Chortens Tibetan Mastiffs UK

National WPB Show report and related topics

I know this will be hard for some to read but the esteemed, to some, judge, Mr Richard Gardiner, at the National and Working and Pastoral Breeds Championship Show at the Three Counties Showground on Saturday 17th July 2010, has, in the past, been somewhat lax in submitting show critiques. Just in case the personal exigences of the judge's private life mean there might be another delay, I am stepping in and providing some views from the ringside. Of course these are unsolicited but they are free and no price had to be paid by way of an entry fee for this overview of the day. And now that I have been removed from the Club's Judges' List - not as a result of anything I had said or done, mark you - you surely would not deny an old man his chance to comment, especially if it gives the lie to the allegation, made a while ago, that I have lost interest in the breed. I don't think that someone who no longer has an interest in the breed would go to the extent of importing a dog and then breeding two very attractive litters. Eat your words Mrs Jeans-Brown.

Before commenting in more detail, I must just extend my admiration to the Judge for undertaking his appointment since he had been mugged just the night before the show. How awful this must have been although presumably no violence was involved as there were no signs of any vicious blows about his head. Perhaps it was as a result of a stick up. What a lucky escape as to think that the judges looks might have been marred is just too awful to contemplate. So thank you Mr Gardiner for battling on under which must have been worrying circumstances. It's probably best for you not to use the facilities of those particular Services again. You certainly won't catch me there and neither will those dastardly muggers.

I have reappraised myself with the catalogue ready for the task I have undertaken and have realised that it really is not such an onerous task to comment on the dogs present. There were, after all only 18 entered and four of those were absent and of the remainder, four were puppies bred by Peter and me. It could be said that this is a lamentable state of affairs given that TMs have been bred in this country again, since the early 1980's and not even the august personage of the Chairman of the Tibetan Mastiff Club of Great Britain, whose opinion of himself allows us all to know that the TM in the UK has come on by leaps and bounds since he became Chairman of the Club, could not attract a decent entry. But that aside, to the dogs.

Perhaps, on reflection I had better confine myself to generalities, don't want to upset fragile sensibilities now do I? God forbid that anyone should dare to comment on a dog's good or bad points. I suspect however that a few people would benefit from hearing some critical views to help them assess the merits or demerits of their own dogs, although some unknowledged - did I just make up that word? - people seem to be happy in their own ignorance and prefer it that way.

The most noticeable point to bring up is the lack, in most adult dogs, of a level top line. OK I know the Standard calls for a straight back but was does that mean? Peter tried to get it put right during the last Standard review but presumably someone thought they knew better and it was not written into the current Interim Standard. I believe that for there to be a marked rise towards the rear is a sign of poor construction and even though dogs might have an excellent hip-score, to see such a top line is not pleasing, and if 'straight' equates with 'level' then such a fault means that the dog should be penalised, not placed highly.

Much has been written about the movement and the rear construction of TMs and it is particularly distressing to see that after all the efforts of earlier years to correct this problem, very little seems to have been achieved. Only those with the most limited of vision could fail to notice the close movement, not to say knocking hocks, which completely mar the way a TM moves. Allowing cow hocked dogs to be used in breeding programmes has done the damage. Unfortunately front movement is far from perfect too with many dogs front legs 'crossing over' as they run round the ring. Bad movement has been ignored for far too long and this has been to the detriment of the breed. Again, dogs which move in such ways should be penalised and not placed. This is a good example of how bad the judging has been over too many years and how judging seminars are really a waste of time, at least in this breed.

There is another noticeable problem in some dogs present which, it seems, are due to cases of HOD or Barlows Disease. I have been told that this condition, which can manifest itself in a deformed rear leg or even legs, has been the subject of discussion in some Internet groups and this together with at least one photo of a British dog taken from Caroline Hughes huge back catalogue of dog shows, has been used to illustrate this. Unfortunately no general discussion has taken place here in the UK which is reprehensible but the breeder of the dog used to illustrate the problem is not very experienced or knowledgeable about TMs and their history, so maybe that explains it. If it was my dog which was being used in this way I would surely want to get involved in any discussions.

And now to Best Dog and Best Bitch/Best of Breed. These were a brother and sister and the bitch was the Dog World Rare Breeds, TM joint top scorer, and now presumably the top scorer given her placing at NWPB. I had not realised until looking at the catalogue that the wonderful Marco was their father and for those who did not know, Marco was descended, on his father's side, from the UK's only home bred International and World Champion, our Chortens Ben Sharbaz. One of Ben's faults was the amount of pale tan on his chest and this seems to have come down to his great great grandson. Neither his father, grandfather nor great grandfather had this amount of light tan on their chest, so it just goes to show that great attention still has to be paid to the dogs in pedigrees to try and find out if there is anything there which might need correcting. Of course the overall quality of any dog has to be assessed by a judge but something like too much white is not desirable in our breed and already too many dogs are being seen with too much white - not even pale tan - on them, not only on their chests but also on their feet and even legs. What Ben did not have though was the weak rear of the BD and I understand that on the day following the show, the owner of the dog had this pointed out to him and given, for the first time, advice about how it might be improved. This advice was given by a real TM enthusiast and I hope was well received by the dog's owner who had had the problems with his dog's rear movement mentioned in a number of judge's critiques. Unfortunately, the fiasco of the SGM saw the very same helpful and knowledgeable judge being castigated along with the other senior people in the breed for, so it was claimed, not know anything about the breed. So to the person who wrote that the 'truth came' out at the SGM, I would suggest that they might now like to reconsider that statement.

Anyway, I digress, so back to the dogs, I was pleased to see the bitch called into the final line-up in the Group. She represented the breed well but was not placed in the Group.

I hope both of these owners enjoy many years with these two dogs. If their aunt, who lives with us, is anything to go by, and who is now a very healthy, lively and active nearly 11and a half years old, they should do this.

It was noticeable that no older dogs were present at the show? Why I ask? Of course the younger dogs are the future of the breed but puppies are born of older dogs - or should be - and it should be the case that, at least some of, the older dogs are seen at shows to enable those who are not too sure about the breed history or the suitability of those dogs for stud use, can see different dogs and seek opinions from someone other than the breeder/owner, about whether those dogs should be used to begin their own breeding programmes. Perversely not every breeder has a deep knowledge of the dogs in their own dog's pedigrees.

What was present though, were four youngsters bred by us and one of a similar age bred by someone else. It was a strange feeling seeing those pups there knowing that the judge was responsible for ensuring that their father, Chevy, had been banned from being shown and had had all his placings stripped from him but all the owners were encouraged not to let this influence them when they were deciding whether to enter the show. For obvious reasons we would not enter any dogs under such a judge. With the one different puppy in the class, it was hard to tell what the judge was going to do, especially as four of the puppies were very similar in every way and the odd one was not. Naturally I would not presume to comment on the way the class was judged, but the odd one out was placed second to one of the puppies we bred. We requested the new owners to continue to feed a low protein diet and this they did and by comparison with the odd one out, which has not been fed a low protein diet by any stretch of the imagination, it is clear how the different diets have manifested themselves. There was just a touch of Deja Vu too for me because I judged the odd one out's great grandmother (?) many years ago and it was like looking at her all over again, so the breeder of that puppy must be congratulated for breeding a type. Unfortunately it is still not a type I like as I do prefer heavier bone, less weight being carried and good movement and hopefully she will not have her past relatives horrendous hip score.

I cannot help finishing this oversight of the day's events by mentioning a very sad state of affairs concerning the Tibetan Mastiff Club of Great Britain and those who we have been told are doing a wonderful job. At the show were seven new owners of TM puppies and yet not once did the Secretary of the Club nor any of the Committee members, who were present in perhaps not surprising numbers given that one of their own was judging, had the decency to come up to any of those seven and welcome them to the world of TM owning, perhaps even suggesting they might like to join the Club, but no, nothing so friendly happened. The President of the Club was also there but she did not even show her face anywhere near the ring, perhaps not surprisingly as there just might be another person showing a dog which was different from that named in the catalogue and she would need to be waiting in her refuge for a complaint to be made. How on earth can anyone believe that the Club is doing a good job when total indifference is being shown to those who are brave enough to enter the world of Tibetan Mastiff owning? They should all be ashamed of themselves.

I am sure that everyone must join me in wishing the judge a rapid recovery from the ordeal of being mugged and also to wish him well in the following matters which are still being investigated by the Kennel Club or have been brought to its attention :-

Mr Gardiner was found out having lied to an AGM and was forced to retract his statement at the following AGM.
Mr Gardiner entered a dog at a show in Scotland without entering its full name on the entry form. The KC was informed about this and advised that he would be dealt with by the Show Secretary. Nothing more about this but it is not thought that the dog was disqualified.
Mr Gardiner entered a dog at National Working and Pastoral Breeds which was not the dog he took to the show. A complaint was made to the Show Secretary but she denied all knowledge of the complaint and can only remember vague details, but she was able to produce to the KC the original complaint form, filled in in front of her at the show.
Mr Gardiner has had a series of operations carried out on his dogs over the years but none have been reported to the KC. These included, the removal of two inner ear-drums, the removal of two nipples and a section of intestine. This is a fact because until 2009 Mrs Jackie Thomas was his kennel manager and signed all the anaesthesia permissions required by the vet. This has been reported to Simone Cooper at the Kennel Club, who asked for, and was given, full details but is now refusing to comment further.
Mr Gardiner continues to show a dog suffering from Hypothyroidism and which is on medication to regulate the condition. This dog was used at stud after the serious problem was apparent, even though a formal diagnosis was not made until some time later.
Mr Gardiner failed to provide appropriate advice when he was asked whether the operation on Chevy needed to be reported to the KC or mentioned to judges. His advice was a categoric no, no-one should be told about this.
Mr Gardiner failed to inform the KC that a bitch he owned had been operated on for entropion - in fact she was also operated on for ectropion but this has not been mentioned. He claimed this was due to his oversight and this was apparently accepted by the KC. This bitch was shown until 2009 and was awarded BIS at a TMC show in the spring of that year even though the bitch clearly had problems with her eyes,( thanks to Caroline Hughes for sending photographs to show this ) with even the judge wiping away tears from the dog's eyes. The judge was a senior KC member and friend of Mr Gardiner. Although the bitch has been banned from being shown, she has not has any of her placings taken away from her. This contrasts with Chevy having all his placings taken from him. Why has this bitch not had her placings also taken away from her?
Mr Gardiner failed on two occasions to submit show critiques. He was censured by the KC about this but Peter, who was wrongly accused of doing something similar was ultimately fined of �50 - not paid as it was later withdrawn once the KC realised the matter had been poorly handled and it was they who were in the wrong.
Mr Gardiner, for reasons best known to himself, signed a Loan of Bitch Agreement using Mrs Thomas's name without her permission, despite them living in the same vicinity, ( she would as she was his kennel manageress) and there being no difficulty for her to sign the form. He has pretended to be the breeder of Chevy ever since but he was not responsible for obtaining the use of the stud dog, played no part in raising or finding homes for the litter. He deceived the buyers of a number of puppies by claiming to be the breeder of the puppies.
Mr Gardiner, in April 2009, NB quite a few months after the alleged operation took place, made a complaint to the KC about Chevy having had an operation which was said to have taken place in September 2008 to repair a ruptured cruciate ligament. A Committee later and without seeking a vets report and only asking for general comments on what had taken place, proceeded to ban Chevy from being shown and also took away from him all of his awards. Ultimately the decision to ban Chevy was reversed but it is not clear whether all of his awards have been reinstated.This does not explain why the KC committee acted as it did and an explanation together with a full apology is still expected from the KC.

I cannot help but recall the effusive way the Breed Health Registrar fawned over Mr Gardiner at the SGM and how dismissive she was over the attempt of those brave enough to try and alter things for the breed for a better future. I now wonder just how ashamed she must be feeling for not doing her job more effectively, given the above list of failings. Probably time for her to retire but then who will do the job? There are not too many breed experienced people in the Club these days.

And lastly some hot news from the KC about the showing of unhealthy dogs. These are the words of the Secretary of the Kennel Club :-

' 'With regard to the breeding with dog(s) shown to have hypothyroidism we will be taking this matter up with Mr Gardiner as an Accredited Breeder to discuss the matter generally and his position on the use at stud of a dog with the disease.

However as with any auto immune disease where the inheritance is complex and not clear cut there are many potential causes, it is difficult for the Kennel Club to make hard and fast rules about breeding for any particular dog/breed or breeder.

The University of Cambridge's detailed listings for inherited diseases does not include the Tibetan Mastiff for Hypothyroidism. Whilst that is not conclusive - it does mean that there has been no research paper produced on the link between the breed and the disease.'

So there you have it, if Cambridge hasn't said there is a problem in the breed, anyone can go ahead and breed, let alone show, what are quite clearly unhealthy and unfit dogs and there will be no come back from the KC even if those dogs could be affecting the health of the breed for years to come. This does seem to run contrary to everything written with regard to instructions to judges and indeed the Accredited Breeder Scheme. Thank you very much Mrs Kisko for that advice. Are you sure though that dogs which are patently unhealthy can now been shown and placed by judges? I am not expecting a reply to this question because, as you have said, you are not prepared to discuss anything further with regard to Mr Gardiner.

As a concluding comment I would say how impressed I was with Mr John Blake who was mentioned in last week's Dog World . I am not 75 but entirely agree with him, life is too short not to be true to ones own views and to be afraid to express them. After all where else these days can one expect views to be voiced apart from on websites or discussion groups of one kind or another? Dog World deserve credit for carrying the story of Chevy being banned from Crufts but Our Dogs perhaps because Mr Gardiner is their self appointed Breed Note writer, did not even mention it. As is usual with such stories, the papers lose interest and they cannot run for ever even if the root cause of the problem is still very far from being resolved. Thus the remedy is for individuals to take matters into their own hands and bring to as wide an audience as possible matters such as those mentioned above. Perhaps that is a shame but that is the reality of the situation in todays world. Of course though, the next Pedigree Dogs Exposed tv programme is in the planning stages, as is an expose of the Kennel Club by that fine journalist Quentin Letts, so maybe something positive will come out of those programmes.

Eric Holliday 21st July 2010