# Now we should be WORRIED about Crufts...



## Dude and Bucks Mamma (May 14, 2011)

Has anyone seen this?

Why Crufts Should Worry Us


I will agree with her on the mutt vs purebred debate. I see just as many, if not more heath issues in the mutts we see. Hip displaysia seems to be a common one that I see. I do see a lot of healthy mutts as well but the purebreds I see, outside of labs and beagles, seem to be taken better care of too. Again, we live in a very dog friendly area.

I just don't see how the author can defend these show breeders. Yes, there are a ton of great breeders who breed dual show dogs and working dogs but there are so many breeders out there who only breed for show without consideration for the health of the dog. 

German Shepherd Dog: Not bred to standard (which defines a dog with a powerful hind end), have weak frog legs and ridiculously sloped backs










Neapolitan Mastiff: Bred to standard but the standard demands wrinkles on a dog who originally (back when he accompanied soldiers to battle) didn't have many, rolling ambling gait that clearly looks like the dog is in pain or struggling to move forward, wrinkles that seem to need to be thrown back out of the dog's face in order for the dog to use its face for anything










These are the two I know most about but we know that there are 13 other breeds on this list and they should be. How a breeder of the two pictured breeds can look at the build of those dogs and be proud is beyond me.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

I have several issues with this. 

1: It assumes breeders know everything and can do no wrong, implying that breed fanciers don't know anything worth listening to. This "air back and let me do my thing without questions or input because I know more than you" mentality is toxic. 

2: It makes it sound like this shift to focus on health somehow puts breeds at risk or strips breeders of some kind of rights. Um. K? I can't find a single downfall to taking precautions in breeding that ultimately leads to healthier dogs- EVEN if it means changing the standard. 

3: It assumes you have to be heavily involved on a breed to give any valid input. I have minimal experience with GSD's outside of owning a mix for 5 years.... But one glance and I can see that they are in serious danger and their form severely lacks function. 

4: in the beginning the author gives many examples of how their dog lacks function due to its coat.... Then proceeds to get mad people care about that. 

5: this idea of "Stand up now, or your breed could be next!" Is baffling. Yes, they started caring about the well being of a few breeds, what an outrage if they care about more!! And why would a basic exam really outrage an ethical.breeder?? What are they afraid of? What harm could it do? 


I am in agreement on the mutt misconception. I don't have anything against them, but the idea they are healthier is laughable and impossible to accurately gauge. Dog shows are a tool to determine the beat breeding stock and while a thyroid screening might have NO bearings on form, tests like this are essential. Whether or not tests have a damn thing to do with conformation, conformation titles have a LOT do with how many litters a stud sires or bitch produces so I DO see a valid meet for health screenings to be involved. Plus, anyone showing and breeding healthy dogs would welcome the implications. 
Even so, Crufts hasn't implemented anything about actual tests. It's a basic exam. If a vet comes in for an exam and his findings are "Hey, this dog can't walk right, can hardly breathe, and his eyes are about to fall out." Then breeding practices like those that produce these mutant animals should NOT be awarded.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma (May 14, 2011)

Everything you pointed out is exactly what I felt. My first thought when she put up the picture of her puli was, "How can that dog do anything on its own? Hahaha. 

A good breeder should be breeding dogs that would be able to pass a basic exam so a good breeder shouldn't be worried about these changes.

I'm glad to see that I am not the only one who thought this author was a little off her rocker.


----------



## brandypup (Jan 23, 2012)

Yes people are using thier own interpatation in the standards it seems. Wrinkles around face doesn't mean extra loose skin creating wrinkles that oblivate the face. Strong hid legs doesn't mean look like a jack rabbitt. 

Same with cats- persians are not supposed to have a smashed face, they are supposed to have certain qualities but they had been awarded for smushy and to the point of breathing problems. 

If only the judges would get back to healthly standards and award for that. 

I also think any sport/working dog would hae to be duel purpose. Seems silly to have 2 differnt breeds withint the same breed. I had seen a beagle website contract that stated FORBIDS any hunting with their offspring. Huh? A beagle not allowed to hunt that is like a baby not allowed to cry. I can understand some off it, (like being kept outside maybe, having to were orange jacket or something)


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma (May 14, 2011)

Not allowed to hunt a beagle??? It's a freaking hunting dog!


----------



## bridget246 (Oct 26, 2011)

Some people like the German Shepard to be that way with weak hips because that is what they see. 



> The Kennel Club is currently embroiled in a dispute with German Shepherd breed clubs about the issue of soundness in the show-strain breed.[44] The show-strains have been bred with an extremely sloping back that causes poor gait and disease in the hind legs. Working-pedigree lines, such as those in common use as service dogs, generally retain the traditional straight back of the breed and do not suffer these problems to the same extent. The debate was catalyzed when the issue was raised in the BBC documentary, Pedigree Dogs Exposed, which said that critics of the breed describe it as "half dog, half frog". An orthopedic vet remarked on footage of dogs in a show ring that they were "not normal".
> The Kennel Club's position is that "this issue of soundness is not a simple difference of opinion, it is the fundamental issue of the breed’s essential conformation and movement."[44] The Kennel Club has decided to retrain judges to penalize dogs suffering these problems.[45] It is also insisting on more testing for hemophilia and hip dysplasia, other common problems with the breed.
> Breed clubs have typically responded that they feel they are being vilified for issues they were already aware of and attempting to address before the media storm erupted.[46]


Is that what this is about? I was thinking it was about time someone started pointing this out.


----------



## brandypup (Jan 23, 2012)

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> Not allowed to hunt a beagle??? It's a freaking hunting dog!


7. BUYER may never use the Beagle described herein for hunting purposes.

Yes- amazingly weird. And what is worse as it 'appears' one of the "better" breeders who does testing. this is under show dog contract... The pet contract doesn't pull up. It's liek they are trying to take away what a beagle is.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma (May 14, 2011)

bridget246 said:


> Some people like the German Shepard to be that way with weak hips because that is what they see.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what this is about? I was thinking it was about time someone started pointing this out.


I don't know what your first sentence means. The second sentence, yes, that is what I was referring to. The dogs should not be built that way. It has actually been discussed on DFC many times recently. Westminster kind of brought it all up again.


brandypup said:


> 7. BUYER may never use the Beagle described herein for hunting purposes.
> 
> Yes- amazingly weird. And what is worse as it 'appears' one of the "better" breeders who does testing. this is under show dog contract... The pet contract doesn't pull up. It's liek they are trying to take away what a beagle is.


That's just plain weird. Hahaha


----------



## Sprocket (Oct 4, 2011)

That Neo is just rediculous. Who would breed for such an uncomfortable look?


----------



## eternalstudent (Jul 22, 2010)

I don't think it is a case of NOW we should be worried about crufts. 

We should always be worried about people whose first priority is to win competitions, and not the dog.

These problems have been know about for years - the BBC stopped covering crufts a number of years ago because they viewed the dogs as abuse (a big RSPCA investigation).

I don't think working line dogs are much better. The average joe owner who buys a working collie round here is in for one of the hardest lives going. If they do not work the dog or at least learn that it needs a job and teach it that job they are stuffed, and the dog will be dead by 12 mo (biggest killer of rotties in my area is the vet at 12 - 18 month old)

My opinion is it is time to breed some new lines of dogs. Ones that are bred to be pets, not to meet a conformation, or to work a specific job. But to be pets. As this is what most people want in a dog.

The criteria used at crufts and judges at crufts are selected by the individual kennel clubs. It is at these grass roots that changes need to happen.


----------



## Caty M (Aug 13, 2010)

I DO agree that mutts are healthier than a lot of breeds... but not all. A lot is related to conformation also, that not a lot of mutts are going to be conformationally similar to bulldogs etc that have problems relating to their shape.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Anecdotally and from my own test group of approximately 50 dogs, I think mixed breeds ARE healthier.

I've owned very few purebreds, but this is what happened to them:

Great Dane - hip dysplasia and mental retardation
Dalmation - dropped dead at three years old. Probably cardiomyopathy. Also deaf.
Labrador - died of cancer at seven years old

Rebel - no big problems so far at 8 years old
Snorkels - probably would have been in good health if not for neglect.

mixed breeds:
chow/pit bull mix - tore both ACLs


about 44 other mixed breeds - no health issues. No hip dysplasia (all large breeds), no heart issues, no cancer. None died from genetic causes.

I'm not saying that's the way it is generally because I haven't seen those studies, but in my experience mixed breeds have been much hardier. 

Now, the other hardy purebreds I have known in my life are working cattle dogs. No one cared how they looked - they just cared how they performed.


----------



## bridget246 (Oct 26, 2011)

xellil said:


> Anecdotally and from my own test group of approximately 50 dogs, I think mixed breeds ARE healthier.
> 
> I've owned very few purebreds, but this is what happened to them:
> 
> ...


That makes me feel great about owing nothing but full breeds. :tongue1:


----------



## KittyKat (Feb 11, 2011)

There are so many issues at play here. The Kennel Club (in the UK) has altered some of the breed specifications so that such extremes are not to breed standards. Crufts has taken a step to say that health issues should be a concern.  These are both good steps. Dogs with genetic faults shouldn't be given pretty prizes and bred. 

Judges however come from the breed groups themselves, and although they are "trained" by the KC... they often have their own biases. These people heavily involved in breeds have blinders on. I mean I am in a rage over the fact that the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel is in the state it is. It breaks my heart to see these dogs suffer because humans are too fucking retarded to fix it. These show people/breeders need their head out of these asses and need a good strong look at what they have wrecked havoc upon. These are not clumps of clay but are living beings. Genes are the foundation to who and what we are. How can they think breeding to these extremes is a good thing? 
How can they be so xenophobic to other breeds to not even consider out-crossing to save a breed? (Dalmatians, i'm looking at you)


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

KittyKat said:


> Judges however come from the breed groups themselves, and although they are "trained" by the KC... they often have their own biases. These people heavily involved in breeds have blinders on. I mean I am in a rage over the fact that the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel is in the state it is. It breaks my heart to see these dogs suffer because humans are too fucking retarded to fix it.


It is animal cruelty and beyond, in my opinion, to breed a dog so it ends up writhing on the floor screaming in pain. Those people who did that should be shot.


----------



## bridget246 (Oct 26, 2011)

Who is Dalmatians?


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5 (Feb 11, 2010)

whats wrong with that shepard? looks ok to me? didn't you say it's not bred to standard anyway?


Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> Has anyone seen this?
> 
> Why Crufts Should Worry Us
> 
> ...


----------



## Sprocket (Oct 4, 2011)

RCTRIPLEFRESH5 said:


> whats wrong with that shepard? looks ok to me? didn't you say it's not bred to standard anyway?


If you could see that dog move you would think differently.

It may not be breed standard but that is what is winning, therefore it is what they keep breeding.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

RCTRIPLEFRESH5 said:


> whats wrong with that shepard? looks ok to me? didn't you say it's not bred to standard anyway?


Breeding a dog with a back that sloped deforms the rear legs terribly. The dog suffers, walks like a frog with wobbling knees that can barely carry him, usually needs surgeries for hip dysplasia and other bone problems, suffers his whole life, and is basically good for nothing because his shape so debilitates him. You will never see a dog like that doing any work, anywhere. He simply can't.

That's what's wrong with that shepherd. 

Apparently judges pay no attention to the breed standard when crowning winners.


----------



## Celt (Dec 27, 2010)

I do believe that some breeds have been seriously messed up by breeders going for a "look" and not a dog. I was very involved with doxies. I will freely admit that not one of my dogs would have won in a conformation show, but they could hunt. I didn't have to worry about their backs when they were jumping up, on, down, or over things and they still looked like doxies just without the "extra" length to their back. I can't see how a health check could be subjective. I mean if your checking a dog's heart/breathing rate, isn't there a set "healthy" range, and I think most things that would be tested would have to have a set "healthy" range. As for "show coats" being an issue, I'd say that if it is impeding an animals ability to regulate their temperature (I don't mean minor stuff either) or the ability to move then yes it is an issue that should be dealt with (and a rather easy one as well).


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Celt said:


> I do believe that some breeds have been seriously messed up by breeders going for a "look" and not a dog. I was very involved with doxies. I will freely admit that not one of my dogs would have won in a conformation show, but they could hunt. I didn't have to worry about their backs when they were jumping up, on, down, or over things and they still looked like doxies just without the "extra" length to their back. I can't see how a health check could be subjective. I mean if your checking a dog's heart/breathing rate, isn't there a set "healthy" range, and I think most things that would be tested would have to have a set "healthy" range. As for "show coats" being an issue, I'd say that if it is impeding an animals ability to regulate their temperature (I don't mean minor stuff either) or the ability to move then yes it is an issue that should be dealt with (and a rather easy one as well).


I never realized that Snorkels is actually built pretty well until I got Parker. Her legs are a little longer. Her back is too long but the taller legs help, I think. Her rear legs are a little bent but not too bad. She has a noticeable chest but it doesn't lead off like the prow of the Titanic.

Parker, on the other hand is extremely long and low. His rear legs bend at almost a 90 degree angle. His chest really sticks out. i think he is much closer to the show ring than Snorkels, simply because his body is so much more screwed up and exaggerated.

Scarlett also has a doxie that looks like a normal dog.

And I agree - judging should not be subjective like it is. Health checks should not be subjective. If a dog looks like that GSD it should never qualify for anything - that's just not healthy.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma (May 14, 2011)

Dixie is, IMO, how a doxie should be built. Dixie can spring from the floor to the couch, back to the floor, to the other couch, and keep going without anyone having to worry about her injuring herself. Maybe, if Abi sees this thread, she would be so kind as to post a picture. 

RC, no shepherd should be built that way. How strong do you think that dog's back legs are when they are all folded up under that sloping back? Here, we see MWDs all the time. We can't go to the vet without seeing at least two (on base vet) and the shepherds we see all have straight, strong backs. You will never see a GSD like the one in the picture being used because they could never perform like the military needs them to.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

yes, Snorkels isn't as well proportioned as Dixi but she's not too bad. Her back could stand to be an inch shorter.










But Parker is so long and look how bent his back legs are:


----------



## Herzo (Feb 5, 2011)

While I agree that I don't like the sloping back of the GSD nor do I think that the Bulldogs and other breeds like it can't breath, I don't think form what I have read that is what Crufts did. The only thing that made the dogs not be able to show was eye problems and most of them were cleared after the show. I think the only ones that really did have a problem was the Mastiff and the Neo. The owner of the Clumber has had eye,hip and elbow checked on her dog. Isn't this what we have all been saying needs done with breeds before they are bred? Do health testing?

I don't see where this is helping with movement with the Neo or the GSD or breathing with the Bulldog. I at first thought this was a good thing but the more I am reading on it it is just a bunch of BS. None of the things that are being questioned here are what they pulled those dogs out from. And I also heard that the vets were a cat vet and a horse vet, just sayin.


----------



## Sprocket (Oct 4, 2011)

Snorkels looks much better than poor Parker.

I can't stand dachshunds that have their chests to the floor and their back a mile long. It looks painful.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Sprocket said:


> Snorkels looks much better than poor Parker.
> 
> I can't stand dachshunds that have their chests to the floor and their back a mile long. It looks painful.


yes and the sad thing is Snorkels has terrible conformation. She's so bowlegged you could drive a truck through. her bottom jaw is about a half inch shorter than the top. And yet... she looks great compared to poor Parker. Simply because her legs are longer and straighter. That's all it takes.


----------



## nortknee (May 5, 2011)

I'll be the first to admit that I truly had no idea dogs were in as bad of shape, literally and figuratively, as they are. I just recently (upon seeing the whole Crufts discussion) watched "Pedigree Dogs: Exposed". and it's sequel, and I'm really glad the KC is taking the steps that they are, and hope that the AKC and CKC (Canadian Kennel Club) follow suit. But that's not going to fix the problem, nor will blaming x group change what we, humans, have done to them. Which is probably why this article ticks me off so much...

Comparing what Crufts did to potentially aid in the betterment of breeds and dogs as a species, to the eradication of human life during WWII isn't just ignorant, it's insane! No one is singling out those breeds to harm them, they're just trying to help make sure the breed survives to breed again in the next century, which from the sound of things, could very well be an impossible feat.
Yes, dog laws should be altered, yes, breed standards should be altered, but trying to shove health and animal welfare to the wayside for selfish (pride, greed, whatever it may be) reasons is just dumb. Some people...grr.

I would think breeders, of all the dog people out there, would be happy about this outcome. After all, isn't that what most breeders want? To produce happy, healthy, long-lived companions? I understand that show dogs are "different", but at the end of the day, they're still someone's pet.


----------



## channeledbymodem (Dec 25, 2008)

Jemima Harrison who produced both "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" documentaries has a very good blog where she discusses the Crufts decisions in detail. She is *very* sincere and well-meaning.

Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog

Also very good on this topic of breeding for conformation rather than health is P Burns who has working terriers.

His blog: - Terrierman's Daily Dose -

Both of the PDE documentaries are on YouTube: Pedigree Dogs Exposed BOTH Movies - YouTube


----------



## KittyKat (Feb 11, 2011)

bridget246 said:


> Who is Dalmatians?


Not who, but what... it's a dog breed.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma (May 14, 2011)

Herzo said:


> While I agree that I don't like the sloping back of the GSD nor do I think that the Bulldogs and other breeds like it can't breath, I don't think form what I have read that is what Crufts did. The only thing that made the dogs not be able to show was eye problems and most of them were cleared after the show. I think the only ones that really did have a problem was the Mastiff and the Neo. The owner of the Clumber has had eye,hip and elbow checked on her dog. Isn't this what we have all been saying needs done with breeds before they are bred? Do health testing?
> 
> I don't see where this is helping with movement with the Neo or the GSD or breathing with the Bulldog. I at first thought this was a good thing but the more I am reading on it it is just a bunch of BS. None of the things that are being questioned here are what they pulled those dogs out from. And I also heard that the vets were a cat vet and a horse vet, just sayin.


I agree. And that's the problem with superficial vet checking before a show but at the same time, it IS a start. Next year, it could be drastically improved from this year. Next year, people will likely demand that it be vets familiar with dogs as well as temporary, easy to heal things like eye scratches and the like allowed to compete. 

I only mentioned the neo and the GSD because the author of the article was saying that we need to let breeders "police themselves". Isn't that how the dogs got like this in the first place? We have pretty much trusted breeders to police their own for years now and look at some of the things they have done to some breeds (like the neo and the GSD). I only use the neo and the GSD because I know more about them than I do bulldogs, dachshunds, frenchies, etc. It is also easier to use the GSD's back and the neo's wrinkles as an example that breeders should no longer be allowed to police their own. 

This may not be the right start or the right way to go about it but the Kennel Club is finally attempting to put a stop to bad breeding practices which result in things like the not-bred-to-standard GSDs. 



channeledbymodem said:


> Jemima Harrison who produced both "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" documentaries has a very good blog where she discusses the Crufts decisions in detail. She is *very* sincere and well-meaning.
> 
> Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog
> 
> ...


I have been seeing "The Terrierman" more and more lately. I posted a blog entry of his in one of the heartworm threads a few weeks ago. Hahaha. That's all I have read but I think I'll give his blog a closer look.


----------



## KittyKat (Feb 11, 2011)

channeledbymodem said:


> Also very good on this topic of breeding for conformation rather than health is P Burns who has working terriers.
> 
> His blog: - Terrierman's Daily Dose -


Yet this guy thinks purina is a great food....


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma (May 14, 2011)

KittyKat said:


> Yet this guy thinks purina is a great food....


So do a lot of breeders who breed excellent show dogs. And a lot of working dog owners. We know a trainer who is EXCELLENT with dogs and can teach a dog something in minutes but he feeds his dog Bil Jac... 

No, it isn't an excuse but some people simply don't know any better. I would love to see if he has any entries on nutrition. I am always interested in seeing WHY someone thinks those foods are great.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

I think it often takes an issue to arise before people really look into it. If my dogs had been perfectly healthy, with awesome coats, and had no issues, I'm not sure I'd have looked into nutrition as deeply as I did.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma (May 14, 2011)

That's why I didn't look into it sooner. Frankly, I was the one who got bored with Dude's food. That's what led me to raw. But I had perfectly healthy dogs and fed Pedigree. Who knows what was going on INSIDE his body, but, in all appearances, Dude was perfectly healthy. I think Buck would have had issues on kibble (definitely on a crappy kibble like what we were feeding) and he probably would have been the dog to drive me to a major diet change. Honestly, though, for the first 20 years of my life, I was perfectly happy to feed my dogs Iams and Pedigree. I didn't know any better.


----------



## channeledbymodem (Dec 25, 2008)

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> So do a lot of breeders who breed excellent show dogs. And a lot of working dog owners. We know a trainer who is EXCELLENT with dogs and can teach a dog something in minutes but he feeds his dog Bil Jac...
> 
> No, it isn't an excuse but some people simply don't know any better. I would love to see if he has any entries on nutrition. I am always interested in seeing WHY someone thinks those foods are great.


Mr. Burns has had "working" terriers for many years and feeds them grocery store food. They seem to have lived long lives and not developed any exceptional health problems. He believes that genetic diversity or lack thereof has a much greater effect on health than diet and he he often cites veterinary school studies to support his point.

The Terrierman is *very* opinionated about most subjects involving dogs and politics and with many of his views I have agreed to disagree. However, he has the good of all dogs at heart and is in most respects very knowledgeable. I have found his posts about training and heartworm prevention to be very thought provoking. If you are interested in seeing pedigree dogs live longer, healthier lives his blog is worth reading even if you disagree with him on other issues.


----------



## KittyKat (Feb 11, 2011)

Dude and Bucks Mamma said:


> So do a lot of breeders who breed excellent show dogs. And a lot of working dog owners. We know a trainer who is EXCELLENT with dogs and can teach a dog something in minutes but he feeds his dog Bil Jac...
> 
> No, it isn't an excuse but some people simply don't know any better. I would love to see if he has any entries on nutrition. I am always interested in seeing WHY someone thinks those foods are great.


Yes, i have to question why someone would think only one aspect of health is important (say genetic diversity) and outright ignore the other - to the point of openly supporting a company.

His entry on nutrition was supporting Purina, claiming they have good evidence to support their food as good quality. etc etc. If you scroll down the page you will see it.


----------



## Dude and Bucks Mamma (May 14, 2011)

Thanks. I think I'll bookmark it to read it in the next couple of days.


----------



## doggoblin (Jun 6, 2011)

Ok a long post.. I don't apologise :tongue:



Herzo said:


> The only thing that made the dogs not be able to show was eye problems and most of them were cleared after the show.


Basset which was disqualified for instance was cleared by the basset hound breed club's own vet who happens to breed and show bassets themselves. I don't think it can be taken as an unbiased opinion. This is one of the key points. Vet checks at Crufts were based on the health of the dog with no allowances for breed standards. It should also be remembered that the vet check results haven't been released. The Kennel Club and Vet who performed the check are not allowed to release them. Why haven't the owners if they feel they have been misjudged. The main complaint has been a torch was used...

Mutt health as it has been mentioned.. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica | Full text | Mortality in over 350,000 Insured Swedish Dogs from 1995-2000: II. Breed-Specific Age and Survival Patterns and Relative Risk for Causes of Death is an interesting read. Or you could simply look at:
"Mortality in over 350,000 Insured Swedish Dogs from 1995–2000: II. Breed-Specific Age and Survival Patterns and Relative Risk for Causes of Death . . .









It should be noted that a charity in the UK which pays for treatment for dogs for those on low incomes has limitations on pedigree dogs. I think that indicates something.


> From the start of July 2011, an eligible PDSA PetAid hospital client can still register up to three pets, but only one pedigree cat or dog will be permitted per client.


The thing is this isn't a new problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5R...ADvjVQa1PpcFO6FYvr-0laQU9AiFdwO9xe6EeoXA23rD4 was in 1985.
You can go even further back.. 1962 Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1583599/pdf/vetsci00073-0026.pdf)


> Vets are not, as a body, biased for or against any particular breeds. Some of their recent statements have been very significant.
> 
> One of them was reported in a recent issue of The Journal of Small Animal Practice. An article in this professional publication stated outright that the Executive Committee of the British Small Animal Veterinary Association had become "very concerned" at the serious increase in the number of pedigree dogs suffering from defects and abnormalities, and by the corresponding
> increase in requests for surgical correction of these faults. Significantly, the author of the article was Dr. S. F. J. Hodgman, of the Canine Health Centre, near Newmarket.
> ...


50 years of dog breeders and exhibitors of pedigree dogs having their heads in the sand.hwell: Now they do not like the fact independent health checks have been introduced. It should be remembered however progress has been made. 9 out of the 15 breeds passed the health checks.


----------

