can't stop people from breeding (well, they can toss them out but that's not what I mean) If the KC and AKC was disassembled and each "parent" club was responsible for their respective breed, the breeds would be no better off. It's the breeders - and it's people that breed that have no need to take their Border Collie to sheep that are running amok in AKC and the KC. With the "conformation" aspect being a "written" standard any breed in sunk. Defects are in the eyes of the beholder - my defect is someone else's "Ch."

 

Karen

[Pearse]

OK, I'll bite...what defects? Aside from "ability".

 

Karen

 

Biomechanical defects like joint dysplasia. A dysplastic dog can't work all day. If it does, it will be lame at the end of the day and won't be able to work the next day. Too many days like that, and the dog will be deemed unsuitable to breed. A blind dog can't find sheep. A deaf dog can't hear you.

 

Similarly, a poorly "put together" dog will suffer a higher incidence of injury in real work than a sturdy dog. If you need a dog to go out and gather stock every day, one that takes too many "sick days" won't rate.

 

Physiological defects. A dog with no stamina is useless in real work. So a dog with any of the metabolic defects that seem to affect showdogs will never be able to do a day's work. A dog with no heat tolerance, or cold tolerance, who "ties up" too easily will be found out quickly.

 

Psychological defects. A nervous dog, sound sensitive dog, timid dog, reactive dog, stupid dog is no use in real work. You need a dog that is steady, solid, and can think for itself. A weak or cowardly dog will be found out by stock who will then ignore it.

 

And, of course, ability. A Border Collie with no ability to work livestock is of no use to a shepherd or rancher, except as a pet. Most farmers don't need more pets.

 

Now some of these defect may slip through is some dogs that don't work but do trial but the higher you go up in the trialling world, the harder the trials become, and most of these defects are detected sooner or later.

 

None of them will be detected by parading a dog around a show ring three or four time while on a leash.

 

Hope that answers your question.

 

Pearse

[Pearse]

Ok, but what about the non-working breeds? How to judge their function? I'm talking about the breeds bred to be royal lap warmers and companions only.

 

Can they warm laps? Do they have the temperament to be good companions? Are they healthy enough to be companions (can they play, go for walks, live longer than five or six years)? If so, then they fulfill their function.

 

 

 

Not saying there isn't a good system out there for them too, I just can't imagine it. Can working ability even be regained in some formally working breeds at this point? And I obviously really think health and soundness standards should be explicitly stated in all breed standards.

 

Yes working ability could be regained in most working breeds because in most working breeds there are populations who have continued to be bred for working ability. Not all breeds because the jobs they were bred for are all but extinct. There aren't many butchers these days who need a dog to take down a bull for them. Not many people hunt deer or wolves with dogs any more. The bird dogs have good populations of working dogs (retrievers, pointers, setters) as do some of the terriers, and scent hounds.

 

It's useless to put "health" and "soundness" in breed standards. How do you judge such things in the breed ring? Require a judge and a vet where one scores the dog on how pretty it is while the other reads its x-rays and test results?

 

The solution is to get rid of the beauty pageants and arbitrary "breed standards" (which are not standards at all but whim and fashion) an focus instead on producing healthy happy dogs.

 

Pearse

[Ooky]

Can they warm laps? Do they have the temperament to be good companions? Are they healthy enough to be companions (can they play, go for walks, live longer than five or six years)? If so, then they fulfill their function.

 

The solution is to get rid of the beauty pageants and arbitrary "breed standards" (which are not standards at all but whim and fashion) an focus instead on producing healthy happy dogs.

 

Exactly what I was trying to say.

[mjk05]

what I'd hope to see in the KC and AKC, and what I doubt we'll ever actually see, is a 'work' competition added, and that no dog could hit 'champion' until it'd cleared specific hurdles in both lines- conformation and working

I don't think that would solve the problem at all. There would probably just be a shift in what constitutes a "working champion". Judging on show-ring conformation (whether its the only or just half the criteria) is completely irrelevant and detrimental to most breeds, and especially breeds like the border collie.

 

ETA: the KC (as in the British Kennel Club) actually already require working breeds like border collies and gundog breeds to gain both show ring title and a working achievement (I think field champ title or winning a sheepdog trial- not sure on the details) to be called a "Champion". A show ring champion without working "title" is designated Show Champion only.

[Sue R]

I am not sure if I am remembering correctly but, from a prior topic and some internet research at that time, I believe only one KC "Border Collie" ever earned the Champion (not simply Show Champion) designation.

 

To me, that indicates one of two things - either there is no real interest among KC "Border Collie" folks in working ability (and breeding for it and proving it exists in their dogs) or their dogs just plain don't have it. Either way, it's a commentary on the situation, and lack of owner/breeder interest and/or working ability in the dogs.

 

Here in the US, the AKC deals with this matter by lowering the standards. Another commentary on the situation, although there seems to be a different slant on the issue, as many folks seem to want any title to "prove" their dog has the right stuff (which the title doesn't do) or to "prove" versatility.

[Sue R]

Just to clarify about the KC and Champion vs Show Champion in "Border Collies" - as only one dog had managed to pass the test to be a full Champion (when the test required a worthwhile proving of the dog's ability as judged by ISDS persons on a real course), the KC dumbed down the requirements so that it only requires an arena-sized test, very dog-broke sheep, and simple obstacles (all similar to the old AKC PreTrial level), and can be administered by KC persons. That surely makes it totally objective and not subjective in nature.

 

If you can't do good work, just dumb the test down and call it "proof" of working ability. Anything to get a title...

[diane allen]

[quote(ShoresDog @ Sep 19 2008, 12:45 PM)

What do the KC or AKC do that make these organizations worth continuing?

 

They feed egos - period.

It ain't about the dogs - it's about the people and their money and their egos. Sorry, that's the way I see it.

 

diane