Artemis

Kommentar fra Alison Skipper, en av veterinærene som var med å gjennomføre disse helsesjekkene: "One of the few positive things about being one of the two independent vets at the centre of this controversy is that I am, at least, independent. What I am about to write is my own opinion, and nobody has told me what to say, or even asked me to say it. Most of the other big players in this story have a vested interest of some kind: they are important people in the Kennel Club, or the British Veterinary Association (BVA), and so can’t speak completely freely, or they are well known people within the dog world, such as important judges or exhibitors. "Will Jeffels and I are not any of these things: we trained as vets because we like animals and wanted to work with them, and we volunteered to be the first vets implementing the new show checks because we supported the initiative and decided – rashly, perhaps – to get involved. I haven’t even seen Will for 20 years or so – we didn’t meet during Crufts – but we are united in our willingness to stand behind the reforms. I grew up on the fringes of the dog show world. My mother took out our family affix in 1952, and was a regular breeder during the 1950s. I’ve been coming to Crufts since it was at Olympia, with the clickety- clackity old wooden escalators up from the tube station. I’ve been a small animal vet for 22 years, and have had pedigree dogs of my own throughout this time. "I used to be very active in Australian Cattle Dogs, and was one of the driving forces behind an international effort in 1996 to source samples to develop a DNA test for PRA in the ACD; this was rewarded by the development of a gene specific test by OptiGen in 2004. "I wrote the veterinary column for Our Dogs for over five years. I am currently (unless they kick me out over this) a member of four breed specific canine societies. At the moment, I have four dogs of smaller breeds. Over my time in dogs, I’ve done a bit of showing, including at Crufts, I’ve bred three litters (with one DIY caesarian!), and I’ve done club level agility for several years. I work in a small animal practice with lots of dog breeder clients, including some successful show kennels, and a large proportion of working dogs. However, I have never shown dogs seriously, and the one time I judged a match at a fun day, I realised that judging was not for me. What I am, I hope, is an ordinary vet with a strong interest in, and love for, the pedigree dog, a good degree of clinical competence, and enough personal integrity to do what I think is right. I know how the dog world works, but I know very few of the main players within it, and these, I think, are the reasons why the KC and BVA appointed me as one of these first two vets. "To go from a quiet life one week to being at the centre of such an emotive controversy the next is not easy, or fun. Why did I agree to do it? It wasn’t for the money; we didn’t get paid. The KC gave me food for the weekend, a bed for the night, and the chance to watch the groups on the days I was at Crufts, which was all very nice but I could have stayed at home and watched it on TV, and saved myself a lot of trouble. I’m not stupid: I knew it would be extremely controversial, and that I would probably have to make decisions that would be very unpopular. And it wasn’t without personal risk; if I were found guilty of false certification I could be struck off the veterinary register and lose my livelihood. That’s a pretty strong incentive to be accurate when carrying out a clinical examination. "I agreed to do this because I thought it would help to improve the health and welfare of pedigree dogs. Personally, I see nothing wrong in the ethical production of pedigree dogs, except perhaps for the argument that there aren’t enough good homes out there for the dogs there are already. A healthy, happy pedigree dog obviously has as good a quality of life as a healthy, happy mongrel. However, nobody is compelled to breed pedigree dogs. It’s something we all choose to do. And it seems to me that, if we are choosing to bring new dogs into the world, it’s only right that we should do what we can to produce dogs who are not physically prevented from having a good quality of life. "As has often been stated, there are two problems with this that are undeniably more of an issue with purebred dogs than with cross breeds: the various genetic issues that afflict different breeds, and the issues of health and welfare that relate directly to exaggerated conformation. For some years, ethical breeders have made huge progress in improving welfare through the various schemes for monitoring inherited disease. This is hugely important, and has clearly helped to improve lives for thousands of dogs; breeders should be proud of what they’ve achieved in this area. "But inherited disease is only one side of the coin, and until recently, the other side of the coin, the problems caused by extreme conformation, has been rather overlooked within the dog fancy. The two sides are quite separate; a breed can have very moderate conformation and be plagued by serious inherited disease issues, such as the Cavalier, or it can be relatively healthy in terms of invisible problems and yet have clear issues with some aspect of its body structure. "This high-profile breed scheme is a hugely important step towards reducing the problems associated with extreme conformation. Nobody ever said, "Oh good, I’ve produced a puppy which is going to suffer pain as a result of the body shape I chose!”, but it’s all too easy to overlook chronic low-level discomfort, and I think it’s undeniable that some breeds are associated with issues of this kind. Dogs that have always had exposed, irritated inner eyelids aren’t going to scream with pain or stop eating because their eyes hurt; they don’t know any differently, but surely the same dog would have a better quality of life if its eyelids fitted better to the eyeballs. It must be better to be a Pug who can chase its friends in the park than to be a Pug that struggles to walk along a path. Surely these things are not in dispute, or they shouldn’t be. "The brief that Will Jeffels and I were given by the KC was very clear: we were not meant to assess conformation in the same way as a judge would, and we were not meant to penalise a dog because of any aspect of its shape or structure, unless we felt that attribute had led to a problem with its health or welfare. So we couldn’t reject a dog just because it had a short face or lots of skin folds, for example, or because we didn’t like the way it moved; only if it had trouble breathing, or a skin infection, or was lame, as a result of its structure. "We were chosen to do this, rather than specialist vets, because Steve Dean thought it would be unfair for judges to be over- ruled by, for example, specialist ophthalmologists, because they might notice things that no judge could be expected to see. He thought that experienced general practitioners would know what’s normal and what isn’t – we earn our livings doing it – and would be able to see obvious problems that a judge could also see. "The KC told us exactly what they wanted us to do, and then left us to go and do it. They did not try to influence our decisions in any way. We could have passed – or failed – any or all of the 15 dogs quite freely. It is sad that some dogs failed, but I think it shows that there is a need for this scheme: if we had been assessing a group of Borzois or Cairns or Dalmatians I don’t think any would have failed. Obviously, I am bound by professional confidentiality and cannot comment on any of the dogs I examined. The owners are not so bound and I would be happy for any of the owners of the dogs I examined to make public the form I signed, in its entirety. I wrote several comments on most of them, and many of the comments I wrote were positive, even on dogs I failed. I have enormous sympathy for the owners of the dogs that were failed. It must have been disappointing, embarrassing and humiliating, and it gave me no pleasure at all to do it. "There are several general points from the examination process, however, which I think are worth emphasising. Firstly, there are many possible reasons for failure. Some of them may be temporary: lameness, for example, may have gone by the next day, but one fundamental rule of veterinary certification is that you can only attest to what you see before you at that moment; you cannot speculate on what the animal might have looked like five minutes earlier or five minutes later. Also, as with judging, there may be problems that are found on close examination of a dog that would not be visible from the ringside. Secondly, it’s obvious from the photographs on the Internet that some of the BOB winners which failed were indeed of more moderate conformation than some other dogs within that breed. It must have been particularly galling for those owners to fail. However, we weren’t being asked to judge whether a particular dog was better than the breed average; we only examined the winner, and if the winner still had a problem that affected its welfare on that day, our task was to say so. "If it displayed the least extreme conformation in its breed, then the judge had done the best job they could from the stock available, whatever the end result; and if the winner showed far more moderate conformation than would have been the case a few years ago, then that is still to be praised, even if there was still a problem. "One thing that I am angry about is that the media coverage is focused so exclusively on the dogs who unfortunately failed. I wish there were more attention on the dogs that were passed. Nine dogs were judged the best of their breed, passed as free from issues that were affecting their health and welfare, and went on to compete in their groups, with several being shortlisted by the group judges. Those breeds should be enormously proud of what they have achieved, because in many cases the winners were indeed of far less exaggerated conformation than they would have been a few years ago, which is a great cause for celebration. "Those breeders have done wonders. For example, even Jemima Harrison has written positively about the winning Bloodhound on her blog, which is remarkable. I was really glad to see ‘my’ Bloodhound in the big ring, moving soundly and with eyes free from discomfort. That’s what it should all be about. "It’s natural that emotions should be running high; change is often difficult. And it’s inevitable that there will be teething problems in a new and unprecedented process. Everyone who was involved in this endeavour will have learnt from it, and certainly there are some aspects of it that can be improved. "Will Jeffels and I strongly feel that the initiative is worthwhile, and we are continuing to support the KC in its efforts to promote healthier conformation. Dog showing is a sport, a hobby. The world would still spin on its axis if there were no dog shows. If we choose to spend our leisure time, or in some cases our careers, in the world of dog showing, we should remember that we wouldn’t be able to do it without the dogs, and the least we can do in return is to choose healthy body shapes for them to live their lives within.”

Jeg har vært på PDE-bloggen og lånt litt bilder. Her er bilder fra nappene på crufts. For det meste et deprimerende syn: ...men, se på denne tispen på 16 mnd! Her står også litt om ectropion med tanke på helse osv. Ian Mason, Chief Panellist of the BVA/KC/ISDS Eye Scheme said: "When ectropion is present the eyelids, blink reflex and tear film are unable to properly shield and lubricate the eye. The lower conjunctival sac is exposed to air, dust, debris and bacteria resulting in inflammation of the conjunctiva. In some cases corneal changes may also occur. Entropion may further complicate the condition. Published data as to the incidence of ectropion in various breeds are not available, although it would seem apparent that it is highly prevalent in some breeds." Following Pedigree Dogs Exposed in 2008, the Kennel Club’s Breed Standards and Conformation Group (now a subgroup of the KC’s Dog Health Group) met with the high profile breed representatives to discuss a number of issues relating to conformation, health and welfare. Professor Sheila Crispin, BVA/KC/ISDS eye panellist (and Chief Panellist at the time), provided some detailed information on health issues relating to the eye, which included the following comments on eyelid anatomy: "Poor eyelid anatomy, which is a largely a consequence of the anatomy of the head and the excessive amounts of skin. The majority of dogs with this type of head shape have a degree of conformational eyelid deformity. "The conformational deformities of the eyelids and poor support at the lateral canthus (the outer corner of the eye) can produce a combination of entropion (eyelid turning in) and ectropion (eyelid turning out). The deformities result in a so-called 'diamond eye' with a characteristic kink in the central portion of the upper and lower eyelids and, most commonly, upper lid entropion and lower lid ectropion. Because of the poor eyelid anatomy, the dog cannot blink effectively, so that there is inadequate distribution of the tear film and a tendency to develop corneal complications (exposure keratopathy and desiccation). Excessive evaporative tear film loss can exacerbate the situation. The poor eyelid conformation also means that tear drainage may be compromised as the upper and lower puncta (drainage holes) are malpositioned. This may result in tear overflow (epiphora) and unsightly tear staining. The entropion is a possible source of corneal damage and pain because of direct mechanical abrasion of the cornea from eyelashes and skin hairs.The ectropion results in chronic conjunctival exposure and drying - chronic conjunctivitis and a greater likelihood of infection result. "It is important to recognise that such poor eyelid conformation is a source of pain and chronic low grade misery for affected dogs. The surgical correction of such defects can be expensive - and time consuming, as more than one operation may be needed."

Kjempefin side! Fine fargekombinasjoner, og et ryddig og fint inntrykk. Hvis jeg hadde vært på jakt etter en mops, så hadde jeg satt pris på en infoside om rasen. Jeg er klar over at mange oppdrettere ikke har det, men jeg liker det i alle fall, men det er jo opp til deg. Ikke bare en link til rasestandarden, men info om hvordan rasen er i hverdagen, bruksområder, hvilke helseproblemer som forekommer på rasen, hva den krever av stell i hverdagen osv. Ellers så liker jeg at helseresultater står på hver enkelt hunds side. F.eks. hvis hunden har blitt øyelyst og patellasjekket. Det var bare et par forslag, men en fin hjemmeside!

I like it!

Vet ikke om jeg synes at det er så greit? Var vel en grunn til at brukeren aldri nevnte hvem vedkommende var eller hvilke raser brukeren hadde her inne? Vedkommende ville være anonym, også med hensyn til hvilke raser vedkommende hadde, og da synes jeg at vi skal respektere det, selv om medlemmet ikke er aktivt her inne lenger.

Ville vel kanskje satset på puddel, bedlington terrier eller andre allergivennlige raser pga. at en blanding av golden og puddel slett ikke nødvendigvis er så fryktelig allergivennlig eller røytefri! Vi har også hundeallergi i familien, men allergikeren tåler av en eller annen merkelig grunn irsk setter, men ikke en hel del andre raser. Poenget mitt er vel at uansett hvilken rase du ender opp med så ville jeg helst hatt en hund på prøve en stund/møtt mange individer for å være helt sikker på at du tåler rasen. Lykke til!

Gratulerer så mye med ny valp! Skjønn!

Ååååh! Prikkedyr jo! Gratulerer!

Før jeg startet tråden så søkte jeg opp taco på google ( ), for å se hva definisjonen var. Ifølge wikipedia var det lefse(mens jeg egentlig trodde det var skjell) med flere andre varianter av den tradisjonelle formen, men wiki har jo ikke alltid rett da. Taco

Dette er bildet som ligger på Crufts sine sider:

Ingvild er korrekt

Ah, da tror jeg det skal gå bra med litt ost. En annen venn av meg har melkeallergi, ikke bare laktoseintoleranse, og der er ost noe av det verste vedkommende kan spise.

Ingen av de du har nevnt. Som et hint så kan jeg nevne at kakeansvarlig er fremdeles aktiv på sonen i dag, og er nå student.

Ikke belgerpia nei.

Hvilken sonis skulle være ansvarlig for kakene i det tidligere omtalte arrangerte sonenbryllupet?

miss mini blue dior, rasen var staffordshire bull terrier? edit: Argyr eier vel Ferdinand og Geiss?

Kaja-T&A?

Nowisclee er riktig

Hvilken sonis hadde en blandingshund som var blanding av to gruppe 2-raser før vedkommende gikk over til hunder fra gruppe 5?

Hundezonen?

Ikke første gangen det der skjer heller. Edit: Her er link til vanlig artikkel, ikke en beregnet på mobil.

Er ikke så opptatt av pris. Bruker alltid den samme klinikken fordi den er nærmest. Hadde jeg fått forferdelig dårlig behandling eller noe spesielt hadde skjedd, så hadde jeg valgt en annen. Har også vært på andre klinikker pga. at det har vært utenfor vanlig arbeidstid, eller fordi den andre veterinæren hadde spesielt god peiling på kanin da jeg skulle ta kaninen med til veterinæren f.eks.

Doggis.no, hundesonen.com, hundesonen.no og dyresonen.no?

Link Har selvsagt blitt sensurert siden den gang men...

Se her: http://www.irskrodoghvitsetter.no/index.php?/comparison-of-grading-hd.html Edit: Så med 6 på hver hofte så har den hunden B ifølge vår standard.