register for free
View our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
scorpio
Dogsey Veteran
scorpio is offline  
Location: Old Leake, UK
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 12,080
Female 
 
27-11-2006, 11:22 AM
Originally Posted by pod View Post
There is a lot of variation on judges' opinion on this and some will automatically place neutered dogs last in a class. It is, as others have pointed out, a fault as our standards presently stand and should be considered along with all other faults.

The reason a dog is neutered shouldn't have any bearing on its placing ..... a dog neutered because of owner's convenience shouldn't be considered any less than one neutered for medical reasons as you are not judging ethics in the showring.

But what is important is that the dog was entire and normal before neutering and most exhibitors, in my experience, carry a letter from their veterinary practice to confirm this.

My personal stance on this is that I would, and have, placed neutered dogs at championship level and probably up to Crufts qualifying placings if very good specimens (with appropriate letter) in other respects. I've never been faced with the situation of awarding top honours to a neutered male but I think I'd struggle to award a ticket or res CC or Open BIS.
Thanks for your contribution Pod, I'm glad I started the thread as I've never had any of my boys neutered before, because of showing, although I have had my girls speyed. Its very interesting to hear of peoples experiences and interpretations of the requirements to be able to show a neutered dog. As it seems Bradley may well have to be neutered I'm feeling a lot more optimistic about showing him.

I'm pleased to hear that you would place a dog in a Crufts qualifying class if he was of sufficient quality but am intirgued as to why you would struggle to give him higher honours. Please don't think this is a critisism, not at all, I appreciate peoples honest opinions and am just interested in your views.
Reply With Quote
pod
Dogsey Veteran
pod is offline  
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,558
Female 
 
27-11-2006, 11:23 AM
Originally Posted by Patch View Post
Noooo, breed standard does not call for them now, only that *if* they are present that they are descended thats all.
Judges are not allowed to consider lack of them as a fault because thats not within their remit. If they fault them through personal preference or prejudice, they can have a formal complaint lodged against them for it.
Can you say where this information has come from please patch.
Reply With Quote
pod
Dogsey Veteran
pod is offline  
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,558
Female 
 
27-11-2006, 11:30 AM
Originally Posted by scorpio View Post
Thanks for your contribution Pod, I'm glad I started the thread as I've never had any of my boys neutered before, because of showing, although I have had my girls speyed. Its very interesting to hear of peoples experiences and interpretations of the requirements to be able to show a neutered dog. As it seems Bradley may well have to be neutered I'm feeling a lot more optimistic about showing him.

I'm pleased to hear that you would place a dog in a Crufts qualifying class if he was of sufficient quality but am intirgued as to why you would struggle to give him higher honours. Please don't think this is a critisism, not at all, I appreciate peoples honest opinions and am just interested in your views.
Hi scorpio Yes very interesting thread!

To award a CC or res to a dog, you must consider him to be worthy of the title of Champion and I'm not sure I could say that if her were not entire as the standard does require that two normal testicles are present.

I know that this is a difficult situation and a letter would prove (to some extent) that the dog was once entire but then I'd have to ask myself, would I award a CC to a dog that was lame even though I knew that he was once sound
Reply With Quote
megan57collies
Dogsey Veteran
megan57collies is offline  
Location: Rugby, UK
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,179
Female 
 
27-11-2006, 11:54 AM
No probs Rachelsetters If you put us together I think we made a valid point
Reply With Quote
megan57collies
Dogsey Veteran
megan57collies is offline  
Location: Rugby, UK
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,179
Female 
 
27-11-2006, 11:59 AM
Originally Posted by pod View Post
Hi scorpio Yes very interesting thread!

To award a CC or res to a dog, you must consider him to be worthy of the title of Champion and I'm not sure I could say that if her were not entire as the standard does require that two normal testicles are present.

I know that this is a difficult situation and a letter would prove (to some extent) that the dog was once entire but then I'd have to ask myself, would I award a CC to a dog that was lame even though I knew that he was once sound
I wish the KC would do something about this, as it does cause confusion. You are asked to judge accepting the KC rules, but then you are also asked to judge and compare every dog against the breed standard which now because of KC rules is unclear.
Would I give a CC or any other award to a dog that was lame when I knew previously it wasn't. No I wouldn't, because you judge the dog on how it performs that day, not on it's previous appearances. I've seen critiques where judges have given a first to a dog with the comment. Didn't move as well as I know it can. It's a bit naughty because even if a dog has loads of tickets. If it moves badly on the day your judging, because of lameness, it should be marked down on it, not put up for it's previous successes.
Reply With Quote
pod
Dogsey Veteran
pod is offline  
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,558
Female 
 
27-11-2006, 12:28 PM
Originally Posted by megan57collies View Post
I wish the KC would do something about this, as it does cause confusion. You are asked to judge accepting the KC rules, but then you are also asked to judge and compare every dog against the breed standard which now because of KC rules is unclear.
Would I give a CC or any other award to a dog that was lame when I knew previously it wasn't. No I wouldn't, because you judge the dog on how it performs that day, not on it's previous appearances. I've seen critiques where judges have given a first to a dog with the comment. Didn't move as well as I know it can. It's a bit naughty because even if a dog has loads of tickets. If it moves badly on the day your judging, because of lameness, it should be marked down on it, not put up for it's previous successes.
Hi megan. ..yes, I would never place an obviously lame dog, nerver mind award it a CC though I have seen it done!

Though I don't see why this is unclear concerning neutered dogs. The KC have said that chryptorchids and neuters can now be shown but they haven't said that lack of testicles is not to be considered a fault (AFAIK awaiting Patch's response), so the KC's -

"Any departure from the foregoing points should be considered a fault and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion to its degree and its effect upon the health and welfare of the dog."

should be taken at face value and applied to all clauses within the standard as far as I can see.
Reply With Quote
megan57collies
Dogsey Veteran
megan57collies is offline  
Location: Rugby, UK
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,179
Female 
 
27-11-2006, 01:11 PM
Originally Posted by pod View Post
Hi megan. ..yes, I would never place an obviously lame dog, nerver mind award it a CC though I have seen it done!

Though I don't see why this is unclear concerning neutered dogs. The KC have said that chryptorchids and neuters can now be shown but they haven't said that lack of testicles is not to be considered a fault (AFAIK awaiting Patch's response), so the KC's -

"Any departure from the foregoing points should be considered a fault and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion to its degree and its effect upon the health and welfare of the dog."

should be taken at face value and applied to all clauses within the standard as far as I can see.
Hi Pod
It is unclear and just going by posts on here and other forums,proves it. Some people are still unaware that neutered dogs can even be shown.
Your right that the KC has not said that dogs without testicles should not be faulted for it but they haven't stated that they shouldn't be faulted either. The way I see it is a fault is something the animal has been born with ie, overshot jaw etc. Or something that has developed during growing up or by accident. If a dog is neutered why should it be faulted for this. Previously it had two normal testicles and an operation that the KC approved off was done.
In the breed standard it says,

Male animals should have two apparently normal testicles fully descended into the scrotum.

This is confusing and should be changed. How can breed standards which the KC publish say with one hand the above statement then with the other hand, say dogs can be neutered and shown.
There is lack of consistency here and it should be stated clearly one way or the other.

With some of the docked breeds, two statements are given on their BS, one for the docked tail and one for undocked taila. Neither is wrong or treated as a fault against the other.

My point is that Breed Standards should be clear that whether you have an entire or neutered dog, your dog should be judged equally in this area and faulted on the clearer points of a breed standard.
Reply With Quote
thandi
Dogsey Veteran
thandi is offline  
Location: east sussex UK
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,662
Female 
 
27-11-2006, 01:21 PM
I agree it should be changed...but all the time it isnt we are still required to judge each breed to its standard - not what we think ought to be in it.
Reply With Quote
pod
Dogsey Veteran
pod is offline  
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,558
Female 
 
27-11-2006, 01:25 PM
Originally Posted by megan57collies View Post
Hi Pod
It is unclear and just going by posts on here and other forums,proves it. Some people are still unaware that neutered dogs can even be shown.
Your right that the KC has not said that dogs without testicles should not be faulted for it but they haven't stated that they shouldn't be faulted either. The way I see it is a fault is something the animal has been born with ie, overshot jaw etc. Or something that has developed during growing up or by accident. If a dog is neutered why should it be faulted for this. Previously it had two normal testicles and an operation that the KC approved off was done.
In the breed standard it says,

Male animals should have two apparently normal testicles fully descended into the scrotum.

This is confusing and should be changed. How can breed standards which the KC publish say with one hand the above statement then with the other hand, say dogs can be neutered and shown.
There is lack of consistency here and it should be stated clearly one way or the other.

With some of the docked breeds, two statements are given on their BS, one for the docked tail and one for undocked taila. Neither is wrong or treated as a fault against the other.

My point is that Breed Standards should be clear that whether you have an entire or neutered dog, your dog should be judged equally in this area and faulted on the clearer points of a breed standard.
Yes I can see that there is confusion but the fact that the standards call for entirity should make it clear that anything other than this is a fault.

For instance, many years ago it was not permitted to show chryptorchids (uni or bi), not sure when but this was changed by the KC. This doesn't mean that they are not now considered a fault, just that the KC now allows them to be shown, just as it allows lame dogs, cowhocked dogs, in fact a whole host of faults without having to state specifically that these are faults because the individual standards of every breed should cover this.

Likewise, it should be obvious that lack of testicles is a fault, because the standards say so.
Reply With Quote
megan57collies
Dogsey Veteran
megan57collies is offline  
Location: Rugby, UK
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,179
Female 
 
27-11-2006, 01:49 PM
I see your point. But I cannot compare a dog that is lame for some reason to a dog that has had an operation which has been approved by the Kennel Club. The dog medically had his testicles removed, so no sorry I don't see it is a fault as the dog was not born with them missing, just had them removed.
I don't think there is an obvious conclusion to this as many judges sit on both sides of the fence in regards to this.
You sit on one side and I respect your opinion, I sit on the other side.
As we all know everyone has different interpretations of what they look for in a dog to comparing it to the breed standard. If this wasn't the case then all dogs would look the same in the breed. This is certainly not the case in my breed and I'm sure it isn't in many others.
As the BS standards says "should" have two testicles rather than "must have" then I interpret that how will and sorry but no wouldn't penalise a dog for having been neutered.
Just out of interest, what date did the KC give permission for neuterered dogs to be shown, as I am betting that this came after the publication of the breed standards.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 4 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > Last »


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools


© Copyright 2016, Dogsey   Contact Us - Dogsey - Top Contact us | Archive | Privacy | Terms of use | Top