I would have thought/hoped anyone owning dogs would have been able to tell apart an unfit dog from another - But then you get irresponsible owners all the time, let it be general care, breeding ect... we all know that.

Educated in dogs - changing the words - but fair enough. I will still have to disagree on my own personal experience.

ahh but Tassle the fault your friends could see on dogs placed higher might not have been as bad as the ones the judge could feel, and see when going over the body and looking in the mouth ect!

Agreed. You said it better

Possibly - but they knew the people, and the dogs.

(Small breed - everyone seems to know everyone)

I didnt change the words, I added one. Im not all that good at putting into writting my opinions and I dont get my point across very well, but I know what I mean. Agree to disagree.. It wouldnt be the first

Jb I am on my phone now and its old and I can't view the links so will view them when I can. I do have a few questions though, would you class bulldogs as being 'fit for life' when a lot can't breed or give birth themselves? Also why with the Tibetan Terriers where the Animal Health Trust has found 23% of tested dogs to be carriers of PPL has the kc said to one owner that the test is not listed under the ABS but 'in all likelihood' it would be 'by the end of the year' and then blaming the breed club, if it affects TT's why is there no rush, this was said earlier on in the year. Also are dogs who need operations because of things that have occured because of things like flat faces 'fit for life'?

You have to take into account what a judge considers a "fault" and to the degree it may affect that dogs construction, movement or health. An animal "put up" with what you may say is an obvious fault, may be otherwise very correct, yet the "perfect" dog in second place may have a serious fault you cannot see, such as a wry mouth for example. A fault such as perhaps a gay tail which ought to be level with the topline, is not disfiguring, not detrimental in health or temperament in any way, but is clearly visible. The wry mouth could cause eating problems and the dog may require surgery to correct badly placed teeth, that to me, is serious.

Its always said, what looks good, you need to feel aswell, its true Tassle, we can all judge from the ringside, but hands on, feeling construction is a whole different ball game.

Fitness to me is paramount. In my breed, the dog should be fit and in hard condition. Many times we see thin dogs, this is because they are too big to span, the owners think if they are half starve it will make their ribcage easier to get your hands round, wrong!!! It simply shows you an underfed dog which is not placed, and quite rightly so.

PLL is a newish test out, so of course when first testing for it there will be a number of dogs suffering or carrying it, you aim to breed that out your lines that being said the advice given is, carriers shouldnt be taken out of a breeding programme and when mating a carrier to a clear, you have a 50.50 chance of the litter being carriers.clear. It takes time to breed things out.
Also it takes time and meetings to have things added to breed code of ethics, and required health tests done...one person cant just wake up at night and decide. So whats wrong with some one saying its not yet added but will be by such and such a date?

At least their putting things into motion. I mean dont get me started on the CC's who require no health tests, much to my disgust.

Id say the Terriers and Gundogs would be the most likely to still want a breed that can work, (and mention it) as they are the most commonly worked still, with some Hounds of course.