Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise; and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed as a man of understanding. Proverbs 17:28
Instead of taking the 2012 Crufts Vet Checks as a wake-up call that the KC was no longer going to pay mere lip-service to their pledge to reform dog breeding, remaining silent and waiting to assess the true fallout from the event before deciding on the way forward, and purposefully getting to work improving their breeds in the right way, many in the fancy have come out in hysterical levels of protest. In doing so, they have removed all doubt regarding their foolishness.
I think dog shows are a farce, but if I’m wrong and there is actually some value to shows in forwarding the goal of improving breeds, then it must be concluded that all of that value lies in the breed competition and that group and best in show are rather irrelevant.
After your dog is found to be the best in breed, how can winning a group or best in show ribbon provide any more information about that dog as a member of its breed? It can’t and frankly the entire concept of a group and best in show round lacks any scientific integrity: this beagle is a better beagle than that retriever is a retriever? Nonsense.
Group and Best in Show are clearly platforms for fame seeking. The dogs are not being judged against their standards, they are being judged against each other just like politicians, athletes, and pop stars compete for the attention of the public. Some might excel in their fields before competing for fame, but others lack talent and merit but are amazing self promoters.
Let’s realize one thing: the Crufts checks were a minor little hurdle and the consequences of failure were also pathetically minor. The vets could only look for that small set of conditions that are apparent from a cursory exam and the result of failing was only that the dogs could not advance to the group competition at that one show.
How pathetic is that?
The only requirement is that your dog isn’t suffering from some blatantly obvious disease and the only consequence is being denied a chance at another ribbon at one show. But this pathetically low bar is too high to hurdle for some decrepit breeds like the Pug.
Here is the histrionic statement made by one of the UK Pug breeders who chickened out of the vet checks at the first show following Crufts:
Dog showing is my hobby and now my hobby is turning into a nightmare. I prefer it if we all stand united; we want something done for every breed, not just toys. We say enough is enough.
– Aileen Welham, exhibitor of Barryann Trick or Treat
A nightmare? Enough is enough? Remember that Pugs are a genetic mess of three different types of dwarfism and they are one of the most expensive dogs to insure due to their high risk profile for numerous expensive diseases. Yet someone who is supposed to be the pinnacle of Pug breeders, deeply concerned with the health and welfare of the breed, thinks that it’s an atrocity that she be asked to show her dog to a vet before she gets to compete for more ribbons.
| Condition | Risk Profile | Cost to Diagnose and Treat |
|---|---|---|
| Portosystemic Shunts | High | $2,000-$6,000 |
| Legg-Calve-Perthes Disease | High | $1,000-$3,000 |
| Entropion | High | $300-$1,500 |
| Arachnoid Cysts | High | $4,500-$10,000 |
| Fold Dermatitis | High | $300-$2,500 |
| Necrotizing Meningo-Encephalitis | High | $1,500-$4,000 |
| Estimates based on claims paid by Embrace Pet Insurance | ||
Apparently this breeder is just fine with the pathetic state of this breed and the decades of complacency and dysfunction which has been intentionally bred into these wheezing toadstools, but one denied chance at a group placement at one dog show for the first time in history is a nightmare and worthy of “enough is enough.”
Here are highlights from a statement by the owner of Palacegarden Bianca, the Pekingese that was failed at Crufts:
I feel a combination of emotions including anger, sadness, disappointment, sympathy and frustration, I feel that the 15 breeds that the Kennel Club consider to be at risk, have been dreadfully let down by the Kennel Club in the way in which they have implemented the health checks on these breeds.
…
it is time that the Kennel Club stopped pandering to animal extremists, whose sole intention is to discredit and destroy the sport of exhibiting pedigree dogs
…
This procedure must have been very uncomfortable for the dog. It was uncomfortable just to watch.
…
He started writing on the form and he said ‘I’m failing her’. Words can’t describe the full horror of those words. I was in a living nightmare. I said something like ‘do you realise what you are doing? Reporters are waiting outside that door’ Very coldly and sternly he said ‘I am doing my DUTY. The Kennel Club have asked me to do this’
…
‘I knew that this was not just my own complete public humiliation but the worst possible outcome for the breed. I was in shock. The KC representative asked me if I would like him to take me back to my bench. This was kind because I was in a daze and would never have been able to find my way. I was whimpering like an idiot, saying ‘what will I say – what will I say‘.
This is the language of ego. It’s clear that to these people it’s about self-promotion, judge-shopping, and performance art. The dogs are incidental and anything that stands in the way of the social payoff of group and BIS wins is unpalatable and must be vehemently opposed.
If it wasn’t obvious before, the response to 2012 Crufts has removed all doubt: these people are fools.
* * *
Comments and disagreements are welcome, but be sure to read the Comment Policy. If this post made you think and you'd like to read more like it, consider a donation to my 4 Border Collies' Treat and Toy Fund. They'll be glad you did. You can subscribe to the feed or enter your e-mail in the field on the left to receive notice of new content. You can also like BorderWars on Facebook for more frequent musings and curiosities.
* * *
British Airways and Cathay Pacific have preceded Crufts—brachicephalic dogs are banned from flying…..
http://www.tourismandaviation.com/10916-pug-nosed-dogs-banned-on-airlines.html
Yes, people who have a financial investment in healthy dogs — which an airline responsible for their safe travel does — will not abide pedigree over extant truth regarding health and function.
It’s sad when an airline thinking strictly about their bottom line comes to a conclusion that the breed enthusiasts can’t let themselves come to: their dogs are dysfunctional and are barely able to survive normal life.
They aren’t dunces. At least the majority of them aren’t. It is really very similar (if not identical) to a religion. Those who condemned Galileo weren’t “dunces”, but their entire world view AND their power base was being threatened. For most of those who go to places like Crufts or Westminster, this is a major “prestige” validation for themselves and their efforts. Why else spend thousands and thousands of dollars? Even a top stud dog isn’t likely to recoup the costs, and a bitch is even less likely to do so.
The flip side of course is that the PETA/AR folk are just as “quasi religious”. It makes getting a message of reform through extremely difficult. What happened at Crufts is seen as the equivalent of Ninety-Five Theses nailed to the church door. Of course one is going to get a hornet’s nest type response. The question is if an Inquisition (on both sides) is going to result, instead of something more useful to both the dogs and dog breeders. It is easy to point out the extremes (just as Chaucer did with sellers of indulgences)of the pug and Peke, but how about “working line” Boxers? They still have some brachiecephalic characteristics. How about any of the giant breeds? At what point does one say: ok, that is “normal enough”? When they all look like Dingos? You and others may feel that is silly, but there are those who contend just that — and a number who feel ANY domestic dog is cruelty. Just like those who went to burning “heretics” after the Reformation on both sides.
While it is easy to feel frustration and anger that people just “don’t get it” and that facts are facts (as with Gaileo), I don’t think name calling or insults induces folk you want to reach to listen. I will note that the UKC announced revisions to their standards – one may find that some are hoping to eliminate the most extreme issues in the AKC as well. Or maybe dog folk will just have more than a border war.
Perhaps ‘dunce’ isn’t the best word here because we are currently in the process of determining their ability to learn from this. But for certain fool is. So I’ve changed the photo and that one word, it actually fits the quote as well.
As for your other points, it seems to me that you’re just reinforcing the histrionic apoplexy that these foolish breeders are demonstrating in response to what is at best a minor measure. The Inquisition? Not in the least. Luther’s 95 theses? Surely not. This baby step is hardly as sweeping or as powerful as either of those events. Frankly it’s so minor, metaphor isn’t really called for. This is a very cursory exam and the consequences of failure are so limited.
The way this response reads is that the fancy doesn’t want to do anything at all that they actually have to face up to. Nothing public and nothing documented. They’re fine over-exploiting “health tests” when they can hide negative results and commit fraud. We see that they are perfectly willing to lie through omission and distortion even when caught publicly over rather minor health issues, so what are we to expect with major health issues and ones that are anathema to buyers?
These people make me ashamed to be a dog breeder. I have had to work hard to prove that I’m not some money-grubbing idiot breeding for buck. I will ALWAYS have to work to prove this. And these idiots have been sitting back on their asses, secure in their position as ‘reputable’ breeders, and now, now that they are being asked to walk the walk, they piss and moan.
Actually puking on my keyboard could not express the contempt I feel for these people.
Jess recently posted..Tim Harford: Trial, Error and the God Complex
A nightmare, eh?
Losing an entire litter of pups to Parvo was a nightmare.
Losing a four year old and a seven year old of my own breeding to cancer was a nightmare.
Losing a dog due to my own stupidity was a nightmare.
Realizing that once you know enough to understand that you will never know everything, or be able to predict everything, or control everything, that uncertainty is the order of the day in dog breeding and if you want to continue you are going to have to accept that, well, that is a nightmare.
Finding out that a promising young dog has lost not one but two relatives to primary DCM is a nightmare.
I can think of a lot of things in dog breeding that could be considered a nightmare. I have experienced some of them.
Having to pass a health check, is that a nightmare? Not so much.
Grow the fuck up.
Jess recently posted..Tim Harford: Trial, Error and the God Complex
I love it Jess. “Realizing that once you know enough to understand that you will never know everything…” are words I always keep in my head. The KC and AKC are not alone in their hubris, nor is PETA. I can’t tell you how many chats, groups, etc, themed on everything but single-breed interest to rescues, to raising and keeping dogs on raw food or the natural way, I have belonged to where too much calm, rational questions enraged moderators, etc. I’ve been kicked out of many for simply being honest about my doubts or for thinking out loud, even if politely and sans accusations. It’s far too easy to bruise egos and shatter glass houses. Folks have a hard time leaving comfort zones. I think it goes back to our need to belong, as a social species ourselves. I guess that’s why some of us are attracted to this blog ourselves, but I think at least some of the folks here walked this path alone before finding a home.
I do some of my best writing on other peoples blogs.
Jess recently posted..Afghan Barukhzy Hound, Shahzada, 1896
I agree that many just don’t seem “to get it” regarding breeding for health. As Jess points out, losing a dog to genetically caused issues that could have been avoided is a nightmare. But you will always find some that are “flat earthers” (even today). Currently, those who have been flat earthers in dogs have been the ones with the prestige, power and authority. Changing their world view may be impossible. Changing the world view of the vast majority of dog breeders may not be. I don’t think Aileen who was quoted in the article wants to have animals with health issues. The problem is that she probably doesn’t feel “her dogs” HAVE health issues. We’ve seen with the NBT Boxers that even some researchers can be quite blind to detrimental side effects (he’s not unique. Lots of scientists in dogs and other fields exhibit the same blindness). One might think that people should “get it”, but really, they don’t. First, most people don’t take science in college. So what you are dealing with are folk who had, at best, some so so basic stuff in high school — and usualy 20 or so years ago at that. Second, most who are the top conformation exhibitors don’t do anything with their dogs OTHER than conformation. This is not physically demanding. So if the dog manages to be happy moving 20 – 40 feet a day, they don’t “see” that there is a problem. Really. They don’t. You really do have to spell it out in terms they can follow and understand — not because they are dumb, but because they really truly are that ignorant & uneducated. And for decades they’ve been rewarded for “more is better”. So when they are told they need to change, they resist — especially as those who would eliminate all dogs are saying much the same thing.
Showing people why things like excessive wrinkling or extreme angulation in the hocks is bad probably won’t change the minds of the “top 10%”, but it may change the views of the remaining 90%. The thing is to provide these folk with “what is an alternative” — and in that regard, showing the differences between say, a Seeing Eye GSD, a HGH GSD and the current “show winners” may be more effective than a lot of other alternatives. Agility is one of the fastest growing dog sports. How many of those Pekes or Neos that were at Crufts could run an agility course?
“I don’t think Aileen who was quoted in the article wants to have animals with health issues.”
This is missing the point.
Pay attention to these people. They are confusing breeding dogs with exhibiting dogs. To them, the only reason to do the former is to have dogs for the latter activity.
Dogs are old. We have had dogs for a bazillion years. Their form and purpose may change, but we will always have dogs, because we LIKE having dogs.
Dog shows are young. Less than two hundred years old. Dog shows are not necessary to maintain dogs, either as breeds or types. Very few dogs bred are ever shown.
I have talked to breeders who had a disaster litter and decided never to breed again. I respect that. It is a devastating experience, and you have to harden yourself to acceptance that these are biological systems and shit will go wrong in spectacularly horrible ways at times. At the same time, you cannot allow yourself to become too cold, because these are living, feeling beings we are dealing with.
I can respect someone who chooses not to breed after experiencing a nightmare. I can respect someone who choose to leave a breed after having dog after dog with health issues. I can respect someone who chooses not to breed because they simply cannot deal with having that amount of responsibility on their head.
I cannot respect someone who obviously feels that conformation showing is so important that a health check, and a simple one at that, is going to fuck it all up for them. And frankly, such a person does not *deserve* respect, because they are cheapening the work and sacrifice that goes into breeding dogs.
Jess recently posted..Tim Harford: Trial, Error and the God Complex
OMG another home run Jess! YES! We don’t NEED dog shows?! It’s just the flavor of the month, in the geologic/chronologic history of dogs. But just long enough to be the thing in most memories of people living today, so that they believe this is how it’s always been, and that show folks are the only ones who are “responsible” and know what they are doing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even today, there are folks who breed with real goals for their dogs, not just for profit, but who also don’t breed for show. HGH GSDs, dogs for police, dogs for assisting the disabled, for S&R, for hunting, and more. Whatever the goals and whether you still stick to a “breed” or a landrace, dogs would not fall off the earth without the show crew. If word of that could spread far enough, we might see some changes.
I think that’s a fair assessment of many in the Fancy and many dog breeders in general.
And if we consider your Reformation analogy, there are multiple possible paths out of this. We could stay with the Church until it modernizes some, but almost always too little, too late, and too infrequently. I suspect that we’ll see the same thing we see in real life, that you can’t breed your way to more followers when they are leaving the Church faster than you can breed them.
You can join the split Church, the one that tries a radical change in some respects, but which is ultimately based on much of the same dogma.
You can leave the Church and their dogma behind.
While I don’t think this little vet check business (and before I saw that they would actually fail dogs I would have told you it was a joke and that it was just there as a meaningless rubber stamp) is big enough to launch a Reformation, perhaps you’re right that the Fancy is reacting as if it is. They are certainly speaking the language of “with us or against us” or in religious speak “you are with our Pope or you are an agent of the devil.” I personally find the “if you dare to criticize us in any way you are AR” talk to be like this. It’s very black and white and polar extremes. And just like the Libertarians had to invent the Nolan cart and introduce a second axis to make their position clear, I don’t find my position as a compromise between AR and the Fancy.
As you say, they both are rather religious in their thinking. I don’t think I’m arguing from a middle point between those at all.
But it’s a mistake to think that everyone calling for reform is some Vegan-fascist. That’s really giving up the moral center to the extreme on the other side and frankly giving up any credibility on any moral issues with dogs. That’s foolish.
I think this analogy is not feasible.
Religion is based on belief, but in dog breeding there is irrefutable science. Nature has shown us what is viable, science has analysed and proven this.. “The church” is by nature a conservative institution and all societies have similar systems of belief which also preserve social interaction.
Science has marched on in giant steps and shown us how heredity works, has opened up the field of genetics for anyone who wants to take the trouble to understand.
I would think a comparison in believing the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it is more similar to the mindset of “these” people,
The worst part of course is that all this is just an expression of personal ego and has nothing at all to do with dogs.
Dorothea Penizek
http://www.claremorris-parson-russells.at
You do know the Catholic Church once made sure that all its believers accepted scientific falsehoods? That’s why Galileo went on trial.
In American evangelical Christianity, it is still pretty common for people to be taught to deny science in order to remain part of the church.
Retrieverman recently posted..New Rule
Yes I do know. What’s more, I am a Catholic….doesn’t stop me from believing in evolution. I find the american mindset about Creationism and the American evangelical people mind-boggling. Both Austria and Italy are Catholic countries, but things like abortion or contraceptives are not political issues.
this comment is off topic…sorry.
Well, you just made Chris’s point for him.
The Catholic Church has adapted to science and new realities from external pressures. The Reformation brought about a Counter-Reformation, which was not just a purging of protestant elements in catholic regions but a general restructuring and re-evaluation within the church itself. That’s why the Church endures, and why it will outlast all the backwards creationist fundamentalist churches in the United States. It has enough of a balance between orthodoxy and well-reasoned theology to outlast even the protestant churches that have begun to reject virtually all orthodoxy, which in essence makes Christianity irrelevant.
The Kennel Club system is much like a church that cannot adapt to what is happening in the world. If the Catholic Church had been able to put down Luther in the way that it put down earlier heresies or if it had been unwilling to accept science and then make some reforms and concessions at Vatican II, it would be in much the position that the dog fancy now finds itself in.
Retrieverman recently posted..Identify these pink things
I don’t think it’s off topic at all. We DO breed dogs in the real world, and science applies. But Registries and Kennel Clubs and Breed Clubs are dogmatic bureaucracies, much like organized religions.
This is the inherent conflict, no? Science marches on by its own rules and often the bureaucracies are left in an antiquated state.
There is no question based on scientific evidence in my opinion past accepted breeding practices in pure breed dogs in America’s is totally obsolete. Antiquated! (Old and certainly not constructive or useful today) Just as specifically the “Little theories of Coat Color” of the S Locus that can not be documented by scientific findings.
.
Most things are how we view them. If you live in a tribe that worships a rock god, a bunch of people who worship a sky god seem like a cult.
But dog shows are different. They have dogma with almost no wiggle room for change or improvement of the system itself. Yet the breeds have changed, despite denials that this can’t be. Photographic proof is abundant.
But many people in the system will not acknowledge the obvious.
Kennel Clubs are run like churches and not like research labs tough. In dog breeding we can apply science, but in dealing with organizations like breed and kennel clubs, we have to deal with dogma and unscientific thinking, tradition, unsupportable beliefs, and mythology.
Luckily in the Austrian KC things are not quite that bad—the president is a geneticist.
Christopher wrote: While I don’t think this …. is big enough to launch a Reformation, perhaps you’re right that the Fancy is reacting as if it is
I think this is what is happening. And of course it is irrational for folk to do that, but then one has things like Scientology, which is a known “created by an author” religion and yet believers respond to any critisism as if it is the end of the world.
Jess wrote: They are confusing breeding dogs with exhibiting dogs
== yes, they are. And they are confusing what is winning in conformation with what is “good” or “healthy”. And for decades those running such events have told them just that. I don’t know how many times I’ve been told “I want a dog that looks good and field dogs just look like mutts” or something along those lines. In all the years I’ve been involved in dogs, I’ve seen the AKC Gazette showcase a field type maybe a handful of times — and even then, they promptly also included the conformation version. And no, I don’t think a field “national” is the answer as I’ve seen what “best of the best” type competition does in all the various dog venues. People like to compete and wanting to be “best” is something hardwired in most. Consequently, almost all competition drives this ever more extreme effort to beat the other guy. It is only where a large number is required that one sees this lessened — short of cloning, you can’t have “one” seeing eye dog. Or one dairy cow. But in “dog world” one has “one” winner of Crufts, etc. In herding, those who use dogs “real life” may think they have the best dog, but they aren’t extreme about it. Competitive trials, on the other hand, do end up with a number of folk with that attitude.
I don’t think it’s possible to change the minds of those who have a significant investment in the status quo (can one convert the Pope?) But those who “belong” but don’t have so much invested in the “wins” might be reachable. I just think that to reach them, one has to put the information out in a manner that will work given that most have a high school level of math. And they need to have trust that the information being provided is real, and that is is easily accessable. Yes there are dog breeding books — but precious few discuss things like too much wrinkle, too much angulation in the hock, PRA, etc.
Precedents have already been established:
European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes, signed 1976, revised 1992
European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, signed 1987, ratified 1992, revised 1995
While the UK refuses to acknowledge over the sketchy detail of tail-docking, the general concious remains. It really moronic to play stupid about Crufts`s veterinary checks and the Kennel Club`s reform measures when the legal aspect is quite ancient.
Dave recently posted..When Shit Hits the Fan
But wasn’t the clumber at Crufts from Europe? if the FCI standard is in accordance with the EU rules you reference, one should be seeing some significant changes after 20 years (1992 – 2012) or more. What do the EU pekes, English bulldogs, etc look like? This site http://www.worlddogshow2011.fr/en/pages/130-years-of-the-french-kennel-club/1 shows a GSD every bit as angulated as one would see in AKC conformation. The English bulldog photos show less wrinkle but not what I would expect after 20 years. The collies seem as tiny eyed as in the US. Are they just giving it lip service?
It is a treaty proposed by the European Council, not a set European Union law. Giving a signature doesn’t mean the country will start enforcing it. In order to do that, the country who agreed to the treaty need to pass their own laws domestically to give the treaty some teeth.
Most of it is already been enforced– husbandry, ownership, training et cetera.
Germany, Austria and Switzerland already have breeding laws in existence, but they do not plan on enforcing until the next few years. However the ban on tail-docking and ear-cropping was already successful. If I recall correctly, Sweden already have RAS programs in place to improve the conformation of the dogs.
I don’t know how things are regulated in Denmark, where the Clumber was bred, but the owneer is from Croatia who have not signed the Convention yet.
You are only partially right— breeding rules are made by the breed clubs and by the Austrian KC.
Husbandry is not tightly controlled, ownership not at all.
Austria passed an animal protection law which stipulates that no pet animal should be bred to such extremes that it impairs a normal life. The extreme breeds must show some improvement by 2018. What the consequences of failure might be or who will execute this law is uncertain. Judges have been instructed not to place extreme examples of the breeds in question. A list like that of the KC “high profile” breeds does not exist.
The point is, the whole shrill about Pedigree Dogs Exposed being the byproduct of Animal Rights Activists or Crufts is being dominated by one is absolute nonsense.
The fanciers had 25 years to change their ways. Now they are crying because someone is trying to enforce what has been said repeatedly for more than a quarter of a century?
Dave recently posted..When Shit Hits the Fan
It’s great that, with pressure from PDE, the UK KC has begun taking some account of health, and working against extreme conformation. I just wish there were a better basis for putting emphasis on problems in proportion to their importance. I wish we had the equivalent of epidemiology to work from . . . rather than our images of different breeds.
If only the keepers of pedigrees would keep data on deaths and morbidity as well as births (as I guess they do in Scandanavia).
For example, compare the pug and the Bernese Mountain dog. Pugs tend to be symbols of poor breed health. They look unnatural and make snorting noises (‘wheezing toadstools’). . . but I have yet to see the pug show up on an insurance company list of ‘most expensive breeds’ and there are may many breeds with shorter life expectancies. The Bernese Mountain dog came out #2 on Trupanion’s list of most expensive dog breeds (bulldog was #1) due to high frequency of mast cell tumors.
In the Cassidy dataset (http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2011/10/lifespan-long-and-short-of-it.html), the BMD has a life expectancy of 8 yrs compared to 12 for the pug.
As for the three types of dwarfism — I like big dogs much better than small ones — but all the data I’ve seen to suggest bigger dogs lead shorter lives.
The data we have to work with are pretty awful. But I do think concern for breed health should at least attempt to take account of incidence and seriousness of the various ailments that beset dogs.
I’m glad to see some move to breed away from ectopian . . . but I’d rather see serious record keeping and genetic research that will let us breed away from, for example, cancer, allergies, and epilepsy.
I knew America was not going well on this – but 25 years behind? Its like being a breeder of spotty dogs that have sludge piss while others are breeding LUA.
UNadaptable as dogma, but crazy, more of a cult than a religion.
At first I felt really sorry for the pug breeder/handler, but later I wondered if she had ever made other people feel this way? Like maybe ever saying bad things about puggles or people trying to improve the gene pool? Or telling someone that they shouldn’t bred their dog because it isn’t good enough? Isn’t that what the vet told her? That her dog wasn’t good enough?