No Bulldog or Pekenese will Compete at Crufts

AR is a factor in all of this though. In that way, I can understand people's worry because of that. AR is behind a lot of common thinking. First the big push against "puppy mills" and everyone could get behind that (pet owners, pet breeders, show breeders, working breeders, performance people, show people, etc, etc). And everyone did. Then it was "BYBs"...the pet breeders. Everyone but the pet breeders got behind that. But a division was starting with breeders. Then we are told, that show and working breeders could be bad too - you must look for a "responsible breeder". And while everyone was willing to get behind that too, no one can ever agree on what is a responsible breeder. This has successfully pitted breeders against each other and often, in support of controlling what the others are doing. Still we just had the issues of "puppy mills", "BYBs" and now "irresponsible breeders". And most people seemed ok with supporting a push for people not to buy from such breeders. But it was inevitable that it wouldn't stop there.

Show breeders have obviously become the newest target and pet owners, working breeders, performance people, working dog people, etc are all ok with getting behind that too. We are not far off from a "Don't buy from puppy mills, BYBs, irresponsible breeders or show breeders" mentality. But at this point, it is pretty obvious that it won't stop there either. There's plenty to find wrong about working/sport breeders too.

These articles show pretty well what AR has already been able to accomplish through this use of "labeling" and pushing ideals. And purebred dogs are not better for it:

http://breedingbetterdogs.com/pdfFiles/articles/a_gathering_storm_pt_1.pdf

http://breedingbetterdogs.com/pdfFiles/articles/a_gathering_storm_pt_2.pdf

Am I saying there is not a problem with show breeding in any way? No. But what is being done is using the most extreme examples, breeds which have horrible widespread health issues or very exaggerated structure to portray "this is what happens with show breeding". And in those cases, yep that's what happened. In some breeds, they have managed to maintain moderation and good working ability while still finishing dogs. We never hear much about that. Or that it's mostly show breeders who are helping research move forward on health issues in different breeds. There's good and bad to everything. Most show people I know aren't uncaring people only out for the ribbons. Most are people who love their dogs and show as a hobby. Most are owner-handlers or owner-handler-breeders. I know some people who take it too seriously for sure or who like the latest fad and some who don't have much knowledge about correct temperament for the breed. But then, I know some sport people who I could say the same about.

There's concern also that there's some "gray areas" of what one can consider problems associated with breed type. All Corgis and Doxies are deformed. Some are more exaggerated than others but because they are all dwarfs, they are all at higher risk than other dogs for back problems. Blue merle exists in many breeds and there's those who claim that all merle dogs are compromised but for sure, the color can be associated with problems in some cases. Dilute colored dogs are known to be at a greater risk for vaccine reactions. Toy dogs and giant dogs are all exaggerated too and there are issues that can come with those exaggerations. Natural bobtails can be associated with issues as well. Where will those dogs fall in the greater scheme of things?

So I don't think everyone's negative reaction to the Crufts situation is unfounded. I do think there is a need for outcrossing to be an option that breeders can pursue within reason. I do think there is an issue that in some breeds, the dogs winning are far removed from what is correct per their standard. I thought the vet's reply to Crufts was really good. I wish that there was more focus on the positive than the negative with Crufts. But then...there's a lot of other things to consider too. I'm really not sure what the answer is.

I agree, Aleron.

I guess we will just have to wait and see how all this develops. As much as I'd like to see healthier dogs representing their breeds in the ring, I myself won't be fighting tooth and nail to have these vet checks done all over the place, because this isn't my world. But I can see how this would affect even some moderate dog owners even if just by perception and nothing else, or by directly buying from a breeder who changes their breeding practices towards a more healthy animal.

I dunno, I feel like it's a tangled web at this point. It's time to stop struggling and just relax, let the spider sink its teeth in. Let's see where it goes.

But, from what I understand, the vets were only looking at the CURRENT health of the dogs. Like doxies, yeah, their backs will probably cause problems at some point... but is THIS DOG injured TODAY? This one doxie, can it walk? Is it in obvious pain? Does it have nerve damage? If so, it should be at home resting, for goodness sake, not traipsing around at a dog show. But plenty of them are healthy and happy, at least at that moment.

Dilute dogs are at a greater risk for vaccine reactions.... But is THIS dog having a reaction today? No? Then it wil pass. Collies have reactions to ivermectin, but the ones in the show were clearly not in the midst of a reaction while trotting around the ring.

Yeah, a lot of show breeders are complaining that this is the sort of thing that will be judged in the future; that the vet checks at this year's Crufts was just the beginning. But the fact is, it hasn't happened yet, and as far as I know it's not being planned for at all.

My post was not so much about the vet checks at Crufts but about why people are so worried about AR. This took place at Crufts due to PDE, which I can't help but think of as anything but AR propaganda. I'm not saying there is a problem with the vet checks in and of themselves. Just that there are AR undertones to the situation in general, to the bigger picture beyond the Crufts health checks.

I think they could have done the health checks differently. I tend to think the entries in those breeds should have all been checked prior to being shown and not allowed to compete if they failed. That way there would be an option for the judge to put up the best, healthy dog to go into group competition. I think that has potential to be a more positive impact overall, although it probably makes for less drama and news than the way it was done.

Can we point out, specifically, what the AR undertones are, and how they differ from AW at all? Because I'm having trouble seeing it myself, and while I understand that AR needs to stay out of the dog show world (and preferably out of the world in general), AW wouldn't be opposed to these vet checks either, so where does that put them? It just seems as though those that are upset are looking to point a finger of blame, and it's landing on AR activists, of course, but as someone involved in welfare work I'm not seeing the issues here that these finger-pointers are complaining about.

Sorry I still call BS on the flurry that an AR rights agenda being part of this. The only thing ARs about this is that it happened to actually impact their life.

You cannot find unless you dig the statistics on some of these breeds that have 50% HD rates, eye problems that are considered foregone conclusions rather than "problems", and cheating in the shows so bad that dogs are literally wearing hair pieces and extensions. At the same time these are the people standing up as a crowd saying I am the reputable breeder because I do these things. Bull****.

The major difference this time is that someone else's objection which created a public outcry made a new rule that *might* change they way they need to operate business, which if it's been working for you up until this point is such a PITA. It doesn't mean it's morally wrong. It just means that winning ribbons and paper titles isn't everything unless it truly is everything to you, which means probably realistically you are the last person who should be raising something as valued as a dog in our society.

So let's see what happens in this new utopian world where the PDE people win:
Breeder's dogs fail health check.
Some will quit but others will try different breeding strategies.
Breeders create dogs who can pass the health screening. These dogs will cost owners/breeders less money for health care and long term care management.
Vet checks these dogs, who pass.
Breeders breed these dogs who probably will create pups who will also pass.
These puppies are sold to the public who get to enjoy fewer health expenses associated with poor eye structure, rotting inflamed skin, and arthritis from wobbling feet.
Dogs win, people win.

Oh the horror...

Animal Rights - also known as animal liberation, is the idea that the most basic interests of non-human animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings

Animal Welfare - the avoidance of abuse and exploitation of animals by humans by maintaining appropriate standards of accommodation, feeding and general care, the prevention and treatment of disease and the assurance of freedom from harassment, and unnecessary discomfort and pain.

Exactly. This is why I don't understand why the breeders are jumping to blame animal rights extremists for this. I hate animal rights, but I feel like I'm being thrown under the bus for agreeing with what's trying to be done here, from a welfare standpoint. Why would we tolerate dogs who can't even be dogs in comfort? If that's not welfare, then my life has been seriously misguided for a long time.

Harrison on her PDE blog has come out against AR publicly, and rejected a tie in with Peta.

AR people are going to agree with this as a stop gap measure, just like they would agree with the AW people that stopping people from skinning dogs alive is a good idea. So in that regard, I guess it does have undertones of AR.

I don't remember if it was on this thread or one of the blogs, but one reason against health testing all the dogs is 1) time and money, crufts has tons of entries, and 2) it might force the judges to pick something moderate, keeping a more extreme dog from placing in the ring. If you vet checked all the dogs, your judge could just take the most extreme dog left... simplifying the choice or end up with no Bassets what so ever.

Did you read my first post on the AR subject? Like I said, I'm not so much talking about Crufts specifically as I am the attack on purebred dogs in general. It is hard to deny that having and breeding purebred dogs is no longer thought to be PC.

And I'll say it again, I do think change is needed in some ways. We have purebred dogs winning in some rings who don't look much like what is described in their breed standard (while correct dogs don't even get noticed) but I don't know what the answer to that is. We need outcrossing to be an option in some cases and for breeders to not view it as taboo but I don't know how that can be achieved.

While this Crufts thing caused a lot of uproar I'm not sure how it will make much difference in the long term. People will probably be more careful about what they enter at that show. I'm not sure how much it impact showing in England overall though, unless they are going to be implementing this at every show.

PETA isn't the only AR around. One doesn't have to be tied in with an AR group to have an AR influenced agenda. What I know is that her "documentary" was designed to show the worst of the worst and had absolutely nothing positive to say about breeders of purebred dogs. While propaganda does have to have some element of truth to work, it was obviously extremely biased and intended to cause an emotional response in viewers. It was designed to leave viewers with the idea that breeders of purebred dogs don't care about the welfare of their dogs at all. She can say she doesn't support AR but if it walks like a duck...

1. It's only a handful of breeds and an admittedly brief exam. I would think they could get another couple vets and look over all entries in those breeds. Now if they were health checking all breeds, yeah that would be much harder.

2. Not sure I understand? It would simply force the judge to pick from what passed. If no Bassets passed, they'd be in the exact same boat as if the one who won was failed - no representation in group. It would save time judging actually, if no or just a few dogs of a breed passed that is fewer dogs to be judged. It certainly wastes time judging entries that won't count for anything.

If you think that is the only thing AR is about, you need to do some more research.

If it's not you tell me what it is. Animal rights is about giving the individual liberties normally afforded people to animals.

We're all in big BIG trouble if we cannot agree on common grounds of something as simple as a dictionary definition.

Well said.

And I think it makes things quite interesting to have the health check come after the breed judging. The judge chooses what he believes to be the best representation of the breed. It would be a whole different ballgame if he were to only be able to choose from what is left.

I agree. But I also see where judges would be upset by this... It's gotta be bad for your rep if you chose the best representative of the breed, and it turned out to be unhealthy. I'm sure judges would much prefer the vet checks come first, so they don't end up looking bad.

AR opposes pretty much everything that involves humans and animals having any sort of "relationship" that involves the animals being interacted with or cared for by humans. They are about restricting ownership of animals, breeding of animals and "use" of animals by people for any reason (pets, work, entertainment, food, clothing, any type of research, etc), as well as environmental issues. The major AR groups have lobbyists pushing legislation in this direction constantly. As far as dogs go, AR is involved in most any laws which wish to restrict breeding, owning and caring for dogs. So limit laws, breed bans, restrictive breeding laws, MSN, docking/cropping, etc. A lot of people don't realize just how much AR influences such things. Most assume they are just nuts looking to grant animals "equal rights" but that's not so much the case. And they're a lot more powerful than a lot of people realize.

The AR agenda:
http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/article/the-animal-rights-agenda

AR or AW?
http://www.ncraoa.com/AR_AW_WhatYouShouldKnow.html




I think it makes a lot more sense, if you are hoping for it to have an more widespread impact. Although the issue is still the same - will it simply make people more careful about which dogs they bring to Crufts?

I don't think anyone has ever accused me of being an AR person. I'd still defend a breeders rights to cull their own breedings as they see fit.

I think putting the vet checks when they did, is a good thing. I've never shown personally, it definitely isn't my thing. I have been involved in some pretty big shows however, breed specific, but everything from a local show, to regional and national confo shows.

I've seen enough of the BS behind the scenes junk that goes on, with organizing groups deciding on what judges to bring in to be more favorable to them and not to other "groups" of breeders and changing ring sizes, organizing parking by shade and by sun, and the rest of the crap that goes on.

I have no doubt it happens at all levels, especially at the high end shows in all breeds. Judges have their hands as dirty as the breeders and the people themselves. If a breed gets ding'd after it's declared "best" of that breed and can no longer move on and represent that breed in the show, people are going to get upset.

Then they're going to bitch for a while and rationalize every shitty choice they've made so far that has brought them to the place they're in, and then they're going to have to change. adapt and grow, or fade away. It doesn't matter to me, and the breeds will be better off for it.

The judges are going to be embarassed, then they're going to have to adapt and grow, or fade away as well. Put up good representations, or deal with the humiliation that follows when your "best" is deemed unhealthy by way of genetic defect. They will either start picking more correct dogs, or people doing the shows will stop asking those judges to come if certain breeds are going to be left out because they don't know how to pick one free of genetic defect. People aren't going to tolerate missing out on showing because a judge can't pick the right dog to represent the breed for very long.

I'm not sure what would send a stronger message though. DQing after BOB or when a huge number of dogs don't make it into the ring to begin with?

Yes, what Aleron posted is the AR I know. The complete separation of humans and pets. It isn't what they outwardly push to portray, but it is clear by their movements, such as laws and campaigns and actions, that it is a strong motivation, and head proponents in organizations have openly admitted it as the main motivation, and one reason it will forever clash with animal welfare.
It's the biggest reason I oppose it; my pets are not slaves, and we already have an animal welfare act. We don't need animal rights laws.