The Dogs Bollocks

[Guest peakhound]

having two normal nuts is part of a judges way of seeing the dog is free from the hereditary fault of cypt and monorchid, undesended nuts pose the risk of cancer and are removed for health reasons, it's a breed fault like hip displacia and should never be bred or shown, i don't see it as being unfair at all.

 

I can see the point with this if looked at from a "breed" perspective, eg, I show horses who are assessed in the ring for their ability to throw good "true to type" stock. However, in performance classes this would not be an issue, they are then judges on their conformation and whether this leaves them fit for their purpose.

 

I suppose the crux of the matter should be, what are we assessing when showing lurchers, for example? Is a lurcher show just a beauty contest to see what will breed the best looking dog, or is it an off-season pastime to compare the merits of different animals who are capable of a days (or nights!) work.

 

A fault such as hip dysplacia or other conformation faults will lead to a dog being unsuitable to work.

A dog with no balls can still work well, and can be just as fit and useful as one with them!

 

Not disagreeing with kiwi, but as I am new to lurcher showing would like to know what judges are actually looking for....

[dai dog 11]

am i correct in saying that if only one comes down it causes a risk of cancer? a vet told me, its a simple op to pull the pair of plums down, but sometimes theyre not actually there! what happes then?

[wren 8]

Having judged occasionally in the past, I have never marked a dog down for having been castrated. IMO a dog/bitch should be assessd for working capability, and castration or speying dosent lessen work ability. It COULD be viewed as responsible dog ownership given that the rescue centres are full of lurchers. Monorchids should be marked down, it is a fault, though one did particularly well in the shows last year.But thats shows for you

[Guest MOLLY]

Cupid, where on earth do you find these things

 

Since a working dog show is supposed (dont get me started) to be about judging a dogs ability, fitness etc from the way the dog looks and feels to work, then why would lack of testicles make the dog any less a good worker

 

One of my dogs came 2nd at a show, the judge said he would have had a 1st but didnt because he had a broken tooth ...hate to see him judge the bull x rings

MOLL.

[kiwi 4]

getting your dog or bitch fixed molly can affect your dogs whole take on hunting, i would never own a dog thats been fixed. they where born to be dogs or bitches not steers, having that possible hormone inbalance is something i'd rather not deal with. for controling the dog population it works very well but for hunting dogs it's not for me.

[The Ferret Tamer 1]

Few years ago the wife used to show all over the South of England, amongst the dogs she had a rough coated Deerhound/Greyhound, from a rescue centre who had castrated him before she got him, most judges were ok but she went to a show nr Maidenhead

 

Judge: "I cant place your dog as he had no testicles"

Wife: "Why not"

Judge: "He looks like a bitch when he walks away from me"

Wife: " Its a dog class, and it does not stop him working, I thought it was a working dog show"

Judge: "Yes but I still cant place him"

Wife: " Well this dog will work all day long and he does not pick the rabbits up with his balls"

 

With that my wife left the ring followed by a couple of other owners with castrated dogs.

 

I just dont understand judges that do that it does not take anything away from the dog.

 

This same dog worked everything from mice to deer, but he specialised in the red coats (pre ban). We had to have him PTS in September last year after a very long and happy retirement, just before his 20th birthday.

 

FT