Crufts...is it cruel?

[NorthernRunner]

Just flicking through the channels, (isn’t tv 👎🏻👎🏻) anyway crufts is on. I always struggle with this, I don’t particularly find it entertaining so don’t watch but I always seem to question if it’s cruel or not. Didn’t a dog die last year?
It would be interesting to hear others thoughts x

Not cruel at all

I got my beautiful pup from a show breeder. He had qualified for Crufts 2018 by the time I got him (December 2017) but was massively nervous and hated showing, which is why the breeder sold him to a home where he would only be a pet.

Breeders put a lot of time and effort and love into their dogs and the good ones only take dogs who enjoy showing.

I went to Crufts last year and had a great time. I'll be there again on Sunday!

I am going on Sunday too Hk20. Went last year for the first time. I was expecting highly strung dogs and pretentious owners but it wasn't like that at all. The dogs all seemed happy, the owners I spoke to were lovely. It felt like a very inclusive celebration of all things canine.

Agree about the breeding standards on flat face breeds.

The cruellest thing I saw was people being asked to queue for 3 hours to get in the arena!

I think it is cruel.

They (KC) have their priorities ALL wrong.

I used to watch Crufts every year because I liked looking at the dogs, I went to the crufts show once, I saw a Dobermann and Rottweiler walk side by side and without warning, for no apparent reason, the dobermann broke heel and went for the Rottweiler.

The dobermann won.
That said it all to me.
The Dobermann should have had an immediate disqualification but no, it LOOKED the part so never mind about it’s shitty, unpredictable temperament...

The KC have ruined pretty much every popular breed, their staunch refusal to consider outcross has meant crippling genetic health problems for so many breeds, cavaliers are the obvious one but also GSDs and Dobermanns and there will be many more.

They have not only messed up breeds with genetic health problems but their temperaments have been screwed up massively also, the Shepherds (German, Belgian and Dutch) and the collies for example are famous for nervousness.

Singling out the GSD It is an absolute disgrace to hear so many people describe the typical gsd as ‘neurotic’ and ‘over sensitive’.

On the opposite side of the scale, the ‘better’ show breeders who are breeding super friendly GSD that adore absolutely everyone and are not capable of guarding aren’t great either.

This is not the German Shepherd!

They were the original ‘do it all dog’, intended to be a shepherd, protection dog and family dog all in one, aloof but never aggressive or nervous or over friendly, reduced to that, makes me sick!

The KC seem to want every single dog to have universal temperament, for every dog to be golden retriever like in temperament just wearing a different jacket.

But taking the working traits out of breeds can cause big damage to their temperament, as has already happened with the Shepherd.

The KC versions of working dogs like setters, shepherds, spaniels, retrievers, basset hounds, neopolitan mastiffs etc are unrecognisable compared to the ‘genuine article’, both in looks and temperament.

Then there is the physical disability that is repeatedly rewarded, the stupidly flattened faces, the obesity - SO many Crufts dogs are clearly fat!, the excessively long back of the Dachshund, the excessively sloped back of the GSD, the droopy eyes of the St Bernard, the crazy wrinkles...

The KC do not have the best interests of any breed at heart.

If they did, full health screens would be a requirement not a recommendation and dogs would be bred to be ‘fit for purpose’, which they are not.

I would argue aswell that a significant proportion of those dogs will find the ring and environment overwhelming and unnerving.
When you watch Crufts on TV you can always identify dogs who are excuding nervous, anxious body language.

This is the first year that I haven’t actually watched it.

The breed standard would definstely have things about correct weight which is usually the same criteria that vets uses to check your dog is the correct weight eg being able to feel ribs (obviously different with each breed as a whippet and basset have different lools at their breeds ideal weight)
Each breed standard also has temperament there and equally ability to do the job they were bred for.
Once again the sloping back is heavily penalised in gsds due to the health impact but also as not being sturdy interfers with their job

Its worth checking out the breed specs. There often much more comprehensive than you think

As an example:
www.thekennelclub.org.uk/services/public/breed/standard.aspx?id=5106

This has the gsd standards and as with all dogs it covers fit for purpose

Equally the frenchie one:
www.thekennelclub.org.uk/services/public/breed/standard.aspx?id=4088

If the dogs we saw on facebook and being bred by puppy farms had well defined muzzles as stated then their breed would be able to breathe far better.

Clear statements about fitness for purpose

It has lots of points about health and any deviation is heavily penalised

That’s bollocks @Tookal
The GSD breed standard describes that the croup (lower back) should be sloping at least twice. Sloping backs are encouraged not penalised and the KC breed standards don’t go anywhere close to enduring good welfare

Ah yes the Frenchie breed standard ‘domed skull’ and ‘undershot jaw’

Lots of the dogs being shown this year are overweight by veterinary standards do clearly judges are not using the same criteria.there’s been a lot of discussion on veterinary forums about the weight issues that are being normalised this year

tookal I have a border collie.
A ‘proper’ working one with natural instinct to herd.

She doesn’t look anything close to the KC border collie standard, most of the genuine working collies look nothing like the standard.

Funny that, that most of the border collies bred to do the original purpose of the breed look nothing like the standard..

Their temperament is generally very different also.
In short, they have a temperament for working, not the ‘universal driveless golden retriever pet’ temperament the KC favours..

Most of the show border collies are unable to properly herd, a crucial, crucial part of fit for purpose for a herding breed surely?!

Ditto for GSD.
Working shepherds look nothing like the KC version.
Temperament wise, decently bred working GSDs are stable, super confident, aloof dogs.
Compare that to the show lines who seem to fluctuate between nervy, highly strung and hyperactive or super super friendly and bouncy and nippy.
Neither ‘correct’ GSD temperament.

I am afraid it is quite ridiculous to claim the kennel club promotes dogs as fit for purpose and retains the original temperaments of the breeds.
As for health, have you seen the dogs at Crufts?!

The droopy eyelids, the excessive wrinkles, the flat faces?!

To further demonstrate my point.

A Crufts pug.
Grossly overweight, grossly flattened face.

And a Pug bred by a breeder trying to remove their health issues.
I believe her name is Brigit, something, have to google.

I wonder why one is healthier?

And I wonder which one to kennel club would laugh out the ring and claim to be not to standard...

Brigit Schroeder

The breed standards are fairly meaningless in terms of improving things as judges will still reward what they like even when it’s the opposite of what the standard calls for.

The French Bulldog standard has called for “open nostrils” and eyes “neither sunken nor prominent, showing no white when looking straight forward” since 2015 but dogs are still winning with severely stenitoc nostrils and obvious strabismus.

The Neapolitan mastiff standard has said that wrinkling is “not to be excessive” and that the eye rims should be “tight” and the dog “free from obvious eye problems” for ten years and still most, of not all, show winners look like they’re melting and have very very obvious ectropion.

I got a copy of the Breed Watch guide for judges when it first came out, curious to see if would have an impact. The guidance in it is great but judges clearly didn’t follow it, continuing to reward dogs showing all the features the booklet instructs them to penalise.

Breed and showing enthusiasts like to say it takes time to change but there are breeders who only started breeding relatively recently and yet are making brilliant changes, particularly to FBs, without even outcrossing.

The obvious physical issues are only the tip of the iceberg as well. Loss of genetic diversity and increasing levels of inbreeding are inevitable when breeds are completely distinct with closed studbooks but the KC is doing very little to encourage any change to improve things, even as some breeds are literally circling the drain. Ten years ago the KC stopped registering puppies produced from certain very close matings (parent to offspring or full siblings) but has taken no action when it comes to dogs with an equivalent level of inbreeding you would get from such a mating which has been achieved by repeated less close matings over time. As an example, the whippet that won BiS at Crufts last year has an inbreeding coefficient of 26.7%. A mating between full siblings would produce puppies with a COI of 25%. That’s not particularly unusual either, I’ve seen several litters in my breed in just the last few months (all from big name show kennels) with COIs in that sort of region.

Unfortunately showing based on nothing more than physical appearance creates a desire for homogeneity amongst breeders and the best way to achieve that is breeding in such a way that results in a drastic loss of genetic diversity.

The over use of popular sites is also a huge issues in the showing world, some Crufts BoB winners have ridiculous numbers of litters which, again, is a disaster in terms of retaining what genetic diversity still exists within their breed.

Showing in and of itself isn’t cruel and harmful however the culture of breeding surrounding it most definitely is.