What's the bloody fuss,kc vet checks

It's not very often I'm genuinely confused however, the amount of fuss caused over a simple vet check, has actually done it.

The vets did their jobs, they inspected the dogs, not their breeds.

Some people might not like the results, that IMO, is just tough.

The system maynard be perfect, but why can't it be improved on the job as it were? Why call for it to be suspended/stopped completely?

You can say its unfair to single out 15 breeds, but you have to start somewhere. It's far easier to iron out any kinks with a smaller number, than a larger one.
Get it right with them, monitor for improvements and once satisfied, then consider introducing it for the rest.

I just don't get it.

This is the presentation given by the Canine Allience and why they feel the checks were wrong done in the way they were carried out.

http://www.caninealliance.org/docume...ion28.3.12.pdf

Thanks, it was the amount of fuss coming from that quarter, which inspired this thread.

Have got part way through the link.

Like I said, it makes sence why only 15 breeds to start with. I would hope eventually it would be for all breeds.

I want to know what is meant by intrusive, IMO, a torch in an eye exam is standard procedure.

I'll read the rest and see what I think then. But so far, I stand by my op and still not getting it lol.

The check was supposed to be the same as the judge would do. The judge would not shine a torch into the eyes of a dog.

One of the BOB appeared to have a bigger problem than some of the 15 HP breeds but because it was not one of these breeds it was allowed to go through, so not fair

Just my take on it (and I've not read what the link says):

All dogs should be healthy, if they are, they are fit to show - if not, then they are not. Can't see what the problem is myself as it's common sense

As I said, the system has issues, I don't however, think the checks should be stopped, upgrades can be implemented whilst the checks still run.

The checks should be for all breeds, but like in a variety of areas, sample/pilot/control groups are used to assess practicality, effectiveness, flaws in the system etc, etc.

I've no issue with that.

I've an issue with a group that like JH, seems to be more focused on the show world than anything else.

It's a minority group, as often stated here.

There're much more important things to make a fuss over.

Give time to it yes, but IMO, it shouldn't be top of ones priority list.

These vet checks intrigue me when it comes to showing Isla. She's only ever got BOB at open shows and will never get BOB at a Champ Show, but what if she did? Isla has congenital cataracts which I would imagine would be clearly seen in the health checks, she is however neutered so won't be bred from. I wonder if we would be refused the award?

Not really on topic, but it just got me wondering about congenital conditions etc!

As for it being a reflection on the judges, I have long been amazed at judges who do not appear to recognise a lame dog when they see one!

Or if they do, they see no problem in awarding it a first.

I so agree with that! It happens every year, this year it was really noticed by everyone. I suppose as the net gets more of a hold and videos can be posted fast it will happen more.

rune

Why shouldn't it be a reflection on some judges at least?

Hasn't part of the problem been judges selecting slight exagerations, breeders then breeding for them, then a judge selecting slight exagerations of the slight exagerations, and so on? Until we've ended up with Bassett's with legs so short, ears so long, that they're physically unfit for function? As an example. I won't even bother with the malformed eyelid conformation.

Or have I got it wrong?