KC again - a question please

Now I know that I have argued on other threads about problems with show dogs etc., but before anyone jumps on me please hear me out because I have some genuine questions.

As I have previously said, I can fully understand why people do showing - and presumably they are in it to win. In that case they need a dog that is LIKELY to win because it conforms to the breed standard.

If the KC (and this is one point that I would be grateful for clarification) declares, for sake of argument, that a CKC spaniel must have a small round head - and I honestly don't know if this is the case or not - do breeders set about creating that perfect head, or do they go one step further than they should sometimes, and is it therefore the fault of some breeders that things go terribly wrong? I have seen one little dog in agony just prior to being put to sleep, because the brain was too big for the skull. I cannot believe that the KC finds this acceptable.

There are of course other breeds with huge problems too, and it baffles me why they are still being reproduced as they are.

So does the KC really hold the reins, or is it the breeders?

I am genuinely puzzled, and will welcome any views.

Is there another solution in that it could be the judges fault in their interpretation of the KC standards which results in unhealthy specimens?

If they are awarding top prizes to dogs with endemic health problems or exaggerations in physical construction then some breeders will breed to win awards surely?

Although I only show at companion show level I have been surprised at some decisions made by judges like when the judge awarded Best in Show to a Bulldog that couldn't walk round the ring without being out of breath or reserve best in show to a Rhodesian Ridgeback that could not be touched by the judge as the owner warned him not to!

The strangest one was when the judge awarded the class for best movement to a Jack Russell terrier that walked round the ring on 2 legs most of the time. Bizarre but true!

Yes - that is another angle that I had not thought of (still giggling over that JRT - how ridiculous is that!!) - perhaps the judges influence how people breed their dogs.

Of course they don't ... who would?

The KC are a registry .... we don't blame the DVLA for joyriders etc so it's not quite right that the KC are blamed for any doggy bad things ....
They do reccomend health tests and hold multiple databases ... but they are not the Police and can't stop ididots doing stupid things.

The breed clubs set the breed standards ... not the KC ...
The breeders choose what to breed, but moreso it is Joe Public who buys them ...

look at all the ads for teacup chis etc - these are purely being bred commercially because a market has been created.

Thank you for that - it is exactly the sort of thing that I wanted to help me understand. I am sure that most people on this site are clued up about this, but there may be others like myself who need to know the facts.

I did not realise for instance, that it is the breed clubs who set the standards and not the KC.

Thank you again.

Oh dear as a Cavalier owner I better explain, that program stated that their brains were too big for their skulls In that case then humans born with the same condition(SM with the Chairi malformation)must also have smaller skulls than average(or larger brains)

This is not the case, SM cannot exist without the malformation & the malformation occurs at the base of the skull wher the spinal cord joins the brain. Instead of a hole just big enough for the spinal cord, the hole is considerably large & the brain "herniates"or "grows"out of the skull. This traps the spinal cord & stops the Cerebral fluid from draining out of the brain & it is this that causes the pain & symptoms.

Just over 2 months ago I had to have my Cavalier with SM(& congestive heart failure)PTS. He was never in pain from the SM & it was the heart failure that left him with no quality of life. He had a large not small head, it wasn't"domed" either(BTW the breed standard for Cavaliers doesn't require a small domed head-the King Charles is the one with the domed head). We only knew he had SM because he had been MRI scanned.

If Cavaliers are being bred smaller with smaller heads their brains will be smaller too. Most Cavaliers with small heads are actually pet or puppy farm bred.

Joedee(who died in his sleep last Tuesday)was a small Cavalier, but his head was in proportion to his body & he didn't have SM BTW

If you go to the KC site you can find all the breed standards & apart from the brachycephalic breeds, they do not have any bad requirements. I do not like any brachycephalic breeds BTW & these are mainly breeds developed by the Victorians whose ladies liked their dogs to look more human !!!!

Thank you for that - and I am so sorry about your two dogs. I sincerely apologise for using the Cavalier as an example, and wish that I hadn't. Your post is very informative though, so thank you again.

Actually they are a good example of how that program incorrectly gave the actual causes of a genetic condition to make the program more sensational

In my opinion any exaggeration in any breed is down to breeders.
There is a breed standard which is a blue print but there is always room for interpretation by people.

When judges award certain traits, sometimes people think more must be better.

I believe the real onus is on the breeder to not get carried away with exaggeration in any one aspect of any breed.

They will also be the ones who turn around any exaggerations through their programs

This is what I was beginning to wonder........in other words, the blame for many problems should be laid squarely with those who breed pedigree litters. I hope that the ones who are trying to turn around the exaggerations will win
the day in the end - but I suppose that will only happen if the judges refuse to place the "overbred" for want of a better word, dogs.

So, really - the KC are not responsible for any breeding problems?