This is a placeholder text
Group text
by peterlee on 20 February 2010 - 09:02
Blerio – Penalising ‘unsoundness’ in a dog at a show is meaningless twaddle and you know it. As Malcolm Willis says, ‘Unsoundness is a general term which is variable in interpretation, according to who you are talking to.’
All that you are doing when you penalize ‘unsoundness’ at a show is to rely on one judge’s opinion. That has what has got us into this mess in the UK in the first place. Do you think your opinion of ‘unsoundness’ and Ray Brandon’s opinion of unsoundness are the same? Of course they are not.
The answer to this is blindingly obvious. It is for the Kennel Club to refuse to award the title of champion to any dog which does not have satisfactory hip or elbow scores. This is measurable. It is not a matter of opinion and it would in due course improve the health of the breed. Indeed, they could progressively make the requirements more stringent such as insisting that any Champion must also be from parents which have satisfactory hip and elbow scores. Will the Kennel Club do this? Dream on.
The whole point about the WUSV system – in contrast to the absurd chaos of the Kennel Club – is that it is based upon dogs meeting objective criteria for fitness, stamina, health etc. It does not, as the Kennel Club’s system does, depend only upon the opinion of some judge who shouldn’t be judging the breed in the first place.
All that you are doing when you penalize ‘unsoundness’ at a show is to rely on one judge’s opinion. That has what has got us into this mess in the UK in the first place. Do you think your opinion of ‘unsoundness’ and Ray Brandon’s opinion of unsoundness are the same? Of course they are not.
The answer to this is blindingly obvious. It is for the Kennel Club to refuse to award the title of champion to any dog which does not have satisfactory hip or elbow scores. This is measurable. It is not a matter of opinion and it would in due course improve the health of the breed. Indeed, they could progressively make the requirements more stringent such as insisting that any Champion must also be from parents which have satisfactory hip and elbow scores. Will the Kennel Club do this? Dream on.
The whole point about the WUSV system – in contrast to the absurd chaos of the Kennel Club – is that it is based upon dogs meeting objective criteria for fitness, stamina, health etc. It does not, as the Kennel Club’s system does, depend only upon the opinion of some judge who shouldn’t be judging the breed in the first place.
by noddi on 20 February 2010 - 09:02
mo.i take my hat off to ya .go for it girl,tho.yu are braver than me.maybe we should have spectators too.not just gsd people but maybe some all rounder judges who have no agenda themselves and ARE NOT KC MEMBERS.and maybe progressive people from other breeds who have an open mind.
by Jemima Harrison on 20 February 2010 - 09:02
Peterlee - thank you for the lowdown between the UK and German system. It makes the point well.
Penny (Mo?) - thank you for rising to the challenge. I am hoping one or two others will too.
I have no problem with your terms. Experts? I need to research this to find the right people but the idea is to involve locomotion/gait analysts and also functional anatomists - essentially those who are well qualified to judge. (Am happy to have suggestions.) Once I've found the team, I'll put a proper proposal together at which point, of course, you can make a final decision about whether or not to take part.
Slo-mo is criticial because it exposes things that are easy to miss at full-speed but which ARE significant. Here is a link to download some footage of slo-mo'd GSDs we shot at Crufts 2008 (NB it is a 22Mb file and you may need the latest version of Quicktime to view it - free from apple.com for PC or Apple. I am doing it this way because although compressed, it's still high quality - something we'd lose if I upload it to YouTube)
www.mediafire.com/
I'll say straight up that I have selected some of the worst of what we saw for these clips - but I would still argue that we shouldn't be seeing this at all in the showring (and of course these are not a random selection of dogs - they all qualified for Crufts). Of particular concern is the rear toe tap/drag - this is an indicator of a possible neurological problem. The pasterns are another problem (the worst of these is a pup but, still, it's not something you commonly see in other breeds).
No particularly wobbly hocks here - and indeed, I think the KC is wrong to focus on this aspect. My worry is that the whole rear assembly of the German showline dog is faulty.
Jemima
Penny (Mo?) - thank you for rising to the challenge. I am hoping one or two others will too.
I have no problem with your terms. Experts? I need to research this to find the right people but the idea is to involve locomotion/gait analysts and also functional anatomists - essentially those who are well qualified to judge. (Am happy to have suggestions.) Once I've found the team, I'll put a proper proposal together at which point, of course, you can make a final decision about whether or not to take part.
Slo-mo is criticial because it exposes things that are easy to miss at full-speed but which ARE significant. Here is a link to download some footage of slo-mo'd GSDs we shot at Crufts 2008 (NB it is a 22Mb file and you may need the latest version of Quicktime to view it - free from apple.com for PC or Apple. I am doing it this way because although compressed, it's still high quality - something we'd lose if I upload it to YouTube)
www.mediafire.com/
I'll say straight up that I have selected some of the worst of what we saw for these clips - but I would still argue that we shouldn't be seeing this at all in the showring (and of course these are not a random selection of dogs - they all qualified for Crufts). Of particular concern is the rear toe tap/drag - this is an indicator of a possible neurological problem. The pasterns are another problem (the worst of these is a pup but, still, it's not something you commonly see in other breeds).
No particularly wobbly hocks here - and indeed, I think the KC is wrong to focus on this aspect. My worry is that the whole rear assembly of the German showline dog is faulty.
Jemima
by missbeeb on 20 February 2010 - 09:02
Penalising unsoundness at dog shows, is as vital as having mandatory health checks. Unsound dogs may have very good hips; it's a fault that can be passed on to off spring and it's not what we need or want.
Yes, it's open to individual interpretation, but I don't believe too many of "our" judges get confused; though a few seem to deliberately overlook this problem.
by peterlee on 20 February 2010 - 10:02
Jemima – Thank you for that clip. While we are on the subject I would like to congratulate you on what you have done to raise awareness in the deficiencies of the Kennel Club system. You have single handedly done more to raise this issue in the public consciousness than any one person in recent times. I think you are to be congratulated. When members of the public buy a ‘Kennel Club Registered’ puppy they think they are getting some sort of guarantee of quality. They are getting nothing of the sort and it is time that scandal was exposed. There are far too many GSDs suffering from health problems in the UK and it is time something was done about it.
Personally I have never much cared for shows likes Crufts precisely because it is no way to judge dogs or to promote the best of any breed.
Where people in the GSD breed in the UK are fortunate is that there is a world wide system for the GSD with an international type which is internationally recognised. This is run by the WUSV and it has very definite standards. I have tried to explain the basic differences between the two systems in an earlier post. The points about this WUSV system are that (1) it has mandatory health, fitness and stamina criteria and (2) it has been in place for so long that the whole world knows it works. The UK is totally out on a limb because the Kennel Club has its own name for the breed ie ‘German Shepherd Dog (Alsatian)’. ‘The “Alsatian” which is recognized here and virtually no where else, appears to be supported and lauded by the Kennel Club’ as Dr Malcolm Willis has said. Furthermore the Kennel Club breed standard for the GSD differs from the international standard – in other words the Kennel Club has its own breed standard according to which it, uniquely, judges.
The mandatory standards of the WUSV make it quite difficult (although not impossible I suppose) to have ‘unsound’ dogs. The WUSV recognizes that the GSD is a working dog and that he must be fit for purpose. For instance, if you are only allowed to register puppies born from parents with satisfactory hip and elbow scores, which have been DNA tested, which can prove they can run 20 kms without distress and which have gained a schutzhund title comprising obedience, tracking and protection it goes a long way to eliminate dogs which are unfit for purpose from the gene pool.
What the GSD community in this country wants is the right to breed and show dogs according to the WUSV system. They know it produces the best dogs. And that is exactly what the Kennel Club will not allow. It wants to impose a condition on all clubs that they will not organize any event under the rules of any organization other than the KC without the ‘express permission’ of the KC (which has to be sought). That is what has angered the GSD community. They want the standards which are applied to the GSD in the rest of the world applied here. The Kennel Club opposes that.
Personally I have never much cared for shows likes Crufts precisely because it is no way to judge dogs or to promote the best of any breed.
Where people in the GSD breed in the UK are fortunate is that there is a world wide system for the GSD with an international type which is internationally recognised. This is run by the WUSV and it has very definite standards. I have tried to explain the basic differences between the two systems in an earlier post. The points about this WUSV system are that (1) it has mandatory health, fitness and stamina criteria and (2) it has been in place for so long that the whole world knows it works. The UK is totally out on a limb because the Kennel Club has its own name for the breed ie ‘German Shepherd Dog (Alsatian)’. ‘The “Alsatian” which is recognized here and virtually no where else, appears to be supported and lauded by the Kennel Club’ as Dr Malcolm Willis has said. Furthermore the Kennel Club breed standard for the GSD differs from the international standard – in other words the Kennel Club has its own breed standard according to which it, uniquely, judges.
The mandatory standards of the WUSV make it quite difficult (although not impossible I suppose) to have ‘unsound’ dogs. The WUSV recognizes that the GSD is a working dog and that he must be fit for purpose. For instance, if you are only allowed to register puppies born from parents with satisfactory hip and elbow scores, which have been DNA tested, which can prove they can run 20 kms without distress and which have gained a schutzhund title comprising obedience, tracking and protection it goes a long way to eliminate dogs which are unfit for purpose from the gene pool.
What the GSD community in this country wants is the right to breed and show dogs according to the WUSV system. They know it produces the best dogs. And that is exactly what the Kennel Club will not allow. It wants to impose a condition on all clubs that they will not organize any event under the rules of any organization other than the KC without the ‘express permission’ of the KC (which has to be sought). That is what has angered the GSD community. They want the standards which are applied to the GSD in the rest of the world applied here. The Kennel Club opposes that.
by AmbiiGSD on 20 February 2010 - 10:02
I have a real problem with the term 'Unsoundness' So to test my theory. I ask several people, family and friends what they thought Unsoundness meant.
And everyone of them said 'Lame'
Yes I know the dictionary definition of the term 'Unsoundness' but in everyday terms the meaning is infered as Lame.
Another one of those terms that the lay-person will misinterpret.
I'm beginning to think we are on a hiding to nothing.
And everyone of them said 'Lame'
Yes I know the dictionary definition of the term 'Unsoundness' but in everyday terms the meaning is infered as Lame.
Another one of those terms that the lay-person will misinterpret.
I'm beginning to think we are on a hiding to nothing.
by Jemima Harrison on 20 February 2010 - 14:02
Just to say, before anyone asks - every dog in the video link above was placed (judge Terry Hannan).
As follows:
DOG 1 + 2: Bara Von Haus Yu (3rd Open Bitch)
DOG 3: Rymark Jaguar (2nd Vet Dog)
DOG 4: Blerio Reflection (1st Vet Dog)
DOG 5 + 6: Salendee Bitter Mocha (Res Special Puppy Dog)
DOG 7: Aieko From Peterwell (3rd Special Puppy Dog)
Jemima
As follows:
DOG 1 + 2: Bara Von Haus Yu (3rd Open Bitch)
DOG 3: Rymark Jaguar (2nd Vet Dog)
DOG 4: Blerio Reflection (1st Vet Dog)
DOG 5 + 6: Salendee Bitter Mocha (Res Special Puppy Dog)
DOG 7: Aieko From Peterwell (3rd Special Puppy Dog)
Jemima
by peterlee on 20 February 2010 - 15:02
AmbiiGSD – exactly so. ‘Unsoundness’ can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. You say someone’s views are ‘unsound’ when you disagree with them.
The AGPAW Report is very specific, ‘The Inquiry recommends that the KC should state that no dog will be given the title of Champion unless it has been health screened for diseases known to be associated with that specific breed and proof of that has been provided’. Is there any rocket science involved there? It is elementary for everyone except the Kennel Club.
Penalizing dogs which are ‘unsound’ is no substitute for that. By all means penalize dogs for unsoundness if you already have basic health screening requirements in place but without any such requirements it is far too subjective. Would any dog over two years of age get a title in Germany unless it had been hip and elbow scored and received satisfactory results, for example? As long the KC does not follow such basic principles of common sense then what possible justification can there be for them saying, ‘You cannot show according to WUSV rules and standards without first having our permission which you must ask for.’ How can the GSD community be criticized for trying to emulate the standards which prevail in the SV and WUSV and which are recognized throughout the world? Why should they need the KC’s permission to run events organized under such rules? The WUSV system works. The KC’s ‘system’ does not - as Jemima’s program showed to the world.
The AGPAW Report is very specific, ‘The Inquiry recommends that the KC should state that no dog will be given the title of Champion unless it has been health screened for diseases known to be associated with that specific breed and proof of that has been provided’. Is there any rocket science involved there? It is elementary for everyone except the Kennel Club.
Penalizing dogs which are ‘unsound’ is no substitute for that. By all means penalize dogs for unsoundness if you already have basic health screening requirements in place but without any such requirements it is far too subjective. Would any dog over two years of age get a title in Germany unless it had been hip and elbow scored and received satisfactory results, for example? As long the KC does not follow such basic principles of common sense then what possible justification can there be for them saying, ‘You cannot show according to WUSV rules and standards without first having our permission which you must ask for.’ How can the GSD community be criticized for trying to emulate the standards which prevail in the SV and WUSV and which are recognized throughout the world? Why should they need the KC’s permission to run events organized under such rules? The WUSV system works. The KC’s ‘system’ does not - as Jemima’s program showed to the world.
by crossingate on 20 February 2010 - 17:02
I sincerely hope that nobody on this database is taken in by Jemima - I have no doubt that this is the sort of thing she did to string along the people pilloried in PDE - including the KC. Once the bait is taken, she will reel you in and do whatever she likes with the footage and you wont be able to do a thing about it.
Sally
Sally
by Blerio on 20 February 2010 - 21:02
Peterlee, Why have a judge in the ring! based on you're post it's only an opinion, and it sounds like it doesn't matter. We enter a show because we require that particular judges opinion on our dogs. We may as well send a photo of our dogs to a panel and await the outcome. Most dont show their dogs in Germany and untill any changes come about we show under K.C. rules if people don't like it, take up another hobby. Most of the people on here know what is meant by unsoundness, when a dog is being assessed by a judge and he sends the dog away and it looks like it's knitting fog, or it's extremely cow hocked, are you saying that doesn't matter, or he should ignore that situation. You're right on one thing! judges will change decisions from judge to judge, and there lies the problem. judges should judge in a uniform way they should be taught to apply the same rules of judging this breed, then we might start to get the correct results. The wusv system is not some bible that we must follow without question, There is more corruption in that system than you can imagine, now that is all about money and power. If a judge should not be judging at a show, then thats not his/her fault, but the committee who selected them! and we know that isn't always for the right reason. regards Bill Owen
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
