Dog World news archive - February 2012

New KC initiative is judges' blueprint

11 Sep 2009 08:57

This article has 36 Comment(s)

A NEW Kennel Club initiative will put judges firmly in the forefront of ensuring that pedigree show dogs are fit and healthy – and that breeds are developing free from exaggeration.
The new initiative is Breed Watch – a section of the KC’s website which is seen as the latest development in the club’s Fit For Function: Fit For Life campaign.
The move is aimed at ensuring ‘that pedigree dogs are free from any exaggerations which might cause them to have difficulty in walking, seeing or breathing freely.’
The Breed Watch area on the KC’s website which will be kept up to date regarding ‘any undesirable trends or exaggerations which may be emerging in particular breeds.’
It is aimed particularly at judges.

Co-ordinators


The KC has emailed the health co-ordinators of each breed giving them details of how the initiative will work and any proposed inclusions to do with their breed.
The co-ordinators will talk to the secretaries of their breed clubs and pass any comments to the KC.
“We would like to remind breed clubs that they are responsible for nominating a co-ordinator and we would rather not select an individual on their behalf,” said a KC spokesman.
“Once a nominee is selected, these breeds will be able to participate in the Breed Watch initiative.”
The introductory text on the Breed Watch will state:
“The decisions made by judges in the show ring strongly influence future breeding plans;
• Judges must take conformation-related health problems and temperament into account when making their decisions as well as breed type.
•  All show dogs should be Fit for Function: Fit for Life.
• Judges should never award prizes to dogs who are visibly suffering from any condition which would adversely affect their health or welfare. For example, obvious breathing difficulty; significantly over or underweight dogs; lameness, including hopping; a discharge from one or both eyes or any signs of discomfort in either eye; obvious skin or ear irritation; inappropriate temperament – refusal to be handled, timidity or aggression; exaggerations which would make the dog unsuited to the breed’s original purpose.
• A judge is expected to make such decisions based on their extensive experience of dogs as owners and breeders.
They are not expected to display the knowledge of a vet and should not undertake any extra examination of a dog other than that which they would normally perform in assessing general fitness and breed type.’
The site will also state, ‘Particular points of concern for individual breeds may include features not specifically highlighted in the breed Standard. The features listed are derived from health surveys, a meeting of KC group judges in February, judges’ feedback, and consultation with individual breed clubs/councils.’ 
The KC spokesman said: “The site will carry a description of any breed-specific points of concern which have been received by us.
“This information will be frequently updated, ensuring that the Breed Watch pages serve as a record of any concerns of which breed judges should be aware.”

You need to login to add your comment. Already registered? Log in now! Not registered? Register now!

    1

    good idea but I doubt it will work, what one person considers an exageration may be considered perfectly normal by another - just look at the row between the GSD people, neither side agrees with the other therefore their judges will not agree what is exagerated and what is not

    Posted at 08:53 on 10 Sep 2009 by
    hounder | Report as inappropriate

    2

    I am also a bit dubious. The serious conditions my breed suffers from (urate stones and deafness) are not visible. Also, I have seen dogs winning with skin conditions and dogs winning even though the judge couldn't get his hands on them. Now, I would agree that skin complaints can be temporary and therefore not a fault as such. Equally it may have been an aberation for the refusnik dogs to behave that way. Judges should be able to give the benefit of the doubt - but only if the dogs are otherwise truly streets ahead of the competition. It is pretty galling for exhibitors with good, well turned out, well behaved dogs to see a dog winning that is not in the peak of physical and emotional condition ON THE DAY.

    Posted at 10:36 on 10 Sep 2009 by
    Spotty Muldoon | Report as inappropriate

    3

    Agree with Hounder - beauty is in the eye of the beholder... Breed specific judges will be more aware of conformation / health issues within their breed than an all round judge, however, it should be expected that all judges keep up-to-date with unwelcome trends or adverse health issues prior to accepting any judging appointment, familiar breeds or not.

    Posted at 11:01 on 10 Sep 2009 by
    karen | Report as inappropriate

    4

    It's easy to be cynical but we have to start somewhere. If we are going to use showing to reward good health and punish unhealthy exaggeration then judges must be on board. As everyone knows I favour independant vet checks before a champion title is awarded. I still believe some independant element should be brought in, partly to address the issue of "invisible" problems, partly to double check the judges committment to weeding out unhealthy exaggeration and partly to reassure the public that all Champions are, as far as it is possible to tell, healthy dogs. In the absence of independant vet checks I think this is as good as we can reasonably hope to get.

    Posted at 11:07 on 10 Sep 2009 by
    convict 225 | Report as inappropriate

    5

    a great idea, but it will take a while to work some of the old judges are So set in their ways i cant see them doing it, it will be the younger and new generation of judges that will use it. it should be more aimed at breeders, as it is them who are breeding these dogs. i hope this works.

    Posted at 11:23 on 10 Sep 2009 by
    george | Report as inappropriate

    6

    The brilliant news we have received this week about the DNA test for PLL will not stop dogs with the condition being shown and winning top honours. How can this be justified just because it is not a 'visible' condition? Will the KC bring in a rule to stop affected dogs being shown?

    Posted at 11:41 on 10 Sep 2009 by
    lankeela | Report as inappropriate

    7

    I don't think affected dogs should stop being shown, as they may have other attributes, but I do think their health should be taken into account when being considered for top awards, CC's, JW's etc.

    Posted at 11:48 on 10 Sep 2009 by
    mahooli | Report as inappropriate

    8

    I think convict is right, it is easy to sit back and be cynical/critical and we do have to start somewhere. I think this is a good initiative, but somehow i don't see it changing anything in the world of dogs. It sounds like a basic vet check, but these aren't problems that have caused our critics any concern are they? The breeds that have been high-lighted as having fundamental problems in their basic structure are still winning at shows at the highest level and they will continue to do so. If you have a whole class full of bulldogs that are panting hard and making that "argh" argh" "argh" sound, even though thickly coated dogs in the ring anext to them aren't even panting, what is a judge going to do? Is the fact that the dog can still technically breathe considered ok? Healthy?

    Posted at 12:01 on 10 Sep 2009 by
    Kaleta | Report as inappropriate

    9

    I take Keleta's point. In an ideal world we'd move very quickly, using controlled outcrosses, to bring in radical change. We know that this is not going to happen so we need to decide if we're going to support the changes and push for more or simply dismiss everything as window dressing. At the minute I'm giving the KC the benefit of the doubt but I'm well aware that many health focused reformers have totally given up on the KC. As for the bulldog judge. I'd say look for the most healthy dog and place that first, if there are two or more dogs who appear equally healthy then look to which meets the wider breed criteria. If you believe that all the dogs present are exaggerated to the extent that they cannot enjoy a reasonable quality of life then no prize should be awarded.

    Posted at 13:48 on 11 Sep 2009 by
    convict 225 | Report as inappropriate

    10

    I think if we look at this from a wider perspective it is hard to understand why this should be necessary. After all isnt that what judges should have been doing anyway, thus, how can you change the habit of a lifetime? It staggers me why the KC simply dont look at why dogs have become so exaggerated in such a short space of time , it has to correlate with the mismanagement of dogs from within the same breed clubs they are looking at now, its the same old rehash of soundbites from the KC (that is ridiculous), do they have the same spin doctors as the Labour party ? In one breed club in the UK there is a systematic control of membership that is undermining the health of the breed. The top breeders have all used a dog with bilateral hip dysplasia and bred again from the progeny , they have encouraged cataracts through close line breeding. It is a disgrace , yet those who are not being seen to do that are being given sharp shrift and we wonder why dogs will continue to suffer in the hands of some UK breed clubs. I agree we have to start somewhere, that should be the abolishment of every breed club and the commencement of new ones that actually promote healthy happy dogs. No breeder should be permitted to register untested dogs. I know of breeders who are openly stating they test dogs eyes themselves using a light....... Yet they profess to be World Experts... I rest my case.They also belong to several breed clubs both here and across Europe.

    Posted at 17:48 on 11 Sep 2009 by
    Fifi | Report as inappropriate

    11

    We would like to remind breed clubs that they are responsible for nominating a co-ordinator and we would rather not select an individual on their behalf,” said a KC spokesman. “Once a nominee is selected, these breeds will be able to participate in the Breed Watch initiative.” Bull the breed clubs may be the worst choice. get experts from a vetinary or scientific background who really are experts. hell the breed clubs caused most of the faults who are they to breed healthy dogs. Yet another damp squib from the KC. Paul

    Posted at 18:33 on 11 Sep 2009 by
    neutral | Report as inappropriate

    12

    Tend to agree with Neutral here; the Breed Clubs are the ones who are dictated by the Old Guard who have ignored health problems for years. They will only nominate someone who reflects their point of view.

    Posted at 20:12 on 11 Sep 2009 by
    Hazel | Report as inappropriate

    13

    Yes, I have to say Neutral as a point! I think breed clubs should be more specicaly named - Breed Show Clubs!

    Posted at 22:02 on 11 Sep 2009 by
    Krusty | Report as inappropriate

    14

    who will have access to Breed Watch pages ? it seems to me that rather a lot of responsibility has been attributed to Breed health Co-ordinators, I was under the impression they simply collated all the information given to them by heath reps and passed this as "one voice" to the KC I find the whole thing disturbing, in my breed of 10 clubs perhaps 3 of the 10 clubs have an HO that is remotely interested in health,the others have been forced into the position, the co-ordinator is interested and experienced, our breed is lucky in this respect but how many have appointed someone who would prefer that health and exagerations are kept firmly in the closet, if these people are the only ones liasing with the KC with no free access then thats where any problems will stay "in the closet"

    Posted at 23:30 on 11 Sep 2009 by
    tictac | Report as inappropriate

    15

    That's an interesting, if negative, take on the question Tictac. I can think of at least two breeds where the BHC got the job by default as no-one else was interested enough - and in both those breeds the BHC is far more likely to bring things into the public domain that other breeders might prefer to keep quiet about!

    Posted at 09:05 on 12 Sep 2009 by
    Rildey | Report as inappropriate

    16

    If we look at just one breed the Havanese, in such a short space of time the show breeders have managed to breed several diseases into the breed. These are breed clubs doing the 'very best for dogs'. They only started a rescue after being shamed into it. Health co-ordination, I wouldnt trust them with anything more than a shopping list.

    Posted at 10:46 on 12 Sep 2009 by
    Fifi | Report as inappropriate

    17

    Rildey, it may be negative sorry but one tends to form opinions from expereience . I take it from your reply that the Health Watch Pages will be open for all to read ? From where do the BHC s get their policy from ? ie Should we mention that ? or were not sure about that ? Is policy decided by BC or clubs ? Who will decide what goes "public" ? No=one is very keen on making anything public as far as I can see, the poor BHC would be have to be so careful what was said and any implications of such statements May be negative but asking the questions is the only way to avoid mistakes

    Posted at 12:35 on 12 Sep 2009 by
    tictac | Report as inappropriate

    18

    http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=2648 As I understand it, Breed Watch will be accessible to everyone. The way I approached it as BHC was to go back through Champ show critiques from the last five years. One problem was mentioned many times, and one very experienced breed person last year commented that it was worse than when she judged previously. To me, this is something that needs addressing by judges so I have put my ideas to my Breed club committee, and also added them to my breed notes in DW next week. I understand from the KC that Breed Watch should be up on the net by the end of October, and the information then will be updated whenever it is thought necessary. It's a bold move by the KC, and IF it works could be a real force for good. It's all too easy to allow exaggerations to creep into a breed - more and more of this, less and less of that - without breeders really seeing what is happening because they are too close to it. Sometimes it does take someone to say "Hold on! Aren't we going a bit too far in that direction?" If judges can be reminded that something is not desirable and take it into consideration when they judge that can surely only be a good thing.

    Posted at 14:24 on 12 Sep 2009 by
    Rildey | Report as inappropriate

    19

    "If we look at just one breed the Havanese, in such a short space of time the show breeders have managed to breed several diseases into the breed." That's not an accurate statement. No-one can 'breed-in' diseases, they must have been present already - it is the COMBINATION of recessive genes that bring those diseases to the forefront. You might argue that some breeders have, by close line-breeding, caused these diseases to show themselves - but even if you kept the pedigrees as open as possible those diseases would still be carried and could pop up at any time when two recessive genes combine. There is a case for arguing that line-breeding is beneficial in the long run as this will enable the breeder to find out where these recessives are, and then avoid them in the future. If the breed has as many problems as you claim, then random breeding will actually make the problem worse in the long term, because when a dog is born with an inherited disease it will be absolutely impossible to make even a guess as to where it came from, and therefore very difficult to eradicate.

    Posted at 14:33 on 12 Sep 2009 by
    Rildey | Report as inappropriate

    20

    It is becoming more and more apparent that the short-term gains of inbreeding are outweighed by its long-term costs.We cannot breed animals based on a single gene, If an animal inherits good identical genes,then inbreeding is beneficial. (Your argument )If an animal inherits bad identical genes, then inbreeding is harmful. Repeated inbreeding combined with popular-sires can cause complete loss of diversity of alleles in a breeds gene pool.The use of popular sires, particularly multiple generations of them, can accelerate loss of alleles. A dog can only have a maximum of two alleles for any given gene. Excessive use of a single individual will skew the gene pool toward the alleles that dog happened to carry. In recent years, purebred dogs have experienced increasing problems with hereditary diseases and defects. The causes are complex, including genetic load, the presence of lethal equivalents in all individuals, genetic bottlenecks, closed gene pools, gene pool fragmentation, and genetic drift, but all are attributable to inbreeding.This may dramatically impact the diversity that is so important to breed health.Reality shows us that until it happens we just dont know .BTW you mentioned random breeding I didnt, any good breeder understands how to get the best from the gene pool available In a Global sense , not just with Mrs A or Miss T at the breed club. Knowing the mode of inheritance is essential to the control of genetic disease, with relatively few exceptions the generality that carriers of recessive traits cannot be detected except by the production of affected offspring. The production of affected puppies reveals the genotype of phenotypically normal parents and thus is the basis of control of these disorders.Inbreeding increases the probability that the two copies of any given gene will be identical and derived from the same ancestor. Technically, the animal is homozygous for that gene. The heterozygous animal has some differences in the two copies of the gene Remember that each animal has two copies of any given gene (two alleles at each locus), one derived from the father and one from the mother.inbreeding tends to remove those heterozygotes which are beneficial (e.g., the MHC) as well as increasing undesirable as well as desirable homozygotes. The practice is most dangerous in the potential increase of homozygous health problems which are not obvious on inspection, but which shorten the life span or decrease the quality of life for the animal.If a deleterious gene is "linked" (sits close on the chromosome) to a desired gene the sire carries, the breed may suddenly find itself riddled with the problem that bad gene causes.Perhaps the most important issue is making health a top priority.

    Posted at 17:42 on 12 Sep 2009 by
    Fifi | Report as inappropriate

    21

    The extent of inbreeding in purebred dogs and how this reduces their genetic variation is revealed in a new study by Imperial College London researchers. Inbreeding puts dogs at risk of birth defects and genetically inherited health problems.Further information about the research is provided in the study, which is published in the journal Genetics: "Population structure and inbreeding from pedigree analysis of purebred dogs," Genetics, 179(1): 593–601, 2008. doi:10.1534/genetics.107.084954 Calboli FC , Sampson J, Fretwell N, Balding DJ Just in case you think inbreeding is a good idea please read this, partly written by J Sampson .

    Posted at 17:54 on 12 Sep 2009 by
    Fifi | Report as inappropriate

    22

    Do we really want to be responsible for these type cock ups in the future? http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/overview/overview/rescue

    Posted at 17:58 on 12 Sep 2009 by
    Fifi | Report as inappropriate

    23

    Your genetics lecture has been repeated ad nauseum, Fifi and is well understood by many breeders (myself included). Howeer, you are ignoring the point I made. Havanese breeders have NOT managed to breed diseases in - they were already there, just hidden.

    Posted at 18:12 on 12 Sep 2009 by
    Rildey | Report as inappropriate

    24

    "Do we really want to be responsible for these type cock ups in the future? http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/overview/overview/rescue" Well, WE weren't responsible for that one!

    Posted at 18:20 on 12 Sep 2009 by
    Rildey | Report as inappropriate

    25

    "The extent of inbreeding in purebred dogs and how this reduces their genetic variation is revealed in a new study by Imperial College London researchers" - hardly 'new'!

    Posted at 18:22 on 12 Sep 2009 by
    Rildey | Report as inappropriate

    26

    My dear you miss the point frequently , hardly new that one is it, you defebd the indefensible alarmingly well.....

    Posted at 22:38 on 12 Sep 2009 by
    Fifi | Report as inappropriate

    27

    quis stultus vos es

    Posted at 22:44 on 12 Sep 2009 by
    Fifi | Report as inappropriate

    28

    I wonder what the scene will actually be some years from now. Looking back to 1985 there was a documentary called "Pedigree Dog Problems" with the KC plus others way back then making some comments, interested then have a looksee on YouTube at this address. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5RMa7AW5u8

    Posted at 19:06 on 13 Sep 2009 by
    Quincy | Report as inappropriate

    29

    Yes Quincy 25 years and still squaking the crocodile with no teeth called the kennl club. They are supposed to regulate the health of dogs. they should be sued and imprisoned for not doing what they said they would do. Unhealthy pedigree dogs are the fault of the Kennel Club and their fault only for sitting back and doing NOTHING. Thanks for alerting us to the pre PDE video. Paul

    Posted at 20:13 on 13 Sep 2009 by
    neutral | Report as inappropriate

    30

    By the way maybe the crown prosecution Service should be looking to the breed clubs and breeders for allowing these malformations after all there is an animal cruelty act isnt there???????????? Paul

    Posted at 20:16 on 13 Sep 2009 by
    neutral | Report as inappropriate

    31

    More videos.........Some extended interviews with the Australian 'Catalyst' reporter. Prof Bateson is very interesting.... http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/extras/extra_videos/pedigreedogs/default.htm...........Margaret Carter

    Posted at 22:27 on 13 Sep 2009 by
    Cassandra | Report as inappropriate

    32

    Thanks Cassandra, and it is interesting that "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" was televised nationally across Australia on Thursday by their ABC.

    Posted at 22:42 on 13 Sep 2009 by
    Quincy | Report as inappropriate

    33

    "quis stultus vos es" - it takes one to know one :)

    Posted at 23:22 on 13 Sep 2009 by
    Rildey | Report as inappropriate

    34

    Quincy, Casandra, neutral - The core charges in PDE have been made many times by many people and go back well before 1985. In the past the KC has always closed ranks behind the "top breeders" of the day and simply weathered the storm. I'm amazed it has, at least, begun to address the problems this time. If I'm being cynical I'd say it is responding to the threat of external regulation but I think there is much more to it than that. I believe the KC know there is a significant number of health focused breeders/exhibitors who are no longer prepared to defend the indefenceable or keep quiet while other people people do! I also believe, call me soft headed, that elements within the KC have a real will to change. The debate is no longer about the need for health focused reform and has moved on to being about the form and speed of reform. On one hand we have those who pin all hopes on testing and believe all problems can be fixed if only we could get down to a healthy gene pool - however tiny that gene pool might be! On the other hand we have the those like myself who argue that, although important, testing is not the be all and end all and that controlled outcrossing is the fastest and best way to deal with deep seated health issues. If you share my view you must accept greater variation in breed type. The new battleground will be over what, if any, greater variation is a price worth paying for improved health.

    Posted at 11:30 on 16 Sep 2009 by
    convict 225 | Report as inappropriate

    35

    Well said convict 225 at last some common sense and caring attitute is coming through the system. Paul

    Posted at 17:27 on 16 Sep 2009 by
    neutral | Report as inappropriate

    36

    "The debate is no longer about the need for health focused reform and has moved on to being about the form and speed of reform. On one hand we have those who pin all hopes on testing and believe all problems can be fixed if only we could get down to a healthy gene pool - however tiny that gene pool might be! On the other hand we have the those like myself who argue that, although important, testing is not the be all and end all and that controlled outcrossing is the fastest and best way to deal with deep seated health issues"............... I don't see the current situation as needing an either/or solution. I would like to see both options considered........... When you consider the Dalmation breeders who refuse to accept a fourteen generation cross,I think you may find that breeder resistance is likely to stall any moves to bring in controlled outcrossing for many years......... Margaret Carter

    Posted at 18:20 on 16 Sep 2009 by
    Cassandra | Report as inappropriate