Controversy At Crufts! – A Follow-UP

by Amy Fernandez

Among the most controversial dq’s at Crufts was Britain’s national breed, last year’s top Bulldog, Ch. Mellowmood One In A Million. Her show career has included notable success in Europe and 22 CCs in Britain. This story took another interesting turn on April 7 when she won the Contest of Champions. Since 1977, Britain’s top dogs have competed at this invitational show, which is sponsored by the Canine Supporters charity and licensed by the Kennel Club. Each year four international judges cover their own expenses to officiate at this prestigious fundraiser for canine health research. This year’s panel featured Dr. Annuka Palaheimo from Finland, Dick Rutten and Ricky Lochs-Romans from Holland, and Japan’s Tomio Fujihata.

These highly respected all-rounders concurred with Crufts Bulldog judge Pat Perkins who voiced her opinion of the Crufts vet checks in Dog World magazine,  “I looked very hard for any sign of a problem and there was nothing – no dermatitis, no soreness, nothing. The dog had a small mark on its eye, an injury from puppyhood. I wouldn’t have noticed it. I was looking at the eyes very seriously because of new directive, to see if they were sore etc. which they weren’t.

“Lots of dogs have eye injuries. If that’s going to happen the eyes of every BOB should be checked. Imagine how many marks there might be in the eyes of working terriers and working spaniels.”

A press release posted to the Bulldog Breed Council website March 12 also noted that Ch. Mellowmood One in a Million passed the KC vet check during a trial run of the procedure at the British Utility Breeds Association in  December 2011. “It seems the Kennel Club are assuming that any mark on the cornea of any Bulldog is due to damage caused by eye disease.”

Obviously this backlash of criticism isn’t what the KC intended when it introduced the health checks.  Interviewed at Crufts, KC Secretary Caroline Kisko explained, “we want to prove to the outside world that we are working to breed healthy dogs.” They certainly proved something. Thanks to Twitter, Facebook and Youtube this story reverberated to every corner of the dog world within hours. The notorious interview with the outraged owner of the dq’d Clumber has gotten over 41,000 views on Youtube.

It also produced a quick, decisive reaction in Britain. The Canine Alliance (CA) was formed after an impromptu March 15th meeting of more than 300 breeders, judges, and exhibitors. Their first move was requesting a suspension of the health checks until the process can be made transparent, consistent, and non-discriminatory. The KC said no, but agreed to meet with CA representatives on March 28th. Details of this meeting are available on the KC website, but I will recap major issues.

The CA’s chief complaint was the flawed rationale of targeting 15 breeds. Rather than producing an overall beneficial impact on purebred health,  it appeared that the KC wants to demean exhibitors, judges, and breeders associated with breeds it deems exaggerated. The KC selected these breeds from a document published by the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, the group that spearheaded Europe’s docking and cropping bans. Their 1995 list of almost 80 breeds with potential health issues has questionable relevance in 2012.

Another major complaint centered on inconsistencies in the exam procedure. In televised interviews, KC secretary Caroline Kisko and Chairman Steve Dean described it as a tactful, sympathetic, superficial check designed to emulate a judge’s examination. They stressed that it had been refined,  standardized, and reviewed by breed clubs over a two year period. Although they insisted that protocols were followed, exams at Crufts deviated from published guidelines and were altered during the show.

Questions also centered on the validity of these exams.  Although procedures varied between breeds, the purpose was to detect eye, skin, respiratory, or orthopedic defects that compromised the dog’s well-being. Dogs were not to be dq’d for exaggerated traits that did not adversely impact health or welfare, or accidental injury. Of course, that is precisely how multiple experts described Ch. Mellowmood One In A Million’s corneal damage. The Peke, Palacegarden Bianca, also dq’d for an eye problem, was examined by another vet the day after Crufts and pronounced perfectly healthy. His letter stated that the dog suffered from “ no ocular abnormalities or discomfort.”

The appointment of the Crufts vets less than two weeks before the show also raised questions about their familiarity with the exam protocols – or the targeted breeds. Mostly, it intensified suspicions that lack of preparation led to unwarranted dq’s.  At the KC’s request, the BVA solicited vets by advertising the job a few weeks before Crufts.

Another major issue was the absence of an appeals process to permit second opinions on dq’s.  Four dogs were dq’d for eye abnormalities, and an ophthalmology specialist at Crufts offered to examine them. The KC said no. Although it didn’t get much publicity, KC show rules now state that the decision of the examining veterinary surgeon, rather than the judge, is now final. This disallows an appeals process and doesn’t leave much wiggle room to amend procedures. That’s unfortunate because a second opinion would have emphasized the objectivity and consistency of the process rather than fueling suspicions that it was arbitrary and subjective. More importantly, it would have reinforced the perception of cooperating groups working towards a mutual goal.

Another gripe was the decision to introduce this complex, controversial policy at a high profile televised event. The inherent risks were compounded by the KC’s failure to foresee potential negative publicity arising from dq’s and their lack of damage control to combat it. The KC chose to introduce the health checks at its own show to demonstrate leadership.  Although it defended its press releases as “appropriate, factual, and positive”, KC officials drastically moderated their tone over the course of the weekend.  On Thursday and Friday,  dq’s were announced during televised coverage.

Possibly, the KC assumed that this would reflect its commitment to canine health.  Anti-purebred /AR groups immediately began propagandizing the situation to further discredit the KC.  In The Telegraph March 12 Pete Wedderburn said, “long standing critics of the Kennel Club like Jemima Harrison (the director of the BBC’s Pedigree Dogs Exposed documentary) are full of praise, describing the dog show as ‘one of the most extraordinary Crufts ever’.”

This approach also  disregarded the feelings of exhibitors who were assured that the process would be handled sensitively and diplomatically. Not much can compare to public humiliation on national TV. CA spokesman Mike Gadsby specifically cited Steve Dean’s response when a Crufts TV presenter asked, “What will now happen to the Peke and Bulldog BOB winners,” and he jokingly replied “they could stay and watch the groups but then again I don’t suppose they’ll want to.” Gadsby called Dean’s flippant attitude, “an appalling and tasteless reaction when the reputation of our sport and its exhibitors was being brought into disrepute.”  The KC later said that the Chairman meant no disrespect and apologized if any upset was caused.  But the damage was done.

Arguably the worst consequence was to discount the authority and credibility of judges like Ferelith Somerfield,  Bert  Easdon, and Zena-Thorn Andrews. Their longstanding contribution to the sport is acknowledged and respected worldwide. An example of the prevailing reaction on pet/AR websites and blogs was posted on time4dogs.blogspot.com March 8: “This year, two Crufts Best of Breed winners have failed their veterinary… Why not censure the judges if they are so stupid that they put up obviously unhealthy dogs?”   The KC website stated, “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.” It also emphasized that since 2011, judges – and independent observers – submit health reports on targeted breeds after each assignment.  The fact that ringside health monitors have consistently observed these dq’d dogs raises even more questions about the validity of Crufts decisions.

Was the March 28th  meeting a success? While it opened the door to communication, the KC flatly disagreed with the CA’s assessment of the health checks as “a massive failure” and emphasized that they had received tremendous support for the plan “from within and outside the dog breeding fraternity”.  In reality, KC structure doesn’t require support from Britain’s dog fanciers to implement or continue any policy.  However, a  press release posted to the CA website April 20 also suggests that they are reconsidering the wisdom of their plan.  “Suspension of the veterinary checks has been proposed by KC members and accepted for the Kennel Club’s Annual General Meeting in May, to do nothing further on that specific matter until after the AGM.”

With more than 1500 members, the CA is now larger than the KC. Their criticism is the closest thing to a vote of no confidence that is possible from an outside group under the authority of a private club. CA members have reiterated their support for health testing, emphasizing that serious breeders have utilized available screening procedures for decades.  They would rather see KC resources directed towards ending puppy mills, the primary source of unhealthy purebreds. They also want to limit KC registration to puppies from parents that pass a universal basic veterinary examination after one year of age.

The KC’s veterinary checks are small change compared to the magnitude of these proposals, which are compounded by the political challenge of influencing policies of a private club. For now, the CA’s vocal, positive, focused message may be the most significant outcome of  this mess.  Since 2008, the KC has vainly attempted to restore the credibility of Britain’s purebred fancy.  International attention focused on the CA just might pull it out of the fire.

Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=3029

Posted by admin on May 14 2012. Filed under Current Articles, Editorial, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.