The Kennel Club

Kennel Club health inspections - Crufts 2012

The Kennel Club responds to the Canine Alliance

It is clear that all involved want the same outcome – healthy dogs being shown in all breeds.  How this is achieved appears to be the main point at issue.  Many of the following concerns were addressed by the Kennel Club Chairman in his response issued on 20th March, but for ease of reference they are readdressed here.  In addition, readers are reminded that full details of the high profile breeds and the veterinary checks may be found at the following links:

• http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/4042
• http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/12708/SH102HPvetsurgeoninfo.pdf

A full question and answer document regarding the veterinary checks, is available here:

• http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/4176

MG    1.    Victimisation
The KC elected to target only 15 breeds, and therefore from its conception a health initiative based on only a sample of breeds was fundamentally flawed. To suggest exaggerations which could have an impact on health might be limited to 15 breeds was naive and was bound to lead to justifiable complaints. A group winner with an exaggeration more severe than that which had exempted the Basset and the Clumber could be clearly seen. This one case alone demands that the current Health Initiative be suspended immediately until a more suitable replacement agreed upon.

KC    There is no intention to ‘victimise’ any breed or breeds but the Kennel Club has focussed on breeds with developed exaggerations which can have a negative impact on the health of that breed.  As has been well documented, the 1995 European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals listed some 30 breeds detailing deleterious conditions which, it claimed, if not addressed could warrant action to prevent further breeding.  The Kennel Club considered the list and reduced it to 14 breeds in line with available evidence in the UK.  The Chinese Crested was added later because of concerns that cosmetic shaving or hair removal was causing skin damage. The High Profile Breeds have been under discussion for more than ten years and key representatives of each of the high profile breeds have met with the Kennel Club on a number of occasions to discuss the issues. In the majority of cases there has been agreement that exaggerations need to be addressed and the Kennel Club acknowledges and applauds the positive steps that have been taken by many breed clubs.  Most recently the KC has invited each of the breeds to attend an informal lunch to discuss progress and to thank the breeds for their positive steps towards breed health improvement.  Those attending the lunches have been positive and have taken the opportunity to put their points of view and discuss the future.  

MG    2.  Veterinary Checks
Flawed in so many areas. At 2 health meetings and on a subsequent television interview the chairman Steve Dean gave assurances of how veterinary procedure would emulate a judge’s examination, this would of course exclude the use of any instruments. On the 1st day of Crufts Steve dean stated in an broadcast interview with vet Nick Blaney that the bob winners would be subject to a “superficial check in 4 areas "  a dictionary definition of 'superficial' states ' not profound or thorough'! Yet in each case those subject to the process accused the vet for being overzealous. For the examination to be so intrusive as to cause distress to the exhibit and to the owner/handler. In all cases the process far exceeding the time a judge would take to examine an exhibit and finally in several cases instruments were used to aid excessive eye examinations.
The fact that no one with authority was in place to ensure that guaranteed protocol was upheld was yet another serious flaw in the process.

KC    The process of the veterinary checks has been developed fully over two years and was first announced well over a year ago. It was agreed from the beginning that no specialist instruments would be used. However it was accepted that the amount of light available to the veterinary surgeon may be less than that available to the judge under the lights in the ring and therefore the use of a pen torch was considered reasonable. The Chairman has repeatedly made this point publicly at the briefing meetings during 2011. The process was conducted in a tactful, sympathetic and diplomatic manner, and whilst the time taken for the examination was longer than that taken by the judge, this included the time taken to take the dog to the veterinary area, explain the process and complete the documentation. We recognise and understand that the six exhibitors that did not have their BOB award confirmed at Crufts will have been greatly disappointed; however we are satisfied that the agreed protocol was followed in all cases and all the decisions were justified. A pen torch was in fact only used until the lighting in the veterinary areas was improved.  Use of the pen torch has now been suspended and a requirement has been placed on shows to ensure that the lighting in the veterinary area is as good as that in the rings.


MG    3. Selection of Vets
The appointments were made at the 11th hour, the closing date for applications was Friday 17th February 2012, assuming the first opportunity to consider these applications would be Monday the 20th and a minimum of a week to organise interviews. Leaving just 10 days to make an offer before the 1st day of Crufts. In that same interview with Nick Blaney, Steve Dean said “we’ve spent a lot of time talking to the breeders, the organizers and to the vets doing the inspections". The reality was that there was an insufficient amount of time given to such a vital role in the same way that there was insufficient time given to ensure that suitable vets were appointed.

Q We formerly request a copy of the briefs given to the appointed vets, if not forthcoming we can conclude that they were not formally briefed properly or indeed not briefed at all.

In view of the very late selections the vets could not have been vetted properly and nowhere on the application form was a requirement that any antagonistic views the candidates may have to the discipline of showing dogs be revealed. Was it naive of the KC not to consider that those 'independent' vets who volunteered might be aligned with activists against our sport?

It was obvious that no training had been given and that the vets appeared to be unfamiliar with the breed standard for the 15 targeted breeds.

The brief that 'excessive exaggeration which adversely affects the health and welfare of the exhibit' appeared either to be ignored or had not been sufficiently explained to the vets, as perfectly fit and functioning  animals with no real welfares issues were excluded.

Finally and probably most damning is the actual KC veterinary inspectors report which says "I would like to state that I consider this dogs eye anatomy to be relatively normal and that the inflammation is the main deciding factor in this case" a second vet who examined the dog within 5 minutes of failing the official inspection states that the inflammation mentioned was simply the darkening of the conjunctivae caused by the exercise during BOB competition.

KC    The appointment of veterinary surgeons has been under discussion for some considerable time.  Two seminars were held at Stoneleigh in December 2010 and April 2011 and all the Show veterinary surgeons were invited to attend to ensure that all were fully briefed.  In addition, a seminar for the General and Group Championship Shows was held in December 2011 to answer their questions and concerns.  The integrity of any of the usual show veterinary surgeons was never in question, but to ensure complete transparency the British Veterinary Association was asked to nominate veterinary surgeons to the position for Crufts 2012. However the BVA felt unable to do this, preferring to advertise the position in the Veterinary Record.

The two veterinary surgeons that were appointed following the advertisement are eminently qualified to undertake the task and have wide general experience and also experience of dog shows. Both were given full guidance to the same standard as had previously been carried out for the Championship show veterinary surgeons and the timing of their appointment was never an issue.

MG    4.  Appeal procedure
One of the biggest indictments against the KC was a failure to have in place an appeal procedure with no 'second opinion' that could be implemented on the spot should an exhibit fail the initial examination. The KC is therefore failing in its responsibility to represent fully the interests of their own exhibitors.

Four BOB winners were excluded for eye issues; the KC had BVA eye specialists working throughout Crufts that could have been called upon had such an obvious appeal procedure been in place.

At Crufts 2009 a precedent was set, ringside observers recommended the Peke BOB winner be veterinary checked, and she was subsequently disqualified from appearing in the group. An appeal by a 2nd vet led to the disqualification being overturned.

KC    It was made clear that the examining veterinary surgeon’s decision would be final. The examination is not intended to be the same as that which would be conducted by a specialist and is a general health check to look for clinical evidence of disease leading to welfare issues at the time including eye disease, skin conditions, breathing difficulties and lameness; principally signs of physical discomfort caused by conformation.  Ringside observers or show officials may still refer any exhibit to the veterinary surgeon for further examination should they have any further concerns at any time at the show.

The conditions specified under the BVA/KC Canine Health Schemes are those of the eye itself, and not, for example, those involving the eyelids, or those relating to tear production or drainage. This means that eyelid problems such as entropion, ectropion and distichiasis (extra eyelashes) are not certified under the Scheme but are simply noted in the middle section of the certificate and not the bottom section where the inherited eye status is recorded.

The statement regarding the Pekingese Best of Breed winner at Crufts 2009 is incorrect as this dog was only ever assessed by Steve Dean in his role as chief vet at the show. Whilst he initially had some concerns relating to the dog’s breathing, he did not disqualify it and thus there was never any need for an appeal as stated. The dog was assessed as being fine to progress to the Group.

MG    5.  Empathy for the exhibitors
The exhibitors, the KCs paying customers feelings were never taken into account. And in an example of this contempt, presenter Claire Balding asked "what will now happen to the Peke and Bulldog BOB winners" to which Chairman Steve Dean responded “well they could stay and watch the groups (at which point he laughs) "but then again I don't suppose they'll want to".
It is incredulous that there could be a display of such appalling poor taste and amusement when the reputation of our sport and its exhibitors was being brought into disrepute.

KC    As has been stated above the process was conducted in a sympathetic, understanding and tactful manner.  In every case the handler was given the opportunity to take as much time as was reasonable to take photographs, receive congratulations etc before being guided to the veterinary area.  The Kennel Club has received no complaint from any owner or handler involved with the process, but as with all new initiatives the process will be evaluated and any improvements to the process considered.  Equally the Chairman meant no disrespect in his reply to Claire Balding’s question and apologises if any upset was caused.

MG    6.  One of the breeds excluded was the Bassett hound winner. The breeders of which are one of the KCs esteemed 'assured breeders'. This accolade is surely the 'jewel' in the KC’s PC crown, so how could it be, that with the high levels of scrutiny employed by the KC to police the quality of this scheme, that the very best of this particular breeders stock was considered to have 'exaggerations that adversely affected its health and welfare’. The KC endorses the puppies available from their assured breeders on one hand, feeding them to the wolves with the other. It is interesting to note that the term 'assured' means guaranteed; sure; certain.

On their website the KC states that ' the assured breeders scheme was introduced to raise the standard of breeding and to help puppy buyers ensure that they are given the best possible chance of buying a puppy that will lead a happy healthy life.
Also interesting is the fact that there are over 230 KC Assured Bulldog Breeders and yet during an informal lunch with health coordinators Steve Dean stated that he believed that no bulldogs should pass the current veterinary health checks.

KC    The Assured Breeder Scheme is designed to encourage good breeding practice and health testing is an important cornerstone of the scheme. Breeders who adopt good breeding practice are more likely to produce puppies that live a long and healthy life, but it is accepted that there are never any guarantees where living beings are concerned and the Kennel Club makes this very clear.  The show ring can only be responsible for the physical and visible conformation issues that a judge can see, hear or feel. Breeders must take responsibility for the internal health of their puppies. Professor Bateson made clear in his independent review into dog health that the show ring can be a positive lever for change and it is important that breeders, exhibitors and judges recognise that the show ring can influence any trend towards or away from exaggeration. 

The statement attributed to Kennel Club Chairman is completely untrue and this was clarified to the Canine Alliance representatives at the meeting.

MG    7.   Press releases
Were more damning because of what they didn't say. There was an understandable assumption that exhibits that failed the health inspections must have been unhealthy, after all the mantra from the KC was that dogs with exaggerations that effected their health and wellbeing would be excluded from group competition. The support that Steve Dean states he has received is based on this misrepresentation. It is interesting to note that the glorification of these results during broadcasting was confined to the first 2 days.

KC    No ‘glorification’ was ever sought regarding the results of the health checks – any failure of an individual dog reflects badly on the world of dog showing so the Kennel Club would be highly unlikely to seek to ‘glorify’ this.  The press releases at the time were appropriate and factual and it was considered important to emphasise the positive point which was that 9 dogs passed the checks rather than dwell on the fact that 6 failed.  Changes were made to the way that the exhibits were announced in the ring over the days of the show following suggestions put forward by the Kennel Club committee.

MG    8.  Fosse Data were instructed to put in the on line results that 'BOB was not awarded'
This was not true as in accordance with the KCs own regulation f(1) 3.61. 21L which states 'a judges awards will be final' since in all cases the judge did award BOB then this directive by the KC to Fosse Data was incorrect.
This ruling also highlights the fact that the KC have broken their own regulations thereby rendering the Crufts entry contract legally null and void

KC    New regulations covering the veterinary checks were implemented and announced well before Crufts and received significant press coverage.  All exhibitors entering at Crufts are subject to the show regulations and all have signed to state that they accept them.

MG    9.  Inconsistencies regarding the lighting in the Veterinary Pods.
Caroline Kisko stated that the eye instruments were used because the lighting in the pods was of poor quality. We have however photographic evidence to prove that the lighting inside the pods with the strip lights off was identical to the quality of light in the rest of the main hall. In fact this can be seen quite clearly on day one of Crufts on 'more4' in the interview between Steve Dean and Nick Blaney when a Chow Chow is featured in the vet inspection pod. It is worth reminding ourselves at this point that the conditions for the veterinary inspection were supposed to be aligned with those of the judges.

KC    As has already been stated, the veterinary surgeons were permitted to use a pen torch if they felt that insufficient light was available in the veterinary area however the use of the torch was limited until better lighting was introduced to the veterinary areas.

MG    10.
The Bulldog health inspections states that damage to the cornea caused by facial folds, distichiasis, ectopic cilia or poor eye lid anatomy will disqualify. It is not possible in many cases to determine whether scarring has been caused by one of the above or indeed by some physical trauma sustained as a result of the freedom of a healthy life which as caring dog owners we afford our pets.  Indeed I have several dogs not on breed watch such as my standard poodles that have old eye injuries and blemishes.
If damage to the eye is to be a disqualification and the health and welfare of our exhibits questioned as a result, then indirectly the KC is endorsing the practise of restricting the freedom of show dogs. It is vital that we treat our dogs primarily as companions and give them the freedom so essential for 'quality of life'! An indirect endorsement of this nature could have welfare implications.

KC    The report issued by the veterinary surgeon remains a matter between the veterinary surgeon and the exhibitor and therefore the Kennel Club cannot comment on any individual case. However we can confirm absolutely that no exhibit failed its veterinary check solely on the basis of damage caused by an accidental injury.  All failures were as a result of a condition or conditions which would have caused pain or discomfort to the dog.  The Kennel Club firmly believes that the health and welfare of dogs is the top priority for the vast majority of exhibitors, even if on occasion a dog has to be withdrawn from showing temporarily or permanently due to painful conditions.

MG    10.  Integrity of the judges
Has been brought in to question with the KC preferring to uphold the 'independent vets' rather than to support our leading judges. If indeed our judges (all of which have been put through the most rigorous training and testing procedures) are incapable of determining ' exaggerations leading to health and welfare issues' then we must seek to withdraw their judging licenses. On this note, what penalties have been applied to those judges who failed in this most important area of their role during Crufts?

KC    For some considerable time, judges of all the high profile breeds have been required to submit a report regarding the health of the breed on that day, and this is compared with a report prepared by an independent observer. Where discrepancies exist, these are taken up with the judge and the process is considered an important part of the education of judges.  Ongoing education has included an eye seminar for the high profile breeds in November 2011, incorporating a presentation on the veterinary checks and how to recognise discomfort in dogs in the show ring.  Presentations have also been given at the two Group Judges seminars in February 2011 and 2012. If there is a gap in the knowledge or ability of judges to detect significant signs of pain or discomfort then further training will be considered.

MG    11. The KC’s failure to react the moment that the massive failures in the process unfolded.
The urgency to attempt to minimize the damage should have been the priority from Thursday afternoon. Despite desperate attempts for dialogue we were told that results of the inspections would be considered the week following Crufts.

KC    The Kennel Club does not agree that there are massive failures in the process; however as with any new initiative the process will be reviewed and where improvements are identified these will be introduced as a matter of course.

MG    12. The KC choosing to implement this new inspection at Crufts when obvious flaws had not been ironed out. It was ludicrous not to adopt a 'softer launch' to sort out teething problems or in this case to rework the whole initiative.

KC    The Kennel Club recognises that when changes to established process take place there can be a period of adjustment. However it was felt that it was incumbent on the Kennel Club to introduce these changes at its own show and lead the way rather than place the responsibility for the checks directly onto the shoulders of another Championship show in the first instance.

We believe that the vast majority of exhibitors are concerned first and foremost with the health of their dogs. This is evidenced by the large amount of support that the Kennel Club has received from both within and also from outside the dog breeding fraternity following the introduction of veterinary checks at Crufts. We note that many within the Canine Alliance would seem to concur with this view and want the veterinary checks extended to every breed.

Far from adding to the high profile breeds, the KC believes that these health checks can help breeders to show that they are succeeding in resolving the conformational problems affecting their breeds by providing evidence to assist in the process of removing them from the high profile list.
 

Publisher:

The Kennel Club

Published Date:

Categories:

Sections:

This article has been read 5104 times.