Doowneerg Usi, a Neapolitan Mastiff that failed its Vet Check due to Ectropion and Facial Pyoderma.
This last weekend a Neopolitan Mastiff failed its vet check at the Welsh Kennel Club Championship Show and not a day later the red-in-the-face owner was weeping and slobbering online and to the media about how it was just so unfair because the same dog had not failed vet checks at other recent shows and now she’s dancing all around the real health issues of her dog and breed by pretending they’re old fighting injuries and don’t cause any suffering or just part of the conformation standard.
The Neapolitan Mastiff – who was failed on ‘eye confirmation which means tears drain laterally’ and ‘scarring and hair loss to jowl’ – was Doowneerg Usi, who belongs to breed health co-ordinator Kim Slater and Mateaki Mafi.
It’s rather ironic that weeping, slobbering, and an angry flush face is the reason that Usi failed his vet check given that a likewise disposed Kim Slater is now demanding that the Kennel Club apologize to her and reinstate her ribbon!
“I demand a full enquiry into the vet-checking process and the level of understanding of the vets selected to undertake the checks laid down under the KC’s directive. I insist on a full apology for the distress caused and damage to my personal reputation and that of my dog. I request reinstatement of my dog Doowneerg Usi’s BOB award on the grounds it was removed due to incorrect interpretation of the directives laid down by the KC.
“I will not hesitate to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure my rights and those of my fellow exhibitors to compete equally at the highest level of dogs shows is not compromised or impaired by inconsistent veterinary health assessments. If you do not support that right, then you are failing the community of pedigree dog owners who elect to compete at UK Kennel Club sponsored dog shows which is fast becoming a farce in the eyes of the world of dogs.”
Slater is complaining that she finally got caught, not that she got away with exhibiting a dog with an angry scrotal face previously. Can you imagine if the Kennel Club came out with a REAL reform measure and said “No BOBs with Ectropion, period. We won’t reward ribbons until this problem is gone from the breed, even if it takes you 20 years to get there.”
Do you really think this dog cares more about its “reputation” than the fact that its eyes are so distorted by the excess flesh on its face that they don’t irrigate nor close correctly? Make no mistake, this dog has ectropion, which this breeder just writes off as something that’s in the standard, implying that she’s forced to have it lest she not win ribbons. She’s not following a long standing and horrible fad, she’s following the unimpeachable standard!
Ms Slater said the health checks were ‘killing the dog game in this country’.
“This isn’t just about my feelings – it’s about the future of the Neapolitan Mastiff in the UK. He is a healthy dog – hip scored, heart and thyroid tested etc.
“I want the world to know that nothing about this process is right. Show are being affected because people are nervous and not turning up.
“If even the best of the best isn’t good enough where do we go from here? I told the vet I have worked my guts out for this breed and that he was judging him on the wrong criteria. He passed a health check less than a fortnight ago.”
Gosh, think of the dog game (emphasis on the game, not the dogs)! You mean that there’s finally some small impediment to blindly morphing dogs into monsters to follow fads and exaggerate features to ridiculous magnitudes? The game just won’t be any fun if we can’t have full freedom to breed disease into our dogs and we demand you reward us for it, Kennel Club!
“It’s vital to me that my dogs pass otherwise my line is doomed. I’m the breed health co-ordinator – I don’t breed unhealthy dogs and I don’t show unhealthy dogs. I only bring the best of the best to shows.”
She said her dog had been failed on conformation and not welfare issues.
“He has ectropion – a vet has said that before – but that is because of his eye conformation; he isn’t suffering because of it. Vets are being asked to say whether they think a dog is suffering.
Translation: It’s vital for my ego and standing in the breed that I continue to win ribbons with no extra burdens like taking health into account. It’s better for me that the standards reflect the horrible condition the breed is in now, otherwise I’d actually have to do the hard work of making a better dog. I have a modicum of political power in the breed now, gained as always by kissing the ass of the old guard so they’d let me use their stock and ride their coat-tails and then I waited until they died off, now I’m in charge!
I wouldn’t want to do anything to risk that, and I don’t actually know anything about how to create a healthier dog, so any improvement in standards like the vet checks which would in any way make me alter my breeding decisions and use different dogs is unacceptable. The only acceptable programs are those that would not require doing anything differently, would not change the breed in any way, and would just make people feel better about inbred disease.
“And the mark on his face is where he was stitched after a fight with his father. He’s a working dog, out and about in the countryside, not a house dog.”
This is where Ms. Slater goes really wrong and makes a complete fool of herself in trying to cover up what has actually become a sine-qua-non disease in Neapolitan Mastiffs. She took to Facebook and posted the following photo of her dog.
Kim Slater made the following claim when she posted this image:
Notice that her first argument is to call Ectropion “poor eyelid conformation.” This is a joke and a poor attempt to frame what is both a health and welfare issue as a mere conformation issue. Fail.
Next, we have breeder acknowledgement that she’s intentionally pushing exaggerated conformation as far as possible:
“I am not an idiot. I knew I was pushing the envelope with this dog as he represents that thing called treading the line. Daring to look the way he does but enjoying great health.”
Let’s be clear, this dog was not bred for his enjoyment of anything. This dog has had its own enjoyment sacrificed for human entertainment. Renaming ectropion doesn’t change that it’s a disease, it’s a major malformation of the tissue surrounding the eye and it’s not without consequence.
So too is claiming that a persistent and scarring skin disorder is an old fighting wound.
“He’s never been to the vet in his life only to stitch a cut he got in a punch up with his father.”
Another comment supports this characterization of the scarring and hairless spots on this dog’s face:
“Honorable scars should not be penalised…you have wording like that in so many FCI standards… I am just without words about all you UK breeders have to go through since Crufts.”
But is that what the picture shows? I don’t think so. Those scars show a history of pustules, not bites. This dog has an ongoing dermal condition that has nothing to do with a dustup with another dog, it’s facial pyoderma and it’s common in many breeds with excess skin on their faces, especially mastiffs. Their placement on the face near creases of the skin is textbook expression.
Care and Maintenance
Due to the extensive wrinkles and large body mass of the more “overdone” type, these Neapolitans will require extra care and maintenance as far as bathing and cleaning the face and body. Neapolitans are droolers and if the wrinkles are not cared for properly the Neapolitan Mastiff will smell. The areas on the muzzle can form acne due to the infections. Worse, demodex can enter the feet area as it will be a warm damp place for the mites to thrive. The Neo then licks at the feet, transferring the mites to the face and then on to others parts of the body. So for these reasons it is important to keep the “overdone” type Neapolitan’s face and wrinkles as dry as possible.
Another possibility is Demodex which is more common in breeds with suppressed immune systems.
The Neapolitan Mastiff is covered with large amounts of skin as per our standard, a few skin related concerns do frequently occur in the breed. Pyoderma and Demodocosis are the most common. During puberty Neapolitan Mastiff puppies are often affected by acne under the chin and during the time when they shed their puppy coat they appear to look slightly molted. Both puppy issues usually resolve within a month or two.
If your Neapolitan is showing signs of skin discomfort, infection or demodocosis consulting with a dermotologist is the best course of action.
Neapolitan Mastiffs are prone to this series of disorders for three reasons.
(1) The dilute black, also known as gray or blue, coat. The sine-qua-non condition associated with this color (which affects all breeds that have it) is called Color-Dilution Alopecia.
Color-dilution alopecia is a relatively uncommon hereditary skin disease seen in “blue” and other color-diluted dogs. This syndrome is associated with a color-dilution gene. The initial clinical signs are the gradual onset of a dry, dull and poor hair coat quality. Hair shafts and hair regrowth are poor, and follicular papules may develop and progress to frank comedones. … Grossly, extensive partial hair loss was seen on the skin. Histopathologically, the epidermis is relatively normal but may be hyperplastic. Hair follicles are characterized by atrophy and distortion. Heavily clumped melanin is present in the epidermis, dermis and hair follicles.
There’s no way to have the color and avoid the disease, the effect which dilutes the hair is one-and-the-same that creates the conditions for the disease.
(2) Mastinos have shitty immune systems. Demodex is a known issue in the breed and this is exacerbated by weak immune response. Neapolitans are also known to have poor response to anesthesia, again an immune issue. The high prevalence of arthritis in the breed is also exacerbated by their immune response. Hypothyroidism is also common in the breed and this very likely has an immune component. Hypothyroidism often causes coarse, dry hair that is brittle and breaks off or falls out easily. The skin can become thick, coarse, dry, and inflamed.
The Mastino is a reconstructed breed from a very small gene pool and is thus inbred, a condition known to directly impair the immune system.
(3) The Neo, much like the Shar Pei, has been bred by the fancy for grossly excessive amounts of loose skin on the face. The lips no longer meet and close creating excess drool, the skin hangs down and becomes wet and soiled when the dog eats and drinks, and the folds hold oils, dirt, and moisture which is a perfect environment for bacteria.
This dog is not suffering from an old bite wound nor is it suffering undue persecution from the Vet at the dog show. It’s suffering from being a Neapolitan Mastiff, from conditions that are well known and prevalent in the breed. Conditions that could be bred away from but which have been sidelined due to the much more pressing concern of winning ribbons by “pushing the envelope” and “treading the line” of human decency.
* * *
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.
* * *
I think it’s sad that in the top photo one can’t even find the dog’s eyes because of the wrinkles. I blame the “more is better” syndrome that has driven this kind of exaggeration – it isn’t “enough” to have “loose” skin, one must have wrinkles. It’s not enough to have “some” wrinkle, one must have it over the entire body. Then it’s necessary to have many large folds of skin…. Dogs are very stoic and if the dog isn’t in “obvious” distress, folk think they are fine. And people can truly be blind to the distortion.
That woman is a total nutbar.
Her whole exchange on PDE is hilarious. She actually thinks her dogs have something to do with Ancient Rome and that the Romans bred their war and gladiatorial dogs to look like that!
Retrieverman recently posted..Jackal is a meaningless term
There’s a beautiful fresco of a Roman guard dog that was preserved in Pompeii, it did not look anything like this poor deformed dog. All someone has to do is “Google” to find it. I can’t get over the tall tales people spew about dogs when they are so easy to disprove. I guess it somehow releives the guilt of doing this to another living being.
I was googling around and found this “standard” by the ENCI:
“HEAD – Short and massive, with a skull wide at level of zygomatic arches; its length is about 3/10 of the height at the withers. Ample skin with wrinkles and folds of which the most typical and the best marked goes from the outer palpebral angle down to the lip angle. The upper longitudinal axes of the skull and the muzzle are parallel. CRANIAL REGION – The skull is wide, flat, particularly between the ears, and, seen from the front, slightly convex in its fore part. The bizygomatic width is more than half the length of the head. The zygomatic arches are very prominent, but with flat muscles. The protuberances of the frontal bones are well developed; the frontal furrow is marked; the occipital crest is hardly visible. Stop – Well defined.
Lips – Fleshy, thick and full; upper lips, seen from the front, form an inverted “V” at their meeting point. The lower lateral profile of the muzzle is shaped by the upper lips; their lowest part is the corner of the lips, with visible mucous membranes, situated on the vertical from the external angle of the eye. Jaws – Powerful with strong jaw bones and dental arches joining perfectly. Lower jaw must be well developed in its width. Teeth – White, well developed, regularly aligned and complete in number. Scissors bite, i.e. upper incisors closely overlapping the lower ones in close contact, set straight to the jaw, or pincer bite, i.e. upper incisors meet edge to edge with the lower incisors.
Eyes – Set on an equal frontal level, well apart one from the other; rather round, slightly deep set. Compared with the coat color, the colors of the iris is darker. The eye may nevertheless be lighter in coats of diluted shades.”
I think that’s enough to post to make the point, that there is a brief reference to ample skin at certain points, and full, fleshy lip, eyes SLIGHTLY deep set. That’s really ALL you see written with respect to anything revolving around skin at the head. It’s pretty clear that the monstrosity before us on your blog is a result of extreme interpretation. Nothing I see written suggests that any Mastino needed to ever get to this point. Even with the mention of the outer palpebral angle, there is nothing to suggest that skin and structure resulting in ectropion, or entropion or any other eye malformity, is desired or acceptable. Nearly all dogs have skin that fits snug to the body, so it would only take a single fold to be “ample” by comparison if you think of it. Anything more is purely for showing off at a horrific cost.
This is childish and cruel. The lack of empathy from such folks who often presume to call themselves “lovers” of their favorite breed, never ceases to astound me.
“Eyes: Set deep and almost hidden beneath drooping upper lids. Lower lids droop to reveal the haw.” The standard actually allows and calls for Ectropian with AKC?
http://www.akc.org/judges/guides/neapolitan_mastiff/standard.cfm
This link reveals the AKC standard for the Neopolitan Mastiff which I find shocking.
When reading that site, keep in mind that the actual Standard is only what is in straight type; what is in italic type is “explanatory” comments. The comments sometimes encourage exaggeration more than does the actual Standard (although that also could be improved considerably.)
I just wanted to point out that Maud’s e-mail address, which is used to create the avatar, makes for a perfect Moose, or perhaps a Jackelope.
Oh well wait, here’s another part of the ENCI and note the light bulb comment about the head changing over the last 30 years “some suggest due outcrossing.”
Outcrossing to WHAT? Yeah, right.
http://www.neapolitanworld.com/index.php/Neapolitan-Mastiff-theme/standard.html
I swear most of these people don’t understand how selective breeding works.
It’s said that the Neo was crossed into the Shar-pei to help create the “meat mouth” type you see here. This is supposed to have helped create the meat mouth look, and increase their severely depleted gene pool.. Done clandestinely, of course. But I am wondering if the results could have be used in the Neo, increasing the wrinkling as well.
I had an old SP book 20 years ago, and I haven’t a clue what happened to it, or most of my younger year library (Including a Leon Whitney and a a few Malcolm Willis books and my first Richard Stratton book).
Three things I remember the most about this book. First, the “flower” Shar-pei. I never knew this breed actually had spotted dogs. Second, I remember a line that something to the effect that most of the Shar-Pie’s sent here were of poor quality. Third, I remember that the old pictures of SPs in that book looks like tiny eared pit bulls to me. Yes, the conformation wasn’t exactly right, and even then, the had straight stifles, but the body type was very much like like the pits.
That also makes me wonder.. If the SP was such an endangered and rare breed in the late 1970’s and a limited number of dogs were imported to the US, then they’re quite inbred, unless there were outcrosses done to expand the gene pool, whether openly, or behind the barn.
I have put the bone mouth Shar Pei on my list of dogs I want to own one day. I know it’s not likely to happen, but one can dream, no?
Here’s another AKC standard link. I don’t see italics here but I do see things I don’t like, such as the eyes.
http://www.akc.org/breeds/neapolitan_mastiff/
I owned a blue Great Dane that was diagnosed with color mutant alopecia (as it was called then) via biopsy by a derma vet. He suffered from frequent outbreaks of acne (pyoderma) on his lips and chin, usually stress associated. Once the infection is under control, the pustules heal and the skin gains pigment back very quickly and the area looks normal again.
Both images of this dog show what looks like an active outbreak of pyoderma.
If you do not want your dog DQed for “scarring and hair loss,” wait until the infection has healed to show it.
Jess recently posted..Learn Something New Every Day
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, and none of us were there to go over the dog and see it on the day – the fact that to put this page up you stole the photos and the information from facebook, on a private group, and did not ask permission, did not show the full story and cherry picked the comments you made shows that you are actually a bit of a prick. I’m also quite sure you won’t post this. I don’t show this breed, or any other on the list, so have no inherent interest in this myself – but in the interests of fairness, perhaps you could admit that you had no permission whatsoever to post any of this? At the very least, you should, as a journalist, try to be impartial and fair in your terms and criticism if you want to be taken seriously – your histrionic and deeply offensive description of the dog’s owner should tell anyone with a rational brain that your word, perhaps, is to be taken with a pinch of salt, and good information on this condition would be better found elsewhere.
1) Fair Use. No permission required.
2) I publish all comments.
3) I didn’t cherry pick anything. That’s a full and unaltered screencap.
4) My arguments are accurate. Deal with it. I posted the breeder’s quotes and tore them apart. What, do you want me to pretend she’s not an idiot and a liar just to be “balanced”?
The compromise between truth and bullshit is just watered down bullshit. I’ll stick with reason and truth, even if that makes some breeder look like the callous fool that she is.
True – there should be no compromise between truth and bullshit. That I have no issue with. My issue is with the fact that you WERE NOT THERE and yet are diagnosing the dog without ever having laid eyes on him yourself – and spouting all your opinions as fact. You may be right. You may be completely wrong. Then who would look like the callous fool?
Of course I was not there. Not ONE thing I said in my argument requires you to believe my personal experience! I posted publicly verifiable and falsifiable information that you are welcome to check for yourself. You, and anyone else, can look up health problems in Neos and see that facial pyoderma is listed as common and known in the breed. You can look at how this disease path works and what scars from it look like. Then you can take that knowledge and compare it to the photos the breeder posted herself.
If it looks like acne, and scars like acne, in a breed known for acne, which shows up in the exact place that is most likely for pustules, then I’m not worried at all that I’ll be proven wrong. And if I am I would in no way be shown to be foolish nor callous. Being educated and honest and connecting all available evidence to known probabilities is wise no matter if the outcome defies all those odds and is actually something else. And it’s not callous to note that the MOST probable situation is one that needs to be addressed as a humane concern, that is the opposite of callous, Sophie, versus the bullshit being spewed by this breeder that it’s a fight scar and nothing that she’d ever have to change.
I mean really, what IS this old war wound? Did this dog get smacked in the face by a BUS? Is that why it looks like a melted, angry, bloated and mangy scrotum? No? This dog was bred over generations to look like the freak that it is simply to indulge the human desire to create freaks? That is callous and that is foolish. That dog is so disgusting I can see it from across the Atlantic. That you can’t is just sad. The king has no clothes.
So do something positive to change things – rather than just raving pointlessly on a little visited website. You’ll feel better for it. Really xxx
“Little visited website” ?
LMFAO
Retrieverman recently posted..Does any of this sound familiar?
Do something positive to change things? Hahahahaha.
You probably don’t realize just how stupid and ironic your comment is.
If this is a pointless and little visited website, how did you find your way here and feel the need to comment? If I have the ability to reach out and touch someone 4,700 miles away, I’d say I’m doing pretty good.
As for little visited and doing something positive, more than one hundred thousand people read my post on Merle to Merle breeding within two weeks of it being published back in February and several hundred thousand have viewed it since. You’ll be hard pressed to find anyone else covering this issue, but the Kennel Club has since banned the breeding of merle to merle. This one lone voice half a world away changed Kennel Club policy and all for the betterment of dogs. What have you done lately?
Within the next month this blog will surpass 800,000 hits. I don’t offer up porn, I don’t post saccharine photos of puppies, I cover very heady issues with a great deal of science and vocabulary required. And yet I’m one of the top dog blogs on the planet. You go find 3 more people who write more and better on dog health and genetic issues and whose work has been quoted more widely.
Google “Westminster Rewards Cruelty” and you’ll find over 1,800 references to my story. Google your e-mail address and it shows you give away Guinea Pigs when your breeding program fails. Well, clap clap clap for you!
Sophie, I´m afraid it would be yourself. Dog in the picture is the dog in the article? Photo not meddled with? OK, I wasn´t there either. I don´t have to be there to be able to say that there is no way the creature in this photo can NOT have ectropion.
Guys, you are missing my point here – my issue is not with the topic, but with the way the photos and quotes were reproduced without the owner’s knowledge or consent – and are portrayed in such a rude, crass and inflammatory manner. I, personally, do not know a thing about mastiffs, and have never claimed to do so. I do not know this dog, have not seen it in person, and would not comment on any dog’s health without seeing it in person. If you have indeed done so much good with your blog, then that is great. I just find it very sad that a topic cannot be highlighted and discussed without resorting to the language you have used in this article – which will surely only inflame many of those who might hitherto have had sympathy and respect for your views? Other people may well completely disagree and that’s fine. Also, I am pleased that you can cover heady issues with a great deal of science and vocabulary. Unfortunately, the science in this topic is, for me, completely overshadowed by the sneering and vitriol. Rather like your parting comment to me – and as for the guinea pigs? Failed breeding programme? Again, inflammatory and derogatory comments based on tiny scraps of information. The male was castrated, breeding would have been problematic. They were rehomed when my children lost interest in them, and I followed through on my guarantee that they would not be allowed to keep them if they didn’t undertake the necessary animal husbandry. The home they went to was visited and vetted by myself. The guineapigs were happy and my offspring learned a valuable lesson in responsibility. Sorry, no scandalous story there. Little snippets off the internet don’t always tell the entire story. Not that matters, obviously.
Chris doesn’t have to pander to anyone’s readership, so whether or not you or anyone else like his tone is irrelevant.
The couth has left the building.
Jess recently posted..Mmmm, Crunchy
Again, I don’t need knowledge or consent, I haven’t broken any rules and certainly no laws. People like this breeder are simply stupid for posting things to the internet and then expecting them to remain private. Nothing I’ve done is unethical.
As for my tone and language, is this the fist time they’ve let you on to the internet? This is free speech, baby, and I get to say what I want, how I want. I pay the bills here and it’s my soap box. If you don’t like my tone, you’re welcome to not read. But I didn’t solicit advice on how to build readership and I’m not going to change my genuine feelings, which I expressed freely and in the exact language I wanted, because you or anyone else would prefer if I pretended my audience were 3 year old children.
I don’t even think it’s bad strategy. Treating these people with pretense has not worked, pretending that what they are doing is somehow normal or morally acceptable. Why should I give this person any deference at all? She’s a bold faced liar and a denialist about the harm she is perpetrating. My goal is not to hold her hand until she sees the light, it’s to express the pure disgust so many of us actually feel and of which most people would not have the balls to say. I say it to their face and I make no qualms about it. I’m not anonymous, I know my rights, and I do so on my space to my audience so I can’t be censored. I didn’t go to her doorstep and leave a bag of flaming poo.
But let’s get real here, this is a public woman who took her dog out in public and asked for rewards and then she flapped her mouth when a Vet determined that she was producing defective dogs. You have probably never bitched once at the people who would post public congratulations when she won a ribbon, so why do you think you have any insight on how I should effectively criticize what she’s done and continues to do?
Doing that to a dog, as they have done over generations, is an insult to our collective morality as human beings, I seen no reason to use pretty language when describing my disgust.
Christopher is not the only science-based blog on the Internet who use such languages. See well-respected ones like Gene Expression and Pharyngula with much wider readership. Actually, they use much harsher choice of words than Christopher. So, why should Christopher be politically-correct? Most of the academic advocates I know of are not. Perhaps this is the reason why educated people and uneducated seldom gets along.
Dave recently posted..Retrieving Laika
You’ve not seen a harsh words used on a blog until you’ve seen mine.
Retrieverman recently posted..What’s the real story of foxes in the East?
Political correctness and soft-handed tactics are what allows misinformation to spread and bad ethical practices to be continued. I’ve been at the brunt of social group backlash attempting to force hard truths into being PC, and the result of such backlash is often that the people telling the truth back down and dogs and people die because of it (in this case I was attempting to advocate actually using leashes in areas with leash laws).
Just because it’s not pretty doesn’t mean its not true. And trying to force political correctness only introduces noise into the science and blunts a message that needs to be sharp.
This issue isn’t nice. The people perpetuating it aren’t nice. So why should we have to play nice? It’s one thing to be dignified, ethical, civilized, and reasonable, it’s quite another to be namby-pamby just in case somebody gets offended.
regarding “you weren’t there’ — no, and yet most folk accept that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon even though they weren’t ON the moon to observe it personally. The photo pretty much speaks for itself. Fair use is allowed for blogs like this one and for news, etc. Sophie is just plain wrong on those issues. As for this particular dog, sadly, Chris could have chosen from dozens of “show” Neos to make pretty much the same point. I will say that I’d love it if there were more instances of a good example contrasted with a bad one. I would like to at least hope that there is some “non conformation” Neo or Neo cross (or even the next most closely related breed) that could be used to contrast what is normal for a mastiff type dog intended to be used for farm /home defense and personal defense (the use of dogs in military /police roles is largely derived from the personal defense role). I think it would be a good thing for blogs such as this to provide the contrast. It’s sometimes hard to FIND such dogs without going back to something in the 1940s or even 1840s, but one would like to hope there is at least ONE Neo breeder who doesn’t think more wrinkles is better.
So, what happend to the judge that chose this as BOB?
And to the vets that let this dog pass in the past?
This is what I didn’t like about Crufts. They let the judge go thru a proceedure that awarded a dog BOB while denying (apparently at least in Bulldogs) a dog that did meet the new criteria. If the vet check had occured BEFORE going in the ring, that dog might have gotten the “push” that is needed to get folk to change what they are doing. It certainly would have been a carrot (ie reward) for that breeder who had tried to breed for a dog that was less extreme. Instead, both exhibitors got punished.
I also think that Wendy brings up a valid point. If veterinarians were stating the dogs DID meet the criteria previously, there is an issue regarding the vet criteria being used and it’s interpetation. Some things are transitory (weeping eyes, skin fold infections for example) while others aren’t (the actual skin folds interfering with eyes or structure preventing walking properly).
Don’t you think it is worse to be stripped of a price than not compete for it?
One of the points of this excersise is to re-educate judges, someone chose this poor dog as best of breed. How sad is that?
To me, it is more important to REWARD the person who had the correct bulldog. (I don’t know if there was a more correct Neo or not. I’ve seen some photos of dogs that are significantly less exaggerated than the most severe cases, but few that were examples of a dog that could actually perform the job of a protective mastiff type. I realize there is a time constraint at Crufts, but IMO there was a golden opportunity lost. If they’d had a vet that was willing to do it (and I would have considered bringing in someone from OUTSIDE the UK if necessary), I would have taken the time to have a vet go over the dogs in the 5 breeds that were selected during Crufts. If it had to happen “the day before” to accommodate that, so be it. I would have done it PUBLICALLY. I would have had the vet EXPLAIN, publically, WHY a dog was being rejected. This probably goes against the rules in the UK as the evals were not provided publically – But I would have made it clear that in ENTERING, one accepted that a vet evaluation might occur, and that if it did, it would be public. A dog either has entropion or it doesn’t. The exams were visual and the results were those someone could see. I would have made the judge attend and explain to the judge WHY these things were worthy of note. Because doing that would have ALSO educated the public. The judges and some of the exhibitors may not ever be persuaded – but others might have been. Rewarding the dog that met the requirements would have shown the public these dogs ARE available. While what they did got headlines, it also polarized camps — and did NOT give any plus to those breeders who are trying to do the right thing. One is left with the impression that ALL the dogs are this way. It’s possible that’s the case, but if not, I think Crufts, and both this site and retrieverman’s site could do a lot of good by giving some press to those who ARE trying to breed appropriately.
Totally agree with all points. Judges re-education seems to be in order. I note judges here in the U.S are asking for clarification? This could likely avoid these public disqualifications.
I’m not in animal breeding, but I am an animal lover and completely agree with the opinions stated by the owner of this blog. People most definitely need to hear this message, and hear it loudly, clearly, and bluntly. Breeding an animal to purposely have health defects is cruelty.